UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on June 28, 2013, 04:03:45 AM
-
An opportunity to discuss the evidence which exists in the abduction of Madeleine McCann.
Please note that evidence and proof are two different issues.
-
Come on then Stephen, how did these two ordinary doctors from Leicester manage to pull off the crime of the century in a foreign country, without a car or local knowledge?
How do you account for the total lack of proof of abduction ?
How do you account for not one sign of Madeleine after 6 years, with a considerable reward on offer ?
Your only piece of 'evidence' is a child being carried in someone's arms. Now I'd like to see that in court. @)(++(*
Meanwhile, how do you know this pair didn't conceal the death of their daughter ?
As to how, go to the source.
-
How do you account for the total lack of proof of abduction ?
How do you account for not one sign of Madeleine after 6 years, with a considerable reward on offer ?
Your only piece of 'evidence' is a child being carried in someone's arms. Now I'd like to see that in court. @)(++(*
Meanwhile, how do you know this pair didn't conceal the death of their daughter ?
As to how, go to the source.
I'll cut to the chase here, Stephen. How could Kate and Gerry McCann have discovered that Madeleine had passed away, cleaned up, mourned, decided to dispose of her - and then gone on to have a meal with friends, all of whom said that they were their normal, chatty selves. Roped their friends into a cover up, hidden Madeleine's remains successfully for weeks, in a foreign country without access to a car, and then successfully disposed of Madeleine's remains 3 weeks later?
-
I'll cut to the chase here, Stephen. How could Kate and Gerry McCann have discovered that Madeleine had passed away, cleaned up, mourned, decided to dispose of her - and then gone on to have a meal with friends, all of whom said that they were their normal, chatty selves. Roped their friends into a cover up, hidden Madeleine's remains successfully for weeks, in a foreign country without access to a car, and then successfully disposed of Madeleine's remains 3 weeks later?
First you answer my questions.
I'm not the one pushing abduction ?
So come on, PROVIDE THE PROOF.
As to how people commit crimes and appear 'normal'. History is littered with those.
-
First you answer my questions.
I'm not the one pushing abduction ?
So come on, PROVIDE THE PROOF.
As to how people commit crimes and appear 'normal'. History is littered with those.
If you can't come up with an explanation as to how I set things out in my post above then there is not a lot of point trying to debate with you any longer.
Come on - two ordinary doctors from Leicester have not only managed to pull off the crime of the century but have also hoodwinked the Judicial systems and Governments of two European countries. If you have a scintilla of intelligence, then you will know that this is just not possible.
-
If you can't come up with an explanation as to how I set things out in my post above then there is not a lot of point trying to debate with you any longer.
Come on - two ordinary doctors from Leicester have not only managed to pull off the crime of the century but have also hoodwinked the Judicial systems and Governments of two European countries. If you have a scintilla of intelligence, then you will know that this is just not possible.
You and your fellow acolytes believe it's not possible.
The bottom line remains, there is no proof of abduction and you know if that it was faked, there is only one place to go to.
-
Abduction, abduction, what kind of abduction ? No evidence of abduction in bed nor flat. What about abduction in the street ? Would the Smith carrier have found little Madeleine in the street, crying because she had left in search of Dad and Mum but the bloody wind had shut the door ? And she didn't protest when the carrier took her in his arms because she was freezing and his body was warm and he looked like Daddy, though he was a lonely woolf.
-
The only ones stuck in the groove you and your fellow mccannites.
This is getting boring.
Provide proof of abduction.
Without it you have NOTHING.
Many pointers Stephen
Jane Tanner
Carolyn Carpenter
The Smiths
The AG of PT
SY
The increasingly frantic denials by certain peeps
The altering of evidence as in the Pat Brown Fiasco
Eight attempted abductions over 16 years spaced roughly 2 years apart. All in one of two small clusters.
In the !990's four abductions in Porto (in a cluster no more than 32 miles across) + Rene Hasse on the Atlantic Coast of the Algarve.
