Author Topic: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence  (Read 151784 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1275 on: March 23, 2018, 09:53:09 PM »
Are the defendants' documents online? If so, seeing what they wrote about the dogs might help. Was that assertion submitted, with simply Grime's report as an annexe? If so, I find it inaccurately worded as a factual statement, but on the other hand it was a major feature presented in GA's book / documentary / articles.

IMO, as there was no forensic evidence to invalidate or corroborate it, there was no direct omission of e.g., forensic evidence that could be disputed, although, for some reason, the caveats about needing corroboration didn't seem to have been taken into account. Maybe coffee spilled on them all.

A key point, IMO, is that it was a civil case, not a criminal one:

The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.
It is an undisputed fact that the dogs (blood and cadaver) alerted to the hire car and in the apartment.
Whether that can be converted to findings of blood and cadaver odour (??), but none was attributed to Madeleine via corroboration, and expressed as such by any expert witnesses in the file (as no trial had happened).
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1276 on: March 23, 2018, 09:57:22 PM »
Thinking  about it.. It may be that the police.. Prosecution... Put forward their claimed proven facts on which the case is based. In a criminal trial these facts can then be countered... Disputed.. By the defence.  As there never was, a, criminal trial these proven facts, remain on file and undisputed
Could be but that would be rather rough justice, as there was never any case put forward against the McCanns (or if there was it never proceeded).
Where do undisputed facts come from in a trial in Portugal?  Does the prosecution just list a series of undisputed facts - like it and lump it?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1277 on: March 23, 2018, 09:58:30 PM »
Are the defendants' documents online? If so, seeing what they wrote about the dogs might help. Was that assertion submitted, with simply Grime's report as an annexe? If so, I find it inaccurately worded as a factual statement, but on the other hand it was a major feature presented in GA's book / documentary / articles.

IMO, as there was no forensic evidence to invalidate or corroborate it, there was no direct omission of e.g., forensic evidence that could be disputed, although, for some reason, the caveats about needing corroboration didn't seem to have been taken into account. Maybe coffee spilled on them all.

A key point, IMO, is that it was a civil case, not a criminal one:

The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.

Note the last line... Criminal investigation... That's, when the point would, have been answered...

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1278 on: March 23, 2018, 10:01:51 PM »
Could be but that would be rather rough justice, as there was never any case put forward against the McCanns (or if there was it never proceeded).
Where do undisputed facts come from in a trial in Portugal?  Does the prosecution just list a series of undisputed facts - like it and lump it?

Its,what the prosecution  base it's, case, on... It's up to the defence to answer is... But there never was a trial

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1279 on: March 23, 2018, 10:06:27 PM »
Its,what the prosecution  base it's, case, on... It's up to the defence to answer is... But there never was a trial
Surely that would never be accepted as the undisputed facts!  If it was Portugal needs to be reprimanded in the ECHR court.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 10:15:12 PM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1280 on: March 23, 2018, 10:10:03 PM »
Surely that would never be accepted as the undisputed facts!  If it was Portugal needs to be reprimanded in the ECHR court.

They are technically undisputed facts because the mccanns had no chance to dispute them...
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 10:14:57 PM by Robittybob1 »

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1281 on: March 23, 2018, 10:16:36 PM »
They are technically undisputed facts because the mccanns had no chance to dispute them...
There must be a better definition somewhere.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1282 on: March 23, 2018, 10:39:47 PM »
The judge allows Gerry to say something but it had conditions on it:  "MC  Can I make a statement?
Judge - The statements in the Portuguese court system, unlike in England where people can give extemporaneous statements [see VPS], are the declarations, which consist of a series of questions put by the lawyers and Judge and by the answers of the deponent, which you just gave. You can say something but it won't have any legal validity, nevertheless it will still be recorded.

Gerry was told this rebuttal of the undisputed facts "won't have any legal validity".

So can we now take it a give it some legal validity?
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 11:06:04 PM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1283 on: March 23, 2018, 11:48:41 PM »
Different rules for civil and criminal cases.  Civil cases are not adversarial.

Regulation

In Portugal, as in most European continental judicial systems, judges play a prominent and active role in the examination process and in imposing the rules of DNA evidence and court procedures. This inquisitorial orientation of the Portuguese criminal justice system is also reflected in the DNA database law, as the collection of samples for criminal investigation purposes and the inclusion of DNA profiles in the database requires a judge’s order.
http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/genewatch-forensic-dna/arguido-or-no-the-portuguese-dna-database/

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1284 on: March 24, 2018, 12:05:01 AM »
The judge allows Gerry to say something but it had conditions on it:  "MC  Can I make a statement?
Judge - The statements in the Portuguese court system, unlike in England where people can give extemporaneous statements [see VPS], are the declarations, which consist of a series of questions put by the lawyers and Judge and by the answers of the deponent, which you just gave. You can say something but it won't have any legal validity, nevertheless it will still be recorded.

