Have we learnt anything from the Maddie case?

[sadie]

So was that established in this case

The Judge Who cut short the dog evidence was ?Amelia? Maria Emília.de Melo e Castro. [thank you Gunit]

She didn't allow the legal expert from the UK to finish re the meaning of the dogs alerts and the meanings of the FSS report

According To Anne Guedes (do Amaral) the British expert was taking too long, so (just as he was getting interesting IMO) the Judge Melo e Castro cut him short.



Do you remember, a few years ago, I also pointed out that Judge Melo de Castro was rather close to Amaral, as was Anne Guedes.

1)  Their family homes were in the Jewish area of Portugal near Belmonte (anything starting with Bel (or Bal) is likely to be Jewish, because they worshipped the God *Baal *.

Melo and Goncalo are villages set 12 - 13 miles apart in a remote sparsly populated area of Portugal.  Just 1.8 miles from Goncalo and less than 12 miles friom Melo lies the tiny place Seixo Amarelo.  I have travelled in that area and it is weirdest landscape that I have ever seen with boulders the size of a house lying around as tho they have been throw by a God in a rage.

Now I posted the connections between Melo de Castro  and Goncalo de Sousa Amaral before and they have been whooshed, but there were at least three, if you remember .... and i commented that there could be a * Conflict of Interests * here.  There were two other reasons why they were close IMO ... and that is just based upon the Melo part of the name. 

The Castro part of the Judges name also has connections to Goncalo de Sousa Amaral, but please do not force me to go into all that again, because some of them involve Isabel Duchess of Braganza who is Portugals 'Queen in waiting'.  She seems to be descended from all these people   

..................

Also with the Court records, posted by Anne Guedes (do Amaral) and related to Goncalo de Sousa de Amaral... another potential *Conflict of Interests *. 

[Robittybob1]

So was that established in this case

There has been no criminal court case as yet for a judge  to make a ruling on that aspect in the McCann case.

[G-Unit]

Yep, and the Judge was ?Amelia? de Melo e Castro.

The same judge that cut short the dog evidence in the first case.  She didn't allow the expert from the UK to finish

According To Anne Guedes (do Amaral) the British expert was taking too long, so (just as he was getting interesting IMO) the Judge Melo e Castro cut him short.



Do you remember, a few years ago, I also pointed out that Judge Melo de Castro was rather close to Amaral, as was Anne Guedes.

1)  Their family homes were in the Jewish area of Portugal near Belmonte (anything starting with Bel (or Bal) is likely to be Jewish, because they worshipped the God *Baal *.

Melo and Goncalo are villages set 12 - 13 miles apart in a remote sparsly populated area of Portugal.  Just 1.8 miles from Goncalo and less than 12 miles friom Melo lies the tiny place Seixo Amarelo

Now I posted the connections between Melo de Castro  and Goncalo de Sousa Amaral before and they have been whooshed, but there were at least three, if you remember .... and i commented that there could be a * Conflict of Interests * here.  There were two other reasons why they were close IMO ... and that is just based upon the Melo part of the name. 

The Castro part of the Judges name also has connections to Goncalo de Sousa Amaral, but please do not force me to go into all that again, because some of them involve Isabel Duchess of Braganza who is Portugals 'Queen in waiting'.  She seems to be descended from all these people   

..................

Also with the Court records, posted by Anne Guedes (do Amaral) to Goncalo de Sousa de Amaral... another potential *Conflict of Interests *.

The judge's name was Maria Emília de Melo e Castro. The occasion was closing speeches by lawyers in the libel trial. The person speaking was one of the McCann's lawyers Ricardo Correia Afonso, He was allowed 90 minutes to make his points and spoke for almost 120 minutes. Goodness knows how long he would have gone on for if she hadn't shut him up.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5786.0

So no UK dog expert, Sadie and I can't imagine why you're trying to cast doubt on the only judge who found for  the McCanns. 

[Mr Gray]

There has been no criminal court case as yet for a judge  to make a ruling on that aspect in the McCann case.

Im talking about whether the dog expert presented any details of the training of the dogs.

[Robittybob1]

Im talking about whether the dog expert presented any details of the training of the dogs.

I seem to recall they weren't fully trained.

[Carana]

2nd August
Diaries seized
13th Sept 2007
The judge gets copies of Kate's diaries in English and orders that they be translated so he can decide whether they can be included as evidence.
4th October 2007
The translator, AR, returns the copies along with her translation of them.
25th June 2008
 The Prosecutor (I think) asks the judge what the decision is.
26th June 2008
The judge decides the diaries are personal and orders the copies be destroyed.

So did the PJ keep hold of a copy themselves? Did they have it translated? Why did they leak bits of it before asking for it to be entered in evidence?

It wasn't just the blitz re the diary. It was also the "100% DNA", allusions to gory substances and "tufts" of her hair in the boot, and whatever else.