In the 2000's, until Madeleine in 2007 there were another three abductions ( including Renes abduction, all in a cluster no more than 25 miles across)
The last one prior to Madeleine, was of Carolina Santos. That was frustrated . And it was less than 5 months before Madeleine and only about 18 miles away in Silves. Joana Ciprianos abduction was less than 3 years before Madeleines and inly 7 miles away at Silves.
All the girls were 8 y.o. or younger and all pretty and fair haired/ blonde.
Then there are a load of pointers that I am unable to share, because they might be ex judice
Planty of pointers Stephen. Pointers that the police are aware of
Where are your pointers ... or proof that the Mccanns dunit?
-
Abduction, abduction, what kind of abduction ? No evidence of abduction in bed nor flat. What about abduction in the street ? Would the Smith carrier have found little Madeleine in the street, crying because she had left in search of Dad and Mum but the bloody wind had shut the door ? And she didn't protest when the carrier took her in his arms because she was freezing and his body was warm and he looked like Daddy, though he was a lonely woolf.
You seem to confuse evidence with proof as usual. There is lots of evidence of abduction. A youngster put to bed disappears while her parents are dining nearby, the apartment window and shutter previously closed were opened, the youngsters favourite toy left on her bed, a sighting of an unknown man carrying a child away from the apartment in suspicious circumstances. Have I missed anything?
-
You seem to confuse evidence with proof as usual. There is lots of evidence of abduction. A youngster put to bed disappears while her parents are dining nearby, the apartment window and shutter previously closed were opened, the youngsters favourite toy left on her bed, a sighting of an unknown man carrying a child away from the apartment in suspicious circumstances. Have I missed anything?
This comment applies equally to stephen25000 who also confuses evidence with proof.
-
Have I missed anything?
Yes, corroborated evidence. Your list of evidences (shutters etc. open, toy on bed, suspicious carrier) is just hearsay.
-
Yes, evidence.
Shutters etc. open, toy on bed, suspicious carrier, all this is pure hearsay.
Hearsay would make an interesting thread...
-
Yes, corroborated evidence. Your list of evidences (shutters etc. open, toy on bed, suspicious carrier) is just hearsay.
So let's see Anne has invented a new form of hearsay involving direct evidence, I have heard it all now, must be a French thing?
For your information Anne, the evidence which I have stated is not hearsay as it is first hand reported directly to the police by those who witnessed the events irrespective of whether they were directly involved or mere spectators. Had there not been evidence the PJ would not have been able to come to the conclusion they did.
-
The PJ came to no conclusion precisely for lack of evidence.
-
The PJ came to no conclusion precisely for lack of evidence.
just the same as they have not been able to convict, say Mrs Fenn, or Carolyn Carpenter, or even you, Anne, of the abduction. Lack of evidence
NO EVIDENCE
You just cant go convicting peeps becos a few extremists dont like them. Justice doesn't work like that, except occasionally in PT ?8)@)-) and some third world places like Guinea Bissau.
-
just the same as they have not been able to convict, say Mrs Fenn, or Carolyn Carpenter, or even you, Anne, of the abduction. Lack of evidence
NO EVIDENCE
You just cant go convicting peeps becos a few extremists dont like them. Justice doesn't work like that, except occasionally in PT ?8)@)-) and some third world places like Guinea Bissau.
CFO....
'TYPE OF CRIME UNKNOWN'.
-
As the AG concluded.
The first requisite, though, listening to Mr Redwood, it doesn't seem politically correct, is to determine the nature of the crime. No way to bypass that whether sooner or later.
-
In France, every two days, 3 children die following a domestic accident. At home.
When they can walk and move about, children reach things that are higher up, climb and find hidden objects. Accidents can happen in a matter of seconds.
Here are some examples of domestic accidents :
Falls are by far the most common type of injury in the home. They account for 44% of all children’s injuries.
If you have a balcony, keep the door locked so your child cannot go on to it alone – if it has railings that your child could climb through, board them up or fit wire netting as a guard.
Domestic fires are one of the greatest risks to children. Children playing with matches and lighters frequently start house fires. The youngest children often hide from the danger and may not be found until it is too late.
Glass-related injuries
Glass can cause serious cuts. Many children end up in hospital every year because of injuries due to glass around the home. Many are also injured when glasses and bottles break.
