"they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.

[Mr Gray]

The judge must have found the comment to be of sufficient significance otherwise why reproduce it in her own judgement document?   Why reproduce extracts at all, its not as if they were precedents handed down from a previous trial?

what we know is that the list of "proven facts" contain things that are not proven...Carana has explained why. They may well be in the judgement simply because amaral's team raised them in his defence.

[Alfred R Jones]

The judge must have found the comment to be of sufficient significance otherwise why reproduce it in her own judgement document?   Why reproduce extracts at all, its not as if they were precedents handed down from a previous trial?

Was it the McCanns on trial or Amaral?  And why?  There's a clue in there which answers the question (for the umpteenth time!)

[Eleanor]

what we know is that the list of "proven facts" contain things that are not proven...Carana has explained why. They may well be in the judgement simply because amaral's team raised them in his defence.

It is all quite simple to me.  It was not the remit of The Judge to decide whether or not these things were true, only whether or not they were stated in The Files.

[Admin]

I am reintroducing this topic with a new opening post to reflect previous observations.

Admin

[ferryman]

Several members have requested a new thread in order to discuss the assertion by the Chief Prosecutor in Portugal within the Archive Report to the effect that "the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did".  It has been pointed out that Judge Emilia Melo e Castro chose to include this assertion within her Judgement of 27 April 2015 in the Goncalo Amaral v McCanns & Others damages trial.

First of all and to assist readers the original transcripts are linked below:

The Final Police Report by Inspector João Carlos

The Archive Report by the Republic's Prosecutor José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor Joao Melchior Gomes.

The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Trial in Lisbon - Judgement dated 27 April 2015


Background to the aforementioned assertion can be traced to the final police report which includes the following:

On page 2412, is the interview with PAMELA FENN, who relates several details, of which, though not clarifying the facts, are elucidating. PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.


The Archive Report refers to the above observation in the following terms:

Par E

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

Par G

Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.

This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.

If said guard duty had been observed, in the possibility of this being an abduction, as was insistently mentioned and continues to be mentioned and is admissible to have happened, its occurrence might eventually have been rendered inviable.


More recently Judge Emilia Melo e Castro, presiding over the McCann v Goncalo Amaral trial referenced in her Judgement:

Par 15 (5) In the archiving report, 21.07.08

"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain not clarified."(...)

"This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a reckless, or gross, manner" (...)



The above claim which originated with the Portuguese police, stated as fact by the Republic's Prosecutor and more recently referenced by the Judge in the damages trial requires little clarification. The language might be convoluted but the message was clear.

Please discuss.

19

From the 2nd day of their stay onwards, the couple had dinner at the "Tapas" Restaurant, with the rest of the group, while all of the children stayed asleep alone in their apartments, with the surveillance initially being made by each couple, whose members took turns in checking the children, and as the days went by, each member who went to check his children would take the chance and check on the rest of the children, with the exception of the Payne couple, that possessed their own technological control system, through baby listening monitors, an issue that we will discuss in more detail further ahead.

(Portuguese prosecutors)

End of debate, surely?

[stephen25000]

So  you think the McCann's told the truth about the checking system ?

Can you remind us of how many times on May the 3rd, either of them checked and/or viewed their children directly after going to wine and dine ?

[ShiningInLuz]

(Portuguese prosecutors)

End of debate, surely?

Probably not.

The quote you gave said that at the end of the stay, those checking were checking not only their own children, but also the other children who needed checking.

I can find only a single instance of this, or indeed none as Oldfield did not check all the children, so it does not seem to have happened in general.  If it had happened like this, there would have been a tighter checking regimen.  A little thought shows 6 people on a rota could have checked the lot every 10 minutes.

The actual checking regimen is important.

[Carana]

So  you think the McCann's told the truth about the checking system ?

Can you remind us of how many times on May the 3rd, either of them checked and/or viewed their children directly after going to wine and dine ?

Explain this to me:


[Q]At the time when the Irish tourist reportedly saw Gerry, there are various witness statements that place the child’s father at the Ocean Club.

[A - Amaral]They are not credible. The employees are unable to tell at what time the persons were there, for how long each one of them stayed away when they say they went to the apartments. And the group is not credible. They say that on the previous nights, every 30 minutes, each one of them went to check only on his own children; but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked.

Source;

Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold Correio da Manhã
 
24 July 2008
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id139.html

[stephen25000]

Explain this to me:


[Q]At the time when the Irish tourist reportedly saw Gerry, there are various witness statements that place the child’s father at the Ocean Club.

[A - Amaral]They are not credible. The employees are unable to tell at what time the persons were there, for how long each one of them stayed away when they say they went to the apartments. And the group is not credible. They say that on the previous nights, every 30 minutes, each one of them went to check only on his own children; but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked.

Source;

Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold Correio da Manhã
 
24 July 2008
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id139.html

Well if you would like to answer my questions first......

[Carana]

Well if you would like to answer my questions first......

I can't find anything in the files that cross-referenced Mrs Fenn's statement to ascertain when, what or who she had actually heard.

[stephen25000]

I can't find anything in the files that cross-referenced Mrs Fenn's statement to ascertain when, what or who she had actually heard.

I wasn't talking about Mrs. Fenn.

[Mr Gray]

So  you think the McCann's told the truth about the checking system ?

Can you remind us of how many times on May the 3rd, either of them checked and/or viewed their children directly after going to wine and dine ?

Quite simply
Where is the evidence ?

[Carana]

I wasn't talking about Mrs. Fenn.

Who then?


In the meantime, have you found anything to substantiate this allegation from Amaral?


"...but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked."

[John]

As has already been pointed out, the Court was not concerned with the evidence of the case itself and certainly never elicited any during the trial.  That said, it is curious that the judge included the comments attributed to the police and later promoted in the Archive.

Has anyone got a clue to her reasons?

[Alice Purjorick]

As has already been pointed out, the Court was not concerned with the evidence of the case itself and certainly never elicited any during the trial.  That said, it is curious that the judge included the comments attributed to the police and later promoted in the Archive.

Has anyone got a clue to her reasons?

She found it to be relevant ?