Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?

[Mr Gray]

Normal Dave ?

In what way exactly ?

Let's see if other people think it's 'normal' and if so, why ?

On a normal sort of way

[ferryman]

I was primarily referring to Blair, Brown and their wife's.

I'm sure Blair and Brown don't have the same wife ....

[Mr Gray]

I was primarily referring to Blair, Brown and their wife's.

Their wife's what

[stephen25000]

I'm sure Blair and Brown don't have the same wife ....

What are you suggesting ferryman ?

[pegasus]

My I ask why the fixation on 'scrubland' within Luz?  I am not picking on you, but asking a general question.  Why could anyone not have walked/driven off from Luz?  Take the scrubland on the east of the photo, which is actually valuable farmland.  It is really close to 5A, so it is pick your perp time.

Lots of supposed suspects could have walked there.  Plus, according to one well known UK newspaper, it has a well that has never been investigated.  Except, according to the local English newspapers in the Algarve, this well has been searched for, but does not exist.

However, what I am really interested in is simple.  Why does the criminal (if such there is) have to be on foot?

There might have been a vehicle involved that night and there might not. Any investigation must consider both possibilities.

And while considering the "no vehicle" possibility, it is obvious that the areas of scrubland nearest the apartment must be searched. Even though MH flew over Luz to select which nearby scrubland to search, he left out the scrubland which is by far the closest, can be reached by crossing only one road, and which had the further advantage to the criminal that it was completely shielded from the view of passers-by.

[mercury]

I think it's unlikely that we talked about death by others, not murder has been mistranslated.

And certainly by English libel law, introducing the concept of murder, even in an oblique way, would amount to libel.

No clue whether the same is true by Portuguese law ....

And again, to bring my post back on-topic, Mark Harrison is crystal clear that he was handed a brief by the PJ, Amaral's boss whose name began with "E", that he was to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered.

It is clear from that article you posted that Mr Amaral said he did not believe the parents killed their child but had a theory that she had an accident, so what are you going on about? "Obliquely" saying they murdered their child? The murder reference is to a burglary gone wrong IE "by others"
and reading between the lines he probably included both as reasons for a simulation of abduction as they would be culpable to some degree.
You're not misrepresenting what Mr A said are you?

[slartibartfast]

It is clear from that article you posted that Mr Amaral said he did not believe the parents killed their child but had a theory that she had an accident, so what are you going on about? "Obliquely" saying they murdered their child? The murder reference is to a burglary gone wrong IE "by others"
and reading between the lines he probably included both as reasons for a simulation of abduction as they would be culpable to some degree.
You're not misrepresenting what Mr A said are you?

There have been some strange arguments put forward recently.

[ferryman]

It is clear from that article you posted that Mr Amaral said he did not believe the parents killed their child but had a theory that she had an accident, so what are you going on about? "Obliquely" saying they murdered their child? The murder reference is to a burglary gone wrong IE "by others"
and reading between the lines he probably included both as reasons for a simulation of abduction as they would be culpable to some degree.
You're not misrepresenting what Mr A said are you?

Amaral's exact words were: we talked about death by others, not murder.

Amaral, either was incompetent or lied.

Either way, the key point of interest is whether the factual inaccuracy (be it a lie or incompetent) amounts to libel (by Portuguese law).

It certainly would by English law.

And Harrison was certainly briefed by Amaral's boss to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered (contrary to Amaral's misrepresentation that Harrison turned the enquiry into one for a little girl assumed dead)

[slartibartfast]

Amaral's exact words were: we talked about death by others, not murder.

Amaral, either was incompetent or lied.

Either way, the key point of interest is whether the factual inaccuracy (be it a lie or incompetent) amounts to libel (by Portuguese law).

It certainly would by English law.

And Harrison was certainly briefed by Amaral's boss to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered (contrary to Amaral's misrepresentation that Harrison turned the enquiry into one for a little girl assumed dead)

Who is he supposed to be libelling there?

[mercury]

Amaral's exact words were: we talked about death by others, not murder.

Amaral, either was incompetent or lied.

Either way, the key point of interest is whether the factual inaccuracy (be it a lie or incompetent) amounts to libel (by Portuguese law).

It certainly would by English law.

And Harrison was certainly briefed by Amaral's boss to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered (contrary to Amaral's misrepresentation that Harrison turned the enquiry into one for a little girl assumed dead)

You're nitpicking yourself into a very tiny hole here IMO

[ferryman]

You're nitpicking yourself into a very tiny hole here IMO

Dream on ....

By English libel law, references by allusion can amount to libel.

Whether the same is true by Portuguese libel law, I have no idea.

Doubtless Jean-Pierre would be able to help us out on that point.

[mercury]

Dream on ....

By English libel law, references by allusion can amount to libel.

Whether the same is true by Portuguese libel law, I have no idea.

Doubtless Jean-Pierre would be able to help us out on that point.

It's NOTHNG to do with libel, just your misunderstanding/misinterpretation/paranoia/wishful thinking

AMaral already SAID in your article he didn't believe the parents killed their child

You think you are at liberty to cherry pick and then misinterpret and accuse someone of libel but you're not, if you were right, everyone here would be agreeing with you...at least

ETA:
Besides, since when have police theories been libellous? It's the police's job to investigate any possible hypothesis, they don't need permission! From the courts

To not do so might be seen as dereliction of duty

[ferryman]

It's NOTHNG to do with libel, just your misunderstanding/misinterpretation/paranoia/wishful thinking

AMaral already SAID in your article he didn't believe the parents killed their child

You think you are at liberty to cherry pick and then misinterpret and accuse someone of libel but you're not, if you were right, everyone here would be agreeing with you...at least

He said that he didn't believe they murdered them.

Or more specifically: we talked about death by others not murder.

By English law, and by introducing the topic of murder in that way, he would be committing libel, by planting the idea of murder, albeit obliquely, in the mind of the unwary reader.

Portuguese law might be completely different, I've no idea.

[mercury]

He said that he didn't believe they murdered them.

Or more specifically: we talked about death by others not murder.

If you interpret all that as meaning she could have been killed by a stranger but mentioning murder meant the parents, that's your choice
It still does not tally with Mr A saying he doesn't believe the parents killed her....talk about splitting hairs

I will leave this to someone with more ability than me to de split those hairs

[ferryman]

If you interpret all that as meaning she could have been killed by a stranger but mentioning murder meant the parents, that's your choice
It still does not tally with Mr A saying he doesn't believe the parents killed her....talk about splitting hairs

I will leave this to someone with more ability than me to de split those hairs

As an example, try googling Lord McAlpine and trending.