-
You keep harping on an accident Anne, yet there is nothing to show it .... nowt, nada zilch
Yet there are a multitude of pointers to an abduction, including 3 little girls in the last three years in an area no more than about 18 miles across. Three pretty little girls and all fair haireed/blond.
Also witnesses
No history of any wrong doing by the parents,
why are you so obsessed by an accident Anne?
-
This comment applies equally to stephen25000 who also confuses evidence with proof.
Not in the least. In his case he confuses gossip with evidence. Stephens harpings don't even reach the pinnacle of being referred to as hearsay.
-
The PJ came to no conclusion precisely for lack of evidence.
Yes, a lack of evidence as distinct from there being NO evidence., a big difference Anne.
-
I have tweaked the thread title slightly to reflect the expanding discussion. If there is evidence of an accident as against abduction please feel free to post it.
-
Not in the least. In his case he confuses gossip with evidence. Stephens harpings don't even reach the pinnacle of being referred to as hearsay.
Rubbish.
You repeat the words abduction.
There is no proof.
As to harping, complete rubbish.
I leave that to those who indulge in fantasies of abduction, whoever they may be.
-
Yes, a lack of evidence as distinct from there being NO evidence., a big difference Anne.
Seeing a child being carried in someone's arms is not evidence of anything. If you believe that so, then any sighting of a child being carried in someone's arms could be viewed in the same way, and that is plain ridiculous.
-
Rubbish.
You repeat the words abduction.
There is no proof.
As to harping, complete rubbish.
I leave that to those who indulge in fantasies of abduction, whoever they may be.
Until you tell us what 'really' happened in your opinon Stephen - your comments are irrelevant, as you are offering no evidence to back them up nor offering any alternative scenario which proves there was no abduction.
-
Until you tell us what 'really' happened in your opinon Stephen - your comments are irrelevant, as you are offering no evidence to back them up nor offering any alternative scenario which proves there was no abduction.
I don't need to prove anything.
I am not in charge of any investigation.
There is not jot of evidence that would stand up in court and you know it.
The mccanns have said abduction from the start, and if that is false, there are very few alternatives.
Not a sign of Madeleine in over 6 years and Redwood asking people to look for Madeleine.
As I've said before, they literally don't have a clue, like you.
You clearly adore the Mccanns. As to why ??????
-
I don't need to prove anything.
I am not in charge of any investigation.
There is not jot of evidence that would stand up in court and you know it.
The mccanns have said abduction from the start, and if that is false, there are very few alternatives.
Not a sign of Madeleine in over 6 years and Redwood asking people to look for Madeleine.
As I've said before, they literally don't have a clue, like you.
You clearly adore the Mccanns. As to why ??????
What a silly childish comment.
The rest of your post is irrelevant for the reasons previously given.
Six years and not a single credible theory for anything other than an abduction has ever been witnessed on any McCann forum.
After all this time that can only be because there isn't one.
But if you know different Stephen then why are you so reluctant to share it with us?
-
Yes, a lack of evidence as distinct from there being NO evidence., a big difference Anne.
And why was there a lack of evidence? - Becuase the investigation was incomplete.
Why was the investigation incomplete? - Because the Mccann's and their group refused to take part in the next stage of the investigation which was the reconstruction.
-
What a silly childish comment.
The rest of your post is irrelevant for the reasons previously given.
Six years and not a single credible theory for anything other than an abduction has ever been witnessed on any McCann forum.
After all this time that can only be because there isn't one.
But if you know different Stephen then why are you so reluctant to share it with us?
The childishness as you call it, is from people such as you, who are clearly devoted to the Mccann cause, without even a scrap of viable evidence to back it up.
Very sad.
-
The childishness as you call it, is from people such as you, who are clearly devoted to the Mccann cause, without even a scrap of viable evidence to back it up.
Very sad.
Then the SY team must be 'very sad' too in your eyes Stephen - as I accept their findings.
You obviously believe they've got it all wrong - but you can't come up with a single sensible reason why YOU are right and they are wrong.
All you can do is sneer and insult.