Gerry was told this rebuttal of the undisputed facts "won't have any legal validity".

So can we now take it a give it some legal validity?
Gerry should have asked the Judge to clarify where the list of undisputed facts came from.  Had it been a question rather than a statement it might have maintained its legal validity.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 12:08:06 AM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1285 on: March 24, 2018, 01:09:22 AM »
Gerry should have asked the Judge to clarify where the list of undisputed facts came from.  Had it been a question rather than a statement it might have maintained its legal validity.

Some will have come from the plaintiffs' submissions and the others from the defendants' submissions.

Offline misty

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1286 on: March 24, 2018, 01:57:24 AM »
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm (10th September 2007)
snipped
Nevertheless, before the Media they kept (and keep) declaring their hope on finding their daughter alive: the first time that the hypothesis of the death of the little girl was raised it was, effectively, suggested by the McCann.

Although maintaining all the lines of the investigation opened it was, nevertheless, decided to advance in the direction of a new inspection to the local where the girl disappeared.
The inspection technique is frequently used in the United Kingdom and consists on the use of dogs especially trained.

As it's natural it is the dog's olfact the 'sense' used. In the case of this 'sense' the difference between the human and the dog is 5 million cells to 200 millions.

It must be highlighted that the resource to this kind of inspection is frequent in the UK and the success rate is 100%.

One of the dogs is trained to detect the odour of cadaver and the other to identify vestiges of human blood.

We refer now that the location of the cadaver odours signifies that physically the body (cadaver) is not on the place, marked by the dog, but certainly it has been there, as long as the dog signals it.

As it can be verified from the 'Autos', in the inquiry, the dogs inspected the locales and objects with the results described below.

All the inspections were recorded in sound and image and were directed by our British colleagues that accompanied the dogs.

Among the great number of objects and locales inspected, the dogs marked the following places:
1. Apartment 5 A, Ocean Club resort, the place from where the child disappeared
1.1. Cadaver odour
* Master bedroom, in a corner, by the wardrobe
* Living room, behind the sofa, by the side window
1.2. Blood dog:
* Living room behind the sofa, close to the lateral window (on the same spot signalled by the cadaver dog);
2. Front garden to the apartment 5A
2.1. Cadaver dog
* Flower bed (the dog handler commented on the 'lightness' of the odor)
3. Apartments where the rest of the group were staying
* NOTHING was detected by the dogs
4. Actual residence of the McCann
* NOTHING was detected on the house by any of the dogs
5. At Aldeia da Luz
* NOTHING was detected by any of the dogs
6. Clothes and belongings of McCann family
6.1. Cadaver dog:
* 2 pieces of clothing of Kate McCann
* One piece of Madeleine McCann
* Madeleine's soft toy
* The odour was detected when the toy was still in the interior of the actual residence of the McCann
* It was confirmed in out of the house conditions
7. Vehicle used by the McCann family
7.1. Cadaver dog:
* Marked the key of the car
* Marked the interior of the booth
7.2. Blood dog
* Marked the car key
* Marked the interior of the booth
8. Car used by a family friend that was staying in the same resort, in some of the same days
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs
9. All the cars used by the arguido Robert Murat and the people that are close to him
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs.

(In a total of 10 cars the cadaver dog and the blood dog only marked the car of the McCann family, rented at May 27th)

The places and the pieces marked and signaled by the blood dog are being subjected to forensic exams, part of which are already concluded.

Not less relevant is the refinement of the results that point towards Madeleine's DNA as being present at the apartment 5A behind the sofa, a place marked by the cadaver and the blood dog. In every place marked by the blood dog it was confirmed there was DNA.
================================================================

It is an undisputed fact that there is a record in the files from the original investigation, during Amaral's time in charge, stating that the dog alerted to cadaver. Rightly or wrongly, if the book is a reflection of the investigation, then the alert to cadaver is a fact within itself but not necessarily the truth of the matter.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1287 on: March 24, 2018, 03:41:48 AM »
Some will have come from the plaintiffs' submissions and the others from the defendants' submissions.
But who decides what is on the list.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1288 on: March 24, 2018, 03:56:50 AM »
But who decides what is on the list.
In this discussion, "Question of Fact"  it says the judge can decide the matters considered indisputable fact.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Finding+of+facts
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #1289 on: March 24, 2018, 07:53:32 AM »
I think posters, are making the mistake of assuming they understand what the, Portuguese court mean by proven facts..... They certainly are not proven facts as, we understand the term... More like what the prosecution believe to be true and on what they base their case... It's then up yo the defense to dispute them but this, can only be done at a criminal trial.... That's why the judge would not let Gerry question them