Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case

[Carana]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2127.msg70219#msg70219   In other words the rush to make the Drs McCann "suspects" in Madeleine's disappearance was because of a change in the law due to come into effect days later ... which meant there had to be evidence to enable such a step to be taken.
As we know there was none at the time nor has any been found since

It is worth bearing in mind that change in the law was in force when the present investigations constituted persons arguidos.  This means that there was some evidence which justified that;  the fact that we have not been told what that is is neither here nor there;  in the meantime Madeleine's case is live.

I find that a hopeful situation.

It's not entirely clear to me.

The PJ did show the doggie film show, but I have no idea whether they were able to read the DNA results or not.

Were the McCanns able to read the forensic results or not?

[ShiningInLuz]

The receptionist on duty the following day didn't speak English, which casts doubt on your first assumption.

Matthew, who seems to have been the group errand boy, is supposed to have gone to reception twice. The receptionist didn't mention seeing him at all. Neither of them are very reliable witnesses. You have decided that Matthew's statement was correct. I will suspend judgement, as there's nothing to support his claim that he went there.

You'll need to point me at the incident if you wish me to comment on it.

[Alfred R Jones]

I am of the opinion that he did, based on two small scraps of information.

He was the sole rep at OC reception from 4pm to midnight on 3 May.  The main language spoken by guests was English.  To have a single rep on duty who could not speak English when the principal language used to communicate with guests was English does not make sense to me.

Matthew Oldfield said he spoke to the receptionist to request a telephone call, but did not insist on it.  What he did not mention is any difficulty in communicating with a receptionist in limited English.

So Helder spoke English, or he was not the only receptionist.

Matt Oldfield also says in his Rog interview that the receptionist said to him that she had probably just wandered off somewhere, if I recall correctly....

[Alfred R Jones]

The receptionist on duty the following day didn't speak English, which casts doubt on your first assumption.

Matthew, who seems to have been the group errand boy, is supposed to have gone to reception twice. The receptionist didn't mention seeing him at all. Neither of them are very reliable witnesses. You have decided that Matthew's statement was correct. I will suspend judgement, as there's nothing to support his claim that he went there.

Why would Matt Oldfield invent this detail? 

[G-Unit]

You'll need to point me at the incident if you wish me to comment on it.

We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm

[Carana]

We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm

Which employee was Steve Carpenter referring to?

Someone, at least, understood enough English to get the internal missing child system organised.

[Brietta]

It's not entirely clear to me.

The PJ did show the doggie film show, but I have no idea whether they were able to read the DNA results or not.

Were the McCanns able to read the forensic results or not?

Kate says in her book, "When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s document in the air and saying, ‘It is the dogs that are important!’".

I don't think they were allowed to see the forensic results although both were asked about them. 

I think there has to be some question of whether or not there was any discussion with the Portuguese forensic scientists about the email received on the 3rd September and translated on the 4th giving details of the inconclusive nature of the results ... or did they just fire ahead regardless?


**Snip
The couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "There was never any 100 per cent match with Madeleine's DNA. Caution was expressed from the very start.
"Police were wrong to pursue this line so vigorously, and the Portuguese legal system has now accepted that there was no evidence to support it.
"I can confirm that the Portuguese police put it to Gerry as a fact that Madeleine's DNA had been found in both the apartment and the vehicle when it is now clear that the initial FSS report had made no such claim.
"You have to ask yourself what the police were trying to achieve by overstating evidence that they didn't have, nor could claim to have.
"One wonders, under those circumstances, what the motivation was."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2501055/Madeleine-McCann-Portuguese-detectives-lied-to-Gerry-McCann-about-DNA-evidence.html

[jassi]

Would it not be unusual for any police force to allow public access to forensic reports ?

[Jean-Pierre]

Would it not be unusual for any police force to allow public access to forensic reports ?

If that evidence were used in a police interview then it is reasonable for the suspect to be allowed to see what they are claiming to have.  Can't see a problem with that.

[Brietta]

Would it not be unusual for any police force to allow public access to forensic reports ?

The video, which I presume could have been classed as 'evidence' was played to the arguidos, stopped at the juicy bits for questions to be asked, and so on.
If they were being asked about DNA forensic results ... I would imagine they or their representative were likewise entitled to have sight of them.

Their new found arguido status meant they were unfortunately no longer ordinary victims or ordinary members of the public.

[Carana]

Kate says in her book, "When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s document in the air and saying, ‘It is the dogs that are important!’".

I don't think they were allowed to see the forensic results although both were asked about them. 

I think there has to be some question of whether or not there was any discussion with the Portuguese forensic scientists about the email received on the 3rd September and translated on the 4th giving details of the inconclusive nature of the results ... or did they just fire ahead regardless?


**Snip
The couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "There was never any 100 per cent match with Madeleine's DNA. Caution was expressed from the very start.
"Police were wrong to pursue this line so vigorously, and the Portuguese legal system has now accepted that there was no evidence to support it.
"I can confirm that the Portuguese police put it to Gerry as a fact that Madeleine's DNA had been found in both the apartment and the vehicle when it is now clear that the initial FSS report had made no such claim.
"You have to ask yourself what the police were trying to achieve by overstating evidence that they didn't have, nor could claim to have.
"One wonders, under those circumstances, what the motivation was."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2501055/Madeleine-McCann-Portuguese-detectives-lied-to-Gerry-McCann-about-DNA-evidence.html

Did Paiva (or any other officer) allow them to read Lowe's report or not? If not, why not?

[slartibartfast]

If that evidence were used in a police interview then it is reasonable for the suspect to be allowed to see what they are claiming to have.  Can't see a problem with that.

Why?

[ferryman]

If that evidence were used in a police interview then it is reasonable for the suspect to be allowed to see what they are claiming to have.  Can't see a problem with that.

Of course, from a police perspective, there would be a problem (with allowing the suspect to see the evidence) if the evidence says something completely different from that purported by the police (and especially if different innocent rather than different implicating or suspicious) ....

[jassi]

Would police in UK allow such a situation prior to somebody being charged with an offence?

[G-Unit]

Why would Matt Oldfield invent this detail?

The matter of who called the police and when was never particularly clear.  I can't find anything in early statements about calling the police, it seems to make it's first appearance in the rogatory interviews, done in April 2008. Perhaps it was hard for Matthew to recall exactly what happened a year after the events? After all, he doesn't mention being sent to reception again a little while later.

Danny Collins, in his book on the case says it would have been the responsibility of the manager (Vanished - The Truth About the Disappearance of Madeline McCann). Maybe he was right and that's why the receptionist only did it when John Hill appeared.