Now that is sad - and also extremely childish.
-
And why was there a lack of evidence? - Becuase the investigation was incomplete.
Why was the investigation incomplete? - Because the Mccann's and their group refused to take part in the next stage of the investigation which was the reconstruction.
It was "incomplete" from the beginning.
So far, NO ONE has been able to point me towards a report of what happened to the missing hairs on Madeleine's bed which somehow don't seem to have ever been received by the lab, let alone tested.
-
Then the SY team must be 'very sad' too in your eyes Stephen - as I accept their findings.
You obviously believe they've got it all wrong - but you can't come up with a single sensible reason why YOU are right and they are wrong.
All you can do is sneer and insult.
Now that is sad - and also extremely childish.
Of course you would say that, because you support the mccanns; hook, line and sink.
I expected no less.
-
First you answer my questions.
I'm not the one pushing abduction ?
So come on, PROVIDE THE PROOF.
As to how people commit crimes and appear 'normal'. History is littered with those.
There are other fiddly details, here, too.
Amaral insists Kate found Madeleine's body. He insists that because Eddie picked up certain items of her clothing in his mouth (he also picked up one of the twin's tee-shirts, by-the-bye ....)
So Gerry is in the restaurant, oblivious and unaware, and Kate has just found the body of her daughter.
Aside from all else, how on earth does Kate find a way of communicating this dreadful news to Gerry without anyone else noticing?
Mission impossible.
All themccannsdunit theories founder on that rock.
Well, OK, not quite all.
There are some conspiracy theories so far-fetched, even Amaral doesn't entertain them.
But let's not go there ...
-
There are other fiddly details, here, too.
Amaral insists Kate found Madeleine's body. He insists that because Eddie picked up certain items of her clothing in his mouth (he also picked up one of the twin's tee-shirts, by-the-bye ....)
So Gerry is in the restaurant, oblivious and unaware, and Kate has just found the body of her daughter.
Aside from all else, how on earth does Kate find a way of communicating this dreadful news to Gerry without anyone else noticing?
Mission impossible.
All themccannsdunit theories founder on that rock.
Well, OK, not quite all.
There are some conspiracy theories so far-fetched, even Amaral doesn't entertain them.
But let's not go there ...
I've never understood when Kate was supposed to have found it in Amaral's theory.
-
It was "incomplete" from the beginning.
So far, NO ONE has been able to point me towards a report of what happened to the missing hairs on Madeleine's bed which somehow don't seem to have ever been received by the lab, let alone tested.
Well any gaps in the investigation could of course been highlighted in a court case and debated between experts for both the defence and the prosecution.
The fact remains that the continuation of the official Police investigation into Madeleine's disappearance required (under Portuguese law) a reconstruction of that night's events to test the veracity of their checking arrangements and to highlight how and when an abductor got in amongst other things.
The McCann's and the Tapas 7 refused to comply and given a lack of evidence discovered anywhere else the PJ were unable to take the investigation forward and had to archive it.
I would have thought supporters of the Mccann's would have welcomed the reconstruction both to prove what the Mccann's said was true and then to revel in the crushing defeat of those Portuguese incompetents in a Court of law if the PJ still pursued a case against the parents.
-
So far, NO ONE has been able to point me towards a report of what happened to the missing hairs on Madeleine's bed which somehow don't seem to have ever been received by the lab, let alone tested.
Just on this point, are you saying hairs were collected but never sent to a lab or that were no hairs found on the bed?
-
Evidence of an abduction are many, as John has already pointed out. The shutters and window in the children's bedroom were never opened by the McCann's as the room was just for sleeping in. When Kate went to check on the children on the 3rd of May both the shutter and window were open.
Madeleine was missing from her bed, her cuddle cat left on the bed, the toy that Kate McCann said was Madeleine's toy of comfort if she was upset. If she had woken and found the McCann's not in the apartment and she had gone looking for them then surely she was have taken her comfort toy?
Madeleine's shoes were also left behind. The patio doors were closed, the gate at the top of the steps was closed. So if Madeleine had gone out to look for her parents she would very tidily have closed the patio doors behind her and the gate at the top of the steps.
