What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose

[Eleanor]

They put Joana Cipriano's murderer and his accomplice behind bars and they claimed it too was an abduction.

There isn't much I can say about this, other than that I do not agree with you.  However,  The PJ were quite obviously not very good at dealing with the cases of Missing Children.

Hopefully, you and I are the two examples of the balance that this Forum strives to achieve.  Without actually being downright rude to each other.

[G-Unit]

According to the Op Task debrief, the PJ were offered all kinds of resources, including a mirror HOLMES site, but they apparently didn't make much use of many of the resources. Perhaps because they were resentful at a perceived intrusion into their "space", or because they simply didn't know how to make use of everything.

There's no way of knowing if the PJ even had a clear-cut strategy on how to lead an investigation of this kind.

As the debrief also noted, facilities and methods which are used in one country don't necessarily help in another country with different methods and legal systems.

Was the information in HOLMES translated into Portuguese?
Were the Portuguese officers trained in what it did and how to use it?
Did the British police pass all the evidence they gathered to the PJ or only the information they judged useful?
Did British police officers talk to the press in Portugal?
Did British police officers give confidential information to the McCanns?

[Carana]

I suspect that they never had to before.  They decided who was guilty, and that was the end of that.

They did check out a few other people: Murat and the Polish couple, possibly one or two others. *

When those leads fizzled out, they then seemed to concentrate on the parents.


* Other sightings were checked out, but I'm not sure who did most of the work on that. I'm not certain, but quite possibly Op Task.

[Carana]

Alice's question was "What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose".

Answering that would require establishing criteria and then assessing the extent to which they were met. IMO.

[Eleanor]

They did check out a few other people: Murat and the Polish couple, possibly one or two others. *

When those leads fizzled out, they then seemed to concentrate on the parents.


* Other sightings were checked out, but I'm not sure who did most of the work on that. I'm not certain, but quite possibly Op Task.

Robert Murat was half British, and it was pretty obvious that The McCanns would have needed some kind of help to dispose of a corpse.  So he was always going to be a prime patsy.  If The PJ could have made it stick.

I could probably make a very good case for views that are opposed to mine.  Don't ever think that I haven't considered this.  I wouldn't be the logical person that I believe I am if I hadn't.
But there has never been anything, not even a bad word said by anyone to suggest that Madeleine wasn't well loved and care for.

[Mr Gray]

It all depends on the benchmark you are using. There's no point in comparing the resources and expertise of a country with ten million inhabitants and a GDP of 204 billion USD to those of a country with 65 million inhabitants and a GDP of 2,619 trillion USD. 

A realistic assessment of the Portuguese investigation would be to compare it with a country such as Greece, which has a similar population and GDP.

so you seem to be accepting taht the portuguese investigation did not reach the level we would expect in the UK....and that is exactly why the UK police wanted to be involved and are involved

[Eleanor]

Alice's question was "What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose".

Answering that would require establishing criteria and then assessing the extent to which they were met. IMO.

What is, "Fit for Purpose?"  I haven't worked that one out yet.  There were too many variables.  Goncalo Amaral was already on the line over The Cipriano Case, and in fact should never have been involved.
And given his desire to be right for his own sake, then we had The Language Barrier.

What I would like to know is who appointed Amaral?  I doubt that this was done with evil intent, but it was a very stupid decision.  There in lies the real mistake.

[Alice Purjorick]

Alice's question was "What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose".

Answering that would require establishing criteria and then assessing the extent to which they were met. IMO.

Well the Thread Title asks the question.
I share your opinion.

Fit for purpose is a bit of a new kid on the block in the buzzword world. It was seemingly introduced by Dr John Reid when he was Home Secretary. Because Dr Reid used “not fit for purpose” as a sound bite when describing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate system as such, much improper use of the term ensued.
Dr John Reid? Do you remember him? Yes that is he the very same Dr John Reid who when Minister for Defence said we would be in and out Afghanistan without firing a shot.

The phrase “Fit for purpose” however is a lot older than that, pre 1968 at least, being associated with consumer protection law and construction contract law eg FIDIC, IChemE and JCT model forms.

It is widely understood that the effect of a fitness for purpose obligation is to impose a duty of result. A party wishing to rely upon a particular obligation, however, must also demonstrate that the obligation exists.

So what is “fitness for purpose” wrt an investigation? Who has an obligation to whom, what is that obligation, what is the expected result and what penalty is there for failure to achieve the result?
It is hard to see any contract existed between parties in this instance so:

In English law the common law imposes on a professional person a standard of reasonable skill and care but specifically he/she is not required to guarantee results. Ref: The Bolam Test.

With The Bolam Test in mind, one would need to demonstrate that another investigative team working in a similar field would have found the actions of the original team unacceptable in order to sustain an unfit for purpose claim. The only proper measure we have of that is from the AC of The Metropolitan Police Service, Mr Rowley, who indicated he was content to rely on the original investigation.

Lay on MacDuff

[Carana]

Robert Murat was half British, and it was pretty obvious that The McCanns would have needed some kind of help to dispose of a corpse.  So he was always going to be a prime patsy.  If The PJ could have made it stick.

I could probably make a very good case for views that are opposed to mine.  Don't ever think that I haven't considered this.  I wouldn't be the logical person that I believe I am if I hadn't.
But there has never been anything, not even a bad word said by anyone to suggest that Madeleine wasn't well loved and care for.

I've no doubt at all that you've thought through all of the possibilities. I have as well.

[Eleanor]

I've no doubt at all that you've thought through all of the possibilities. I have as well.

I am certain that you have.  Sadly, it was Goncalo Amaral who wasn't Fit for Purpose. 

