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

[Mr Gray]

It doesn't matter what evidence we dig up from our limited resources and press inventions but the police investigated all this and stated in their final report to the public prosecutor that the checks story was suspect.  The public prosecutors thereafter stated it as fact in their archiving report to the Attorney General.  The links are all there at the top of page 1 so I suggest you read them.
We don't need to prove anything, the proper authorities in Portugal already did that.

you say the archiving report says the checks were suspect...that is hardly saying that the mccanns lied. thearchiving report is an opinion and not definitive proof.

As for proven facts in the court case...it has been explained to you by Carana who understands the judgement that the list of proved facts are not "proved" by the court...and as I have pointed out two of the so called proved facts are similarly not proved at all

[Carana]

We should have a competition for the most erroneous account of what happened.  This would surely be a strong contender.

An article correcting the errors in it would quite possibly be as long as, or longer than, the original.

LOL

It might be faster to work out what's actually correct in it...

[ShiningInLuz]

LOL

It might be faster to work out what's actually correct in it...

It probably would.

[Carana]

It doesn't matter what evidence we dig up from our limited resources and press inventions but the police investigated all this and stated in their final report to the public prosecutor that the checks story was suspect.  The public prosecutors thereafter stated it as fact in their archiving report to the Attorney General.  The links are all there at the top of page 1 so I suggest you read them.

We don't need to prove anything, the proper authorities in Portugal already did that.

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.

Mrs Fenn never said that it was Madeleine. She was asked if, in her view, the crying came from a child two years or younger (at least that is how it was written down in the statement). What was she actually asked? Was it phrased like that when she was asked? Or was she asked if it could have been an infant / baby or whatever other term to distinguish very young children?

There are also numerous questions as to why there is no mention of the two gates, whether she wore a hearing aid (as elderly people often do), etc.

I find it totally plausible that she'd got a bit confused and heard one or more young children crying at some point from any apartment, heard a patio door sliding at some point, but heard whichever twin had woken up later than her recollection and possibly Madeleine calling out as she toddled over to sleep with her parents that night.

Wihout further corroboration it's impossible to know whether her account is accurate or not (particularly 3 months later and noted in reported speech).

[Angelo222]

The only person making a fool of themselves is you....you say the archiving report says the checks were suspect...that is hardly saying that the mccanns lied. thearchiving report is an opinion and not definitive proof.

As for proven facts in the court case...it has been explained to you by Carana who understands the judgement that the list of proved facts are not "proved" by the court...and as I have pointed out two of the so called proved facts are similarly not proved at all

You are mistaken.  Yours is the opinion, the police based their report on hard facts.  They were there and interviewed people, you weren't.  The AG stated they invented the checking regime based on the evidence and a judge accepted it and used it in her judgement.  Not even you could claim a judge would quote a falsehood as a 'proven fact'.

No doubt the judge took all this into consideration when she failed to award the full amount claimed.

[Angelo222]

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.

Mrs Fenn never said that it was Madeleine. She was asked if, in her view, the crying came from a child two years or younger (at least that is how it was written down in the statement). What was she actually asked? Was it phrased like that when she was asked? Or was she asked if it could have been an infant / baby or whatever other term to distinguish very young children?

There are also numerous questions as to why there is no mention of the two gates, whether she wore a hearing aid (as elderly people often do), etc.

I find it totally plausible that she'd got a bit confused and heard one or more young children crying at some point from any apartment, heard a patio door sliding at some point, but heard whichever twin had woken up later than her recollection and possibly Madeleine calling out as she toddled over to sleep with her parents that night.

Wihout further corroboration it's impossible to know whether her account is accurate or not (particularly 3 months later and noted in reported speech).

You can quote newspaper articles until the cows come home, personally I go with the police , the AG and the Judge.

[stephen25000]

You are mistaken.  Yours is the opinion, the police based their report on hard facts.  They were there and interviewed people, you weren't.  The AG stated they invented the checking regime based on the evidence and a judge accepted it and used it in her judgement.  Not even you could claim a judge would quote a falsehood as a 'proven fact'.