Jane Tanner sees a man carrying a child in his arms, not carrying the child against his shoulder as is the usual way of carrying a child who is asleep, especially if the child has not got any kind of covering for warmth, but in stretched out arms an awkward way of carrying. The way in which someone might carry a child who has been handed over by someone else and then the person having to hurry away not having time to switch the child onto his shoulder.
The man Jane Tanner sees is also wearing warm clothing, as Jane Tanner says he didn't look like a tourist as he wasn't dressed as a typical tourist. Strange that this man was dressed warmly on the night of the 3rd of May which was by all account a chilly night as Kate McCann stated. This man had not taken a blanket for the child to keep her warm, yet dressed warmly himself.
The Smith's saw a man carrying a child in his arms at about 10 o'clock, wearing very similar clothing and carrying a child with no covering, no blanket or coat, yet this man too was dressed warmly himself. He was spoken to but did not answer, turning his head away.
Neither of these two men have come forward to say 'it was me', everyone would have known about the missing child in the following days and the man that Jane Tanner saw and the similar looking man that the Smith family saw, yet neither of the men seen come forward to help the police eliminate them from the investigation.
-
Evidence of an abduction are many, as John has already pointed out. The shutters and window in the children's bedroom were never opened by the McCann's as the room was just for sleeping in. When Kate went to check on the children on the 3rd of May both the shutter and window were open.
Madeleine was missing from her bed, her cuddle cat left on the bed, the toy that Kate McCann said was Madeleine's toy of comfort if she was upset. If she had woken and found the McCann's not in the apartment and she had gone looking for them then surely she was have taken her comfort toy?
Madeleine's shoes were also left behind. The patio doors were closed, the gate at the top of the steps was closed. So if Madeleine had gone out to look for her parents she would very tidily have closed the patio doors behind her and the gate at the top of the steps.
Jane Tanner sees a man carrying a child in his arms, not carrying the child against his shoulder as is the usual way of carrying a child who is asleep, especially if the child has not got any kind of covering for warmth, but in stretched out arms an awkward way of carrying. The way in which someone might carry a child who has been handed over by someone else and then the person having to hurry away not having time to switch the child onto his shoulder.
The man Jane Tanner sees is also wearing warm clothing, as Jane Tanner says he didn't look like a tourist as he wasn't dressed as a typical tourist. Strange that this man was dressed warmly on the night of the 3rd of May which was by all account a chilly night as Kate McCann stated. This man had not taken a blanket for the child to keep her warm, yet dressed warmly himself.
The Smith's saw a man carrying a child in his arms at about 10 o'clock, wearing very similar clothing and carrying a child with no covering, no blanket or coat, yet this man too was dressed warmly himself. He was spoken to but did not answer, turning his head away.
Neither of these two men have come forward to say 'it was me', everyone would have known about the missing child in the following days and the man that Jane Tanner saw and the similar looking man that the Smith family saw, yet neither of the men seen come forward to help the police eliminate them from the investigation.
Excellent post Lace. Another small but I think significant point is the fact that this man was out on his own - so why no wife or other family members with him? He obviously wasn't going home after a meal in a restaurant or a visit to a bar with his family (like the Smiths) - and if he was picking his daughter up from babysitters then those people would be able to confirm who he was and what he was doing - so nothing to fear from informing the police it was him that JT and the Smith's saw. And what are the chances of two different men walking through PdL, completely on their own, like that - both carrying a child.
-
Just on this point, are you saying hairs were collected but never sent to a lab or that were no hairs found on the bed?
Only 4 out of the 10 hairs apparently noted by the forensic photo seem to have been received by INML. I may have missed an explanation in the files, but so far I haven't found one.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1246.15
-
Well any gaps in the investigation could of course been highlighted in a court case and debated between experts for both the defence and the prosecution.
The fact remains that the continuation of the official Police investigation into Madeleine's disappearance required (under Portuguese law) a reconstruction of that night's events to test the veracity of their checking arrangements and to highlight how and when an abductor got in amongst other things.
The McCann's and the Tapas 7 refused to comply and given a lack of evidence discovered anywhere else the PJ were unable to take the investigation forward and had to archive it.