Re the diary, from some articles it seems the files were handed over on 12 Sept.

Perhaps they actually realised that the so-called "evidence" amounted to a hill of beans; but tried their best to get a confession. It didn't turn out that way, the McCanns were free to go home, albeit still with their arguido status.

Perhaps a question of pride? By encouraging a media blitz on "evidence", it helped to gloss over the fact that there were no charges, despite the build-up in the pro-PJ media since 5 May and may have helped to fuel the well-seeded notion that the PJ were all highly competent shining knights in armour and that it was just corruption in high places that was preventing them from securing a charge.


Have you read this by David Rose? (He writes for the Mail on Sunday, although it appears online as the Daily).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482007/Lies-beatings-secret-trials-dark-police-handling-Madeleine-case.html#ixzz52ykvcRce

[Brietta]

It wasn't just the blitz re the diary. It was also the "100% DNA", allusions to gory substances and "tufts" of her hair in the boot, and whatever else.

Re the diary, from some articles it seems the files were handed over on 12 Sept.

Perhaps they actually realised that the so-called "evidence" amounted to a hill of beans; but tried their best to get a confession. It didn't turn out that way, the McCanns were free to go home, albeit still with their arguido status.

Perhaps a question of pride? By encouraging a media blitz on "evidence", it helped to gloss over the fact that there were no charges, despite the build-up in the pro-PJ media since 5 May and may have helped to fuel the well-seeded notion that the PJ were all highly competent shining knights in armour and that it was just corruption in high places that was preventing them from securing a charge.


Have you read this by David Rose? (He writes for the Mail on Sunday, although it appears online as the Daily).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482007/Lies-beatings-secret-trials-dark-police-handling-Madeleine-case.html#ixzz52ykvcRce

The treatment meted out to Kate and Gerry McCann was in my opinion absolutely abhorrent.  Too many journalists, some of them reputable, have claimed the fact for there to be any doubt that certain members of the Policia Judiciaria leaked misinformation directly to the press.
There is no doubt the journalists were eager to get the information and use it and there is no doubt there was an international audience who were initially led to believe that whatever Madeleine's parents were guilty of ... it was something heinous.

In my opinion the PJ at the time turned the case of a missing little girl into a soap opera with missing Madeleine's case taking a back seat to the case being woven ... and being believed ... against her parents.


Snip
The claims about the diary's contents were first published on Thursday by Jose Manuel Ribeiro, crime correspondent for the Lisbon daily Diario de Noticias.

By chance I ran into him that same afternoon, outside the apartment where Madeleine disappeared.

I congratulated him on his scoop, but he shook his head, disconsolate. Already, he complained, it was turning to dust.

Ribeiro said he had been given the story by an impeccable inside source, but already officials in Lisbon were denying it, and the source himself could no longer assure him it was true.

"Why is bad information getting out to the public?" he asked. "Because we're being given it."

Somehow, however, the denials that had made Ribeiro so angry did not get through to the foreigners.

If the questionable leak had been planted for a purpose – to increase the pressure on the hapless McCanns – it may well have succeeded.

And, in the foreign public's mind, the germinating notion that Kate might have killed her daughter because she could not handle her had been nurtured by a further dollop of manure.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482007/Lies-beatings-secret-trials-dark-police-handling-Madeleine-case.html#ixzz533uug8RH

[Carana]

There certainly was a media blitz but it seems to have been triggered by one vague(ish) piece of information having an equally vague source and provenance. That is not to say the source was not PJ just that I would not bet too much on it.
I do find the concept of a diary being apprehended rather droll. That's Google translate for you I suppose.

It may help to take one step back and ask the purposes of a newspaper.
Providing a factually accurate account of "How they brought good news from Aix to Ghent" to present to the populace at large is along way down the list. IMO of course.
1 A newspaper will print as many of it's owner's biases, prejudices and political inclinations as the advertisers will hold still for.
2 It will present news items and /or human interest stories in a manner attractive to it's target audience to increase circulation showing the advertiser's that it reaches the advertiser's target audiences making it worth while to invest in advertising space and so on. To make it look as though it has legs makes even more attractive from the advertisers point of view => extra revenue.
3 A good human interest story will be milked until dry by the appropriate media.
4 By Sept 2007 the McCann case was soap opera. It having "everything" it is difficult to conceive of a time when it will cease to be a human interest story for some members of the public, except of course when all is revealed.
all my opinion of course.

True. I'd add another one: manipulation of public opinion. I find further layers in the PT situation, however. A young democracy, but still with some of the old guard and their supporters in place.

Judicial secrecy. I can't find some early articles at the moment, and it wasn't David Rose, but someone of the same ilk who'd interviewed one of the well-known PT senior tabloid journalists. It might have been Damasão, but I'm not certain.

