Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?

[misty]

Had that occurred to the extent that it had caused a subdural hematoma then without exception there would have been bruising to the head or a bump which would have been visible.

It wouldn't have been visible under the hair.
There is a distinct lack of reference to an accident records book at the crèche.

[John]

It wouldn't have been visible under the hair.
There is a distinct lack of reference to an accident records book at the crèche.

I agree, we can pretty much rule it out.  In any event if Madeleine had had a bump while out sailing she would have been the first to report it imo and that doesn't appear to have occurred.

[ferryman]

Did Goncalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?

Yes.

He mangled and misrepresented Harrison (out of all recognition)

He misinterpreted the reactions of the dogs (not even evidence, but try telling Amaral that).

He relied, almost exclusively, on the discredited and disgraceful interim report of Almeida.

He didn't so much ignore the Prosecutors (because they wrote his report after Amaral wrote his book) but certainly diametrically contradicted the conclusions of the Prosecutors.

Who would know better?

Amaral?

Or the Prosecutors?

Tough one ...

[misty]

I agree, we can pretty much rule it out.  In any event if Madeleine had had a bump while out sailing she would have been the first to report it imo and that doesn't appear to have occurred.

You can't rule it out as there is no copy of the accident record book on file.

[G-Unit]

Did Goncalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?

Yes.

He mangled and misrepresented Harrison (out of all recognition)

He misinterpreted the reactions of the dogs (not even evidence, but try telling Amaral that).

He relied, almost exclusively, on the discredited and disgraceful interim report of Almeida.

He didn't so much ignore the Prosecutors (because they wrote his report after Amaral wrote his book) but certainly diametrically contradicted the conclusions of the Prosecutors.

Who would know better?

Amaral?

Or the Prosecutors?

Tough one ...

I think Amaral had a better grasp on the basic facts than those who came after him. Understabdable as he was there from day 1.

The Ministry of Justice based most of it's conclusion on the Final Report delivered on 30th June 2008 and written by Joao Carlos on 20th June. Reading that report mistakes immediately become apparent. My comments are in brackets.

According to the Time and Place, the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE) at the resort named 'Ocean Club',

[]The report completely ignores the sighting of Madeleine at around 6.30pm.]

The trip from the airport to the place of Luz was done in a mini bus, provided by the resort management company 'Mark Warner'.

[No, it was a private taxi, booked by Gerry McCann.]

This is a group where seven of the the report. elements are medics,

[Wrong; six were medics.]

So the Ministry of Justice were given a report where basic facts were incorrect. They returned their verdict on 21st July, three weeks the PJ report was written.

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

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

[ferryman]

I think Amaral had a better grasp on the basic facts than those who came after him. Understabdable as he was there from day 1.

The Ministry of Justice based most of it's conclusion on the Final Report delivered on 30th June 2008 and written by Joao Carlos on 20th June. Reading that report mistakes immediately become apparent. My comments are in brackets.

According to the Time and Place, the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE) at the resort named 'Ocean Club',

[]The report completely ignores the sighting of Madeleine at around 6.30pm.]

The trip from the airport to the place of Luz was done in a mini bus, provided by the resort management company 'Mark Warner'.

[No, it was a private taxi, booked by Gerry McCann.]

This is a group where seven of the the report. elements are medics,

[Wrong; six were medics.]

So the Ministry of Justice were given a report where basic facts were incorrect. They returned their verdict on 21st July, three weeks the PJ report was written.

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

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

Amaral didn't even understand that no incriminating inference could be drawn from the reactions of the dogs.

He didn't need to listen to anyone who came after him to grasp that basic fact.

He just needed to listen to Harrison (and even Grime).

How could Amaral conclude that Madeleine was driven anywhere dead in the Renault when the provenance of the dog-reaction was Gerry's blood?

Did Amaral ever find this fridge?

[Robittybob1]

I agree, we can pretty much rule it out.  In any event if Madeleine had had a bump while out sailing she would have been the first to report it imo and that doesn't appear to have occurred.

John I don't often disagree with you but that seems to be pure speculation.  We haven't seen the accident register and the two statements from the people taking the kids sailing so we don't know enough, so nothing can be ruled out.
Did he misinterpret the evidence? -Yes because he didn't get the evidence to show that "the accident" hadn't been caused in a sailing accident.  He just thought the demise of Madeleine was caused by the parents. He hadn't included all the options, and ignored Kate's description of Madeleine being sluggish that afternoon.

[ShiningInLuz]

John I don't often disagree with you but that seems to be pure speculation.  We haven't seen the accident register and the two statements from the people taking the kids sailing so we don't know enough, so nothing can be ruled out.
Did he misinterpret the evidence? -Yes because he didn't get the evidence to show that "the accident" hadn't been caused in a sailing accident.  He just thought the demise of Madeleine was caused by the parents. He hadn't included all the options, and ignored Kate's description of Madeleine being sluggish that afternoon.

There is no mention of Madeleine being tired in Kate's statement of 4 May 2007.

[Robittybob1]

There is no mention of Madeleine being tired in Kate's statement of 4 May 2007.