I would have thought supporters of the Mccann's would have welcomed the reconstruction both to prove what the Mccann's said was true and then to revel in the crushing defeat of those Portuguese incompetents in a Court of law if the PJ still pursued a case against the parents.
It wouldn't have been the PJ pursuing a case, but the public prosecution service... which archived in full knowledge that the - tardy - reconstruction hadn't taken place.
How would a reconstruction a year later have proven anything?
- Unless you were trying to pass each other on a narrow ledge, how could anyone prove that JT could not have passed without two men engrossed in conversation noticing her pass by?
- What would have been the point about getting Kate back to recreate the circumstances about the door slamming? The PJ would have had to have brought in a wind machine calibrated for any known wind velocity at that time, or to have coordinated a reconstruction date with whichever deity decides on the weather. The PJ may have gone back there on their own anyway (there are photos of Rebelo et al at the apartment).
- What's the point of a physical reconstruction with so many of the other witnesses (staff, other holidaymakers...) absent?
-
It wouldn't have been the PJ pursuing a case, but the public prosecution service... which archived in full knowledge that the - tardy - reconstruction hadn't taken place.
How would a reconstruction a year later have proven anything?
- Unless you were trying to pass each other on a narrow ledge, how could anyone prove that JT could not have passed without two men engrossed in conversation noticing her pass by?
- What would have been the point about getting Kate back to recreate the circumstances about the door slamming? The PJ would have had to have brought in a wind machine calibrated for any known wind velocity at that time, or to have coordinated a reconstruction date with whichever deity decides on the weather. The PJ may have gone back there on their own anyway (there are photos of Rebelo et al at the apartment).
- What's the point of a physical reconstruction with so many of the other witnesses (staff, other holidaymakers...) absent?
A reconstruction would provide crucial information
For instance, it would demonstrate whether it was possible for a man to have been hiding in the children's bedroom, and to have remained undiscovered when Gerry made his check
-
A reconstruction would provide crucial information
For instance, it would demonstrate whether it was possible for a man to have been hiding in the children's bedroom, and to have remained undiscovered when Gerry made his check
Surely that could be done at any time by anyone. It's either possible for a man to hide in the bedroom or it's not. It doesn't need Gerry to be there to find that out.
-
Then the SY team must be 'very sad' too in your eyes Stephen - as I accept their findings.
Easy to accept findings which don't (yet) exist ;)
-
Surely that could be done at any time by anyone. It's either possible for a man to hide in the bedroom or it's not. It doesn't need Gerry to be there to find that out.
It would be certainly better if he checked it himself... cf. "your" corrupt cops, biased experts suspicions, etc.
The reconstruction would put either a man or nobody behind the door. And he wouldn't know.
-
Easy to accept findings which don't (yet) exist ;)
This is one of their findings Anne:-
''We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine MCann to have been removed from that apartment alive.''
This is another one:
Neither the McCanns nor any of the group who were with them are persons of interest or suspects in this case.
-
This is one of their findings Anne:-
''We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine MCann to have been removed from that apartment alive.''
This is another one:
Neither the McCanns nor any of the group who were with them are persons of interest or suspects in this case.
Not original nor precise findings !
1) Everybody's convinced there was opportunity for abduction. But not in the doxa terms, highly implausible. Note that Mr Redwood never said the abduction happened under the nose of Mr McCann (twice in the presence of the man without a face)
2) The Grange operation's task is to review abduction (+ eventual murder) and nothing else. It's not surprising that they don't suspect the McCanns or their holiday companions to have abducted Madeleine.
-
Only 4 out of the 10 hairs
Split hairs perhaps ?
-
Not original nor precise findings !
1) Everybody's convinced there was opportunity for abduction. But not in the doxa terms, highly implausible. Note that Mr Redwood never said the abduction happened under the nose of Mr McCann (twice in the presence of the man without a face)
2) The Grange operation's task is to review abduction (+ eventual murder) and nothing else. It's not surprising that they don't suspect the McCanns or their holiday companions to have abducted Madeleine.