As for proved facts, the judge accepted the AG report as FACT!

Quite right.

As I have said before, some like to pick which judgements suit their agenda.

However, proven facts are precisely that .  PROVEN.

[Carana]

You can quote newspaper articles until the cows come home, personally I go with the police , the AG and the Judge.

What newspaper account did I post on this? I quoted the archival ruling.

[pathfinder73]

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.

Mrs Fenn never said that it was Madeleine. She was asked if, in her view, the crying came from a child two years or younger (at least that is how it was written down in the statement). What was she actually asked? Was it phrased like that when she was asked? Or was she asked if it could have been an infant / baby or whatever other term to distinguish very young children?

There are also numerous questions as to why there is no mention of the two gates, whether she wore a hearing aid (as elderly people often do), etc.

I find it totally plausible that she'd got a bit confused and heard one or more young children crying at some point from any apartment, heard a patio door sliding at some point, but heard whichever twin had woken up later than her recollection and possibly Madeleine calling out as she toddled over to sleep with her parents that night.

Wihout further corroboration it's impossible to know whether her account is accurate or not (particularly 3 months later and noted in reported speech).

Mrs Fenn did say it was Madeleine - their daughter not a 2 year old but an older child. I provided the statement in Portuguese which you ignored.

"She also said that she never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on Tuesday (1st May) because she thought it would just increase their suffering."

"Due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger."

"que pela sonoridade the parecia de uma crianca jovem e nao de um bebe de dois anos ou menos."

[Alice Purjorick]

Quite right.

As I have said before, some like to pick which judgements suit their agenda.

However, proven facts are precisely that .  PROVEN.

Errr no.
A proven fact is only a proven fact when it has proven a fact which factually fits in with the version of the facts you are promoting.

If a proven fact does not prove a fact which is necessary to factually fit in with the version of the facts you are promoting then it is not a proven fact and is only an opinion.
Simples.

[Carana]

Quite right.

As I have said before, some like to pick which judgements suit their agenda.

However, proven facts are precisely that .  PROVEN.

What was "proven"? An elderly lady's account, noted in reported speech 3 months after the event, without any cross-checking, does not constitute proven. The prosecutor did accept the assumption that it was Madeleine, possibly because there was nothing else presented in the files to dispute that account (aside from the parents).

[Admin]

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.

Mrs Fenn never said that it was Madeleine. She was asked if, in her view, the crying came from a child two years or younger (at least that is how it was written down in the statement). What was she actually asked? Was it phrased like that when she was asked? Or was she asked if it could have been an infant / baby or whatever other term to distinguish very young children?

There are also numerous questions as to why there is no mention of the two gates, whether she wore a hearing aid (as elderly people often do), etc.

I find it totally plausible that she'd got a bit confused and heard one or more young children crying at some point from any apartment, heard a patio door sliding at some point, but heard whichever twin had woken up later than her recollection and possibly Madeleine calling out as she toddled over to sleep with her parents that night.

Wihout further corroboration it's impossible to know whether her account is accurate or not (particularly 3 months later and noted in reported speech).

Carana, with respect, can you please make plain in your posts which text relates to a document, which is a quote and which is your own observation.  It is convention to provide a link for the reader too.

Admin

[Carana]

Errr no.
A proven fact is only a proven fact when it has proven a fact which factually fits in with the version of the facts you are promoting.

If a proven fact does not prove a fact which is necessary to factually fit in with the version of the facts you are promoting then it is not a proven fact and is only an opinion.
Simples.

 

[Carana]

Correction to my earlier post... what I quoted wasn't from the archiving ruling but from the PJ summary:



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.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7019.0

[pathfinder73]

 

"que pela sonoridade the parecia de uma crianca jovem e nao de um bebe de dois anos ou menos."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm

"which by the sound seemed of a young child and not of a baby of two years or less."