I know she has said it many times, in various places, and at the time that I heard it I didn't record the location, but we need to know if it was mentioned to the investigation early enough for them to have taken action on it.
They treated Kate somewhat special didn't they, in not  taking statements from her early on.

[Robittybob1]

There is no mention of Madeleine being tired in Kate's statement of 4 May 2007.

She mentions the sailing incident though:

Thursday, Madeleine and the other children went sailing at the beach five minutes on foot from the club, for an hour, organised by the resort itself. The supervision and planning were the responsibility of the club. The interviewee and her husband were not present. She never noticed any strange behaviour during these recent days which could explain the disappearance.

She did alert them to the fact that "the supervision and planning were the responsibility of the club" but Goncalo didn't follow that up by checking the accident register nor taking statements from all involved. Nor asking specific questions regarding the period afterward.
When Kate says

She never noticed any strange behaviour during these recent days which could explain the disappearance.

She is talking about major strange behaviours not things at the level of Madeleine's tiredness.

I can't see where they took a decent statement from her at all.

[Robittybob1]

There is no mention of Madeleine being tired in Kate's statement of 4 May 2007.

Was that a statement or just notes of an interview?

[Miss Taken Identity]

I think Amaral had a better grasp on the basic facts than those who came after him. Understabdable as he was there from day 1.

The Ministry of Justice based most of it's conclusion on the Final Report delivered on 30th June 2008 and written by Joao Carlos on 20th June. Reading that report mistakes immediately become apparent. My comments are in brackets.

According to the Time and Place, the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE) at the resort named 'Ocean Club',

[]The report completely ignores the sighting of Madeleine at around 6.30pm.]

The trip from the airport to the place of Luz was done in a mini bus, provided by the resort management company 'Mark Warner'.

[No, it was a private taxi, booked by Gerry McCann.]

This is a group where seven of the the report. elements are medics,

[Wrong; six were medics.]

So the Ministry of Justice were given a report where basic facts were incorrect. They returned their verdict on 21st July, three weeks the PJ report was written.

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

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

I agree G.  He got to interact with  the initial police who were first on the scene, witnessed the behaviours of the tapas, perhaps made a lot of educated guesses, read the time lines ( He must have wondered at the time, as many do, why they all got together to write down what they were doing -at what time, after claiming they had a system of checking every half hour). My guess is they really did think the police were fools in Portugual. If they claimed that their system was checking every half hour- then any normal police officer would be able to speak to every individual and ask what time did you arrive at the Tapas bar- then use the 10 0'clock end time to deduct each person's time line. If person A arrived at 8.30  then their time line would be 9pm ,9.30pm and 10 pm.  So there is something just not right about the whole 'having to discuss' a timeline, especially as there are more contradictions than there should be. all too confusing to peice it together to make any sense of it IMO. He worked with what information he had at that time, perhaps if he had the Gaspars statement and kew about CF things may have looked different.

[Robittybob1]

I agree G.  He got to interact with  the initial police who were first on the scene, witnessed the behaviours of the tapas, perhaps made a lot of educated guesses, read the time lines ( He must have wondered at the time, as many do, why they all got together to write down what they were doing -at what time, after claiming they had a system of checking every half hour). My guess is they really did think the police were fools in Portugual. If they claimed that their system was checking every half hour- then any normal police officer would be able to speak to every individual and ask what time did you arrive at the Tapas bar- then use the 10 0'clock end time to deduct each person's time line. If person A arrived at 8.30  then their time line would be 9pm ,9.30pm and 10 pm.  So there is something just not right about the whole 'having to discuss' a timeline, especially as there are more contradictions than there should be. all too confusing to peice it together to make any sense of it IMO. He worked with what information he had at that time, perhaps if he had the Gaspars statement and kew about CF things may have looked different.

I don't totally disagree but tell us what difference that would have made?

[ShiningInLuz]

Was that a statement or just notes of an interview?

The clue was in my use of the term "Kate's statement of 4 May 2007".

[Robittybob1]

The clue was in my use of the term "Kate's statement of 4 May 2007".

I know the page is titled as if it is a statement

58 to 65 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy 2007.05.04
Processo 01  Pages 58 to 65
TRANSLATIONS  BY ANNA ESSE /ALBYM
Kate Marie Healy's statement 04/05/07 @ 14.20pm
 
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_58
 
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_59
 
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_60
 
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_61
 
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_62
 
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_63
 
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_64
 
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_65
 
Kate's interview took place on the day after Madeleine's disappearance, 04/05/07 at 2.20pm.

But that is all added on afterward, and then it is classed as an interview.  So I don't have enough legal experience  (i.e.haven't been in trouble enough) to tell whether that is truly a statement.
And the next time they try and take statements was when they had accused her of murdering MM on or around 6th Sept 2007, as seen in  "KATE MCCANN 06 SEP 2007 ARGUIDO" and "KATE MCCANN 07 SEP 2007 ARGUIDO" and  the famous "KATE MCCANN 48 QUESTIONS TO WHICH SHE DID NOT RESPOND 07 SEP 2007" documents.