SY believe Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction. What they don't know is what happened to her after she was abducted - and that is what they hope to find out.
They have said the McCanns and their friends are not part of that equation. That seems pretty 'precise' to me
-
SY believe Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction. What they don't know is what happened to her after she was abducted - and that is what they hope to find out.
They have said the McCanns and their friends are not part of that equation. That seems pretty 'precise' to me
Yes they didn't abduct their child, nor did the TP 7. I think we all agree on that.
But as you say SY "believe". As faith is not exactly what is expected from the self-called best police force on the planet, Mr Redwood's stutter speech sounds like submission to orders : find the abductor and, if not, find a reasonable exit out of that mess, because we're quite a lot of authorities or celebrities to have compromised ourselves in this case.
-
Yes they didn't abduct their child, nor did the TP 7. I think we all agree on that.
But as you say SY "believe". As faith is not exactly what is expected from the self-called best police force on the planet, Mr Redwood's stutter speech sounds like submission to orders : find the abductor and, if not, find a reasonable exit out of that mess, because we're quite a lot of authorities or celebrities to have compromised ourselves in this case.
Sorry Anne, but I have read that 3 times, and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.
-
The 4th time will do, Benice !
-
The 4th time will do, Benice !
Nope - still mystified. Would you like to elucidate Anne?
-
I guess, Benice, you understood that police officers aren't expected to express opinions (I believe, I think, I would say, etc.)
I guess you understood as well the ineloquent speech of Mr Redwood reveals he would like to convince but isn't convinced, having not chosen to review this case but being the person in charge.
His final ambiguous statement is easy to interpret as a concern to find a "resolution out of this case".
Authorities and celebrities believed in the McCann doxa, they would hate to be ridiculed. Just a matter or pride.
-
I guess, Benice, you understood that police officers aren't expected to express opinions (I believe, I think, I would say, etc.)
I guess you understood as well the ineloquent speech of Mr Redwood reveals he would like to convince but isn't convinced, having not chosen to review this case but being the person in charge.
His final ambiguous statement is easy to interpret as a concern to find a "resolution out of this case".
Authorities and celebrities believed in the McCann doxa, they would hate to be ridiculed. Just a matter or pride.
I have found nothing ambiguous in his statements Anne. He has clearly stated that he (and I presume he speaks for his whole team) believe that Madeliene was abducted by a stranger and that neither her parents nor their friends were involved in her abduction. What could possibly be more clear than that?
-
What could possibly be more clear than that?
A resolution instead of twisted words :
"I'm hopeful that when we pursue those lines of inquiry that we'll be able to bring some sort of resolution. Whether we'll be able to solve it is a different issue but I hope that we'll be able to make... have the ability to move the investigation on."
Very clear indeed !
-
A reconstruction would provide crucial information
For instance, it would demonstrate whether it was possible for a man to have been hiding in the children's bedroom, and to have remained undiscovered when Gerry made his check
Why in the chidlren's bedroom necessarily? Someone could have been hiding in the parents' bedroom.
-
It wouldn't have been the PJ pursuing a case, but the public prosecution service... which archived in full knowledge that the - tardy - reconstruction hadn't taken place.
How would a reconstruction a year later have proven anything?
- Unless you were trying to pass each other on a narrow ledge, how could anyone prove that JT could not have passed without two men engrossed in conversation noticing her pass by?
- What would have been the point about getting Kate back to recreate the circumstances about the door slamming? The PJ would have had to have brought in a wind machine calibrated for any known wind velocity at that time, or to have coordinated a reconstruction date with whichever deity decides on the weather. The PJ may have gone back there on their own anyway (there are photos of Rebelo et al at the apartment).
- What's the point of a physical reconstruction with so many of the other witnesses (staff, other holidaymakers...) absent?
Yes and the case was archived, precisely because the reconstruction had not taken place. This was mentioned specifcally in the final report.
The fact is that under the Portuguese penal code a reconstruction was required. The fact that you or indeed those who were asked to participate in may not see the validity of it is irrelevant.
It was an official part of the Portuguese investigation. One would expect witnesses not to be able to second guess the police's investigation strategies, nor question what benefit the investigators would gain from it and comply with what the official investigation needed to take the case forward.