I also doubt that he behaved with evil intent.  He was just the wrong man for the job, given his own problems at the time.

[Mr Gray]

Well the Thread Title asks the question.
I share your opinion.

Fit for purpose is a bit of a new kid on the block in the buzzword world. It was seemingly introduced by Dr John Reid when he was Home Secretary. Because Dr Reid used “not fit for purpose” as a sound bite when describing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate system as such, much improper use of the term ensued.
Dr John Reid? Do you remember him? Yes that is he the very same Dr John Reid who when Minister for Defence said we would be in and out Afghanistan without firing a shot.

The phrase “Fit for purpose” however is a lot older than that, pre 1968 at least, being associated with consumer protection law and construction contract law eg FIDIC, IChemE and JCT model forms.

It is widely understood that the effect of a fitness for purpose obligation is to impose a duty of result. A party wishing to rely upon a particular obligation, however, must also demonstrate that the obligation exists.

So what is “fitness for purpose” wrt an investigation? Who has an obligation to whom, what is that obligation, what is the expected result and what penalty is there for failure to achieve the result?
It is hard to see any contract existed between parties in this instance so:

In English law the common law imposes on a professional person a standard of reasonable skill and care but specifically he/she is not required to guarantee results. Ref: The Bolam Test.

With The Bolam Test in mind, one would need to demonstrate that another investigative team working in a similar field would have found the actions of the original team unacceptable in order to sustain an unfit for purpose claim. The only proper measure we have of that is from the AC of The Metropolitan Police Service, Mr Rowley, who indicated he was content to rely on the original investigation.

Lay on MacDuff

Rowley has stated he is content to rely on one small part of the original investigation and you are therefore misrepresenting his views. If we were applying the Bolam test ...the fact the a professional had completed a part of his duties to a required level would not satisfy the test...you would to look at the whole episode

[Carana]

Well the Thread Title asks the question.
I share your opinion.

Fit for purpose is a bit of a new kid on the block in the buzzword world. It was seemingly introduced by Dr John Reid when he was Home Secretary. Because Dr Reid used “not fit for purpose” as a sound bite when describing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate system as such, much improper use of the term ensued.
Dr John Reid? Do you remember him? Yes that is he the very same Dr John Reid who when Minister for Defence said we would be in and out Afghanistan without firing a shot.

The phrase “Fit for purpose” however is a lot older than that, pre 1968 at least, being associated with consumer protection law and construction contract law eg FIDIC, IChemE and JCT model forms.

It is widely understood that the effect of a fitness for purpose obligation is to impose a duty of result. A party wishing to rely upon a particular obligation, however, must also demonstrate that the obligation exists.

So what is “fitness for purpose” wrt an investigation? Who has an obligation to whom, what is that obligation, what is the expected result and what penalty is there for failure to achieve the result?
It is hard to see any contract existed between parties in this instance so:

In English law the common law imposes on a professional person a standard of reasonable skill and care but specifically he/she is not required to guarantee results. Ref: The Bolam Test.

With The Bolam Test in mind, one would need to demonstrate that another investigative team working in a similar field would have found the actions of the original team unacceptable in order to sustain an unfit for purpose claim. The only proper measure we have of that is from the AC of The Metropolitan Police Service, Mr Rowley, who indicated he was content to rely on the original investigation.

Lay on MacDuff

Ahhhh. Ok, I see what you're getting at. I think. ;)

I can't think of any way that that could be answered. Foreign police forces aren't likely to give an opinion on record.

Former officers, IMO, tend to be supportive of their "own", even if they are from a different country, or else shut up - in public, at least.

Soooo.... I don't see how we would ever find out.

In the UK, there are police inquiries into other police forces' investigations (Wiltshire, etc.). There may well have been one in PT, as their own review led to the re-opening of the case. However, if there was one and if it has been made public, I certainly haven't seen it.

The most I've found is disciplinary action against certain officers involved in the case-that-mustn't-be-mentioned by stumbling on a couple of lines in whatever they call some official national record.

[Carana]

I am certain that you have.  Sadly, it was Goncalo Amaral who wasn't Fit for Purpose. 

I also doubt that he behaved with evil intent.  He was just the wrong man for the job, given his own problems at the time.

I think Alice is thinking of "fit for purpose" in a different sense.

Re Amaral, hmmm.

I watched or read (can't remember) an interview with Harper from the Jersey fiasco. At the time, I felt for him - it was a sort of "mea culpa" about how he was out of his depth and how the whole thing had escalated. (I'm not entirely sure how sincere that was, or whether it was a damage-limiting exercise, but that's beside the point.)

Amaral could have written a very different book and documentary (not to mention his promo tour and regular column which I found even worse) in a similar vein, and I'm fairly sure it would still have been a best-seller. It would still have been fascinating to have an insider's view of a complex case without insisting on his "theory".

[John]

[Eleanor]

I think Alice is thinking of "fit for purpose" in a different sense.

Re Amaral, hmmm.

I watched or read (can't remember) an interview with Harper from the Jersey fiasco. At the time, I felt for him - it was a sort of "mea culpa" about how he was out of his depth and how the whole thing had escalated. (I'm not entirely sure how sincere that was, or whether it was a damage-limiting exercise, but that's beside the point.)

Amaral could have written a very different book and documentary (not to mention his promo tour and regular column which I found even worse) in a similar vein, and I'm fairly sure it would still have been a best-seller. It would still have been fascinating to have an insider's view of a complex case without insisting on his "theory".

Yes, I agree.  Alice was thinking of a different aspect.

You see, I never thought that Amaral's Book was all that bad.  It was the rest of The Sofa Chat that was designed to do the real damage.  Presuming that it actually did.  But I doubt that this was taken into consideration by The Portuguese Court.