I'm having to paraphrase from memory, but it was along the lines that judicial secrecy is like traffic regulations: everyone knows they exist, but everyone ignores them. Without PJ leaks, there wouldn't be any crime reporting in PT.

To an extent, I can understand that - there was no media strategy in criminal investigations. The result was that the public is interested, but there's no info to give them without unofficial cosy arrangements of juicy leaks that can be presented to suit different agendas.

The downside of that if you rely on the PJ for secret scraps, but then you criticiise them in one way or another, your lifeline gets cut off. The alternative is to present the info so that it lavishly praises them, whether the investigation is a fiasco or not.

Where that can backfire for the PJ is that the public has high expectations of their competence, but which doesn't necessarily quite materialise in the way that the build-up suggested.

I'm not sure if there's a media strategy even now, but things to seem more "modern" than they were 10 years ago.

[Alice Purjorick]

So was that established in this case

You have the document. Work it out for yourself.

[Mr Gray]

You have the document. Work it out for yourself.

I already have done

[Alice Purjorick]

True. I'd add another one: manipulation of public opinion. I find further layers in the PT situation, however. A young democracy, but still with some of the old guard and their supporters in place.

Judicial secrecy. I can't find some early articles at the moment, and it wasn't David Rose, but someone of the same ilk who'd interviewed one of the well-known PT senior tabloid journalists. It might have been Damasão, but I'm not certain.

I'm having to paraphrase from memory, but it was along the lines that judicial secrecy is like traffic regulations: everyone knows they exist, but everyone ignores them. Without PJ leaks, there wouldn't be any crime reporting in PT.

To an extent, I can understand that - there was no media strategy in criminal investigations. The result was that the public is interested, but there's no info to give them without unofficial cosy arrangements of juicy leaks that can be presented to suit different agendas.

The downside of that if you rely on the PJ for secret scraps, but then you criticiise them in one way or another, your lifeline gets cut off. The alternative is to present the info so that it lavishly praises them, whether the investigation is a fiasco or not.

Where that can backfire for the PJ is that the public has high expectations of their competence, but which doesn't necessarily quite materialise in the way that the build-up suggested.

I'm not sure if there's a media strategy even now, but things to seem more "modern" than they were 10 years ago.

1) So they say. I did not have you down as the sort who would sing a Brill Building song.
2) The examining magistrate calls the tune on waht is and waht is not judicial secrecy between limits I believe.

[Alice Purjorick]

I already have done

Then you will realise that dog alerts as described in this case are admissible within limits.
Neither a blanket yes nor a blanket no....in English law.
US law is a trifle more complex. Portuguese law ?

[Mr Gray]

Then you will realise that dog alerts as described in this case are admissible within limits.
Neither a blanket yes nor a blanket no....in English law.
US law is a trifle more complex. Portuguese law ?

We don't know if they are admissable and we don't know how reliable they are...

[Carana]

1) So they say. I did not have you down as the sort who would sing a Brill Building song.
2) The examining magistrate calls the tune on waht is and waht is not judicial secrecy between limits I believe.

What or who is Brill Building? lol

Re your 2nd point:
Código de Processo Penal

ACTUALIZADO até Dez. 2000

Artigo 86.º

(Publicidade do processo e segredo de justiça)
http://paulosantos-adv.planetaclix.pt/CPP.htm

[G-Unit]

I am using a new computer and atm cannot get into different websites nor my notes, but whether he was a Lawyer representing the Mccanns or/and the FSS is no matter.  He put the expert viewpoint.

And remember, the facts are according to Anne Guedes, Amarals bloodline relative ... and as such should be read with caution becauswe of once again the piossibilty of a * Conflict of Interests *

Yes, she did find for The Mccanns in the previous case BUT at that time, I had ALREADY pointed out PUBLICLY that there was the possibility of a * Conflict of Interests * because of the Melo e Castro family and locational links with Goncalo de Sousa Amaral.


It surprises me that no-one seems to find this pertinent and interesting.  Makes me wonder, is everyone dead on their feet?

He was the McCann's lawyer, Duarte's deputy.  He concentrated on trying to suggest that the PJ got it wrong. How that was supposed to descredit Amaral's book, which described the PJ investigation goodness knows. What he should have been concentrating on was demonstrating a causal link from the book to the McCann's feelings. As Amaral's lawyer said;

vague allegations from the couple and no evidence of any effect being caused by the book.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5786.0

That's why the judge was able to rule in the McCanns favour only by deciding that Amaral broke the rules governing his position as a retired policeman.

I don't know what you mean about the judge finding 'for The Mccanns in the previous case'. What previous case? This is the McCann's lawyer's closing speech in the only case on which this judge ruled, as far as I know.

Your interest in bloodlines isn't shared by others, Sadie, and the influence you think they exert is just speculation in my opinion.