If they did the recon and if they were confident in being able to remove any suspicion over them then they would have forced the investigation to have to look at abduction.
The PJ wanted it, the group refused, the case had to be shelved.
When taking a step back, and removing the names of the people involved it is quite frankly gob smacking that witnesses in a child's disappearance, can refuse to take part in a required part of the police's investigation becuase they (the witnesses) do not see the benefit of it to the investigation!
Who are they to say whether a reconstruction would have no benefit to the investigation that the investigators of the case required?
It is outrageous.
-
Yes and the case was archived, precisely because the reconstruction had not taken place. This was mentioned specifcally in the final report.
The fact is that under the Portuguese penal code a reconstruction was required. The fact that you or indeed those who were asked to participate in may not see the validity of it is irrelevant.
It was an official part of the Portuguese investigation. One would expect witnesses not to be able to second guess the police's investigation strategies, nor question what benefit the investigators would gain from it and comply with what the official investigation needed to take the case forward.
If they did the recon and if they were confident in being able to remove any suspicion over them then they would have forced the investigation to have to look at abduction.
The PJ wanted it, the group refused, the case had to be shelved.
When taking a step back, and removing the names of the people involved it is quite frankly gob smacking that witnesses in a child's disappearance, can refuse to take part in a required part of the police's investigation becuase they (the witnesses) do not see the benefit of it to the investigation!
Who are they to say whether a reconstruction would have no benefit to the investigation that the investigators of the case required?
It is outrageous.
If a reconstruction was so important and a legal requirement under Portuguese penal law - why didn't Amaral arrange one in the first few days when the same people were around and events were fresh in people's memories?
-
If a reconstruction was so important and a legal requirement under Portuguese penal law - why didn't Amaral arrange one in the first few days when the same people were around and events were fresh in people's memories?
Quite, Benice. Particularly as he has stated that he suspected the timelines given by the Tapas 9 were inaccurate right from the word go.
-
If a reconstruction was so important and a legal requirement under Portuguese penal law - why didn't Amaral arrange one in the first few days when the same people were around and events were fresh in people's memories?
I have no idea, you would need to ask him. Here's the final archiving report (the one McCann supporters use to claim "exoneration") and it's take on the cancelled reconstruction:
E – About the interest of the reconstruction
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
Please note the following from that passage:
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
Which then raises the question how can you be "exonerated" if you have failed to prove your innocence. But that is probably for another thread.
-
If a reconstruction was so important and a legal requirement under Portuguese penal law - why didn't Amaral arrange one in the first few days when the same people were around and events were fresh in people's memories?
I'm not quite sure what Albertini means about a reconstruction being a legal "requirement". There's a legal provision for one.
-
CAPÍTULO V Da reconstituição do facto
Artigo 150.º
Pressupostos e procedimento
1 - Quando houver necessidade de determinar se um facto poderia ter ocorrido de certa forma, é admissível a sua reconstituição. Esta consiste na reprodução, tão fiel quanto possível, das condições em que se afirma ou se supõe ter ocorrido o facto e na repetição do modo de realização do mesmo.
2 - O despacho que ordenar a reconstituição do facto deve conter uma indicação sucinta do seu objecto, do dia, hora e local em que ocorrerão as diligências e da forma da sua efectivação, eventualmente com recurso a meios audiovisuais. No mesmo despacho pode ser designado perito para execução de operações determinadas.
3 - A publicidade da diligência deve, na medida do possível, ser evitada.
My translation
Chapter 15 On the reconstitution of facts
Article 150.
Presuppositions and procedure
1 - When it is needed to determine whether an event could have occurred in a certain way, the reconstruction of that event is eligible. It consists in reproducing, as closely as possible, the conditions in which the event was assumed or is presumed to have occurred and in repeating the way it was carried out.
2 - The notification for reconstruction of facts must contain a brief mention of its purpose, the date, time and place of the intervention and the manner of its execution, possibly using audiovisual means. In the same notification an expert might be designated to perform certain operations.
3 - The publication of the intervention must, as far as possible, be avoided.