Why did Amaral and PJ suspect the McCanns and Murat as being somehow involved?

[AnneGuedes]

Are you feeling quite well Anne?

The front door could be double locked from the inside (without a key) or from the outside (with a key - an extra turn would double lock).  The only problem is that the door could also be opened, using the staff key, even when double locked from the inside.  As was quite widely reported by others at the time. 

Incidentally, Amaral ruled out the use of the front door in his documentary because "nobody was authorised to have a key".  Which gives something of the measure of the man.

Are you feeling well, Jean-Pierre ?
The entrance/exit door couldn't be double locked from the inside without a key.

[gilet]

You'd better read the AG report about the requirement to make the McCanns arguidos (it was to protect them, if I may remind you). It's very clear. I posted it yesterday, the nurse evidently claimed that I forged it !
If you're interested in the AR polemic, there are documents on the web, study particularly Prof Marcelo Ribeiro de Sousa's sayings about the topic. Mr Amaral had nothing to do with this, in spite of what the UK media pretended. The conflict was between the MP and the PJ direction.

To be perfectly frank it matters not who was responsible. The decision was hasty and till you provide evidence for your claim (not simply names of people who may or may not have said something about it) then my interpretation for that hasty decision is equally as valid as yours.

And my reason for including the name of Amaral in that post is because it was him who claimed that this was the fundamental reason that the direction of the case changed and the McCanns were made arguidos.

You still have not addressed the issue as to whether the use of the forensics was a cynical one or an ignorant one though.

[AnneGuedes]

Actually imo Alipio Ribeiro was very right to say the arguido operation had been hasty. But it was very wrong to say it after 5 months and moreover when the investigation was stagnant mainly because of the rogatory odisseia. The investigators were desperate to achieve something and felt the case would likely be archived. The MP had decided the McCanns wouldn't be interviewed again (what for ? Silence ?) and might have foreseen the reconstruction would be refused.

[Jean-Pierre]

Are you feeling well, Jean-Pierre ?
The entrance/exit door couldn't be double locked from the inside without a key.

Fair enough, Anne.  However, the fact remains that the door could be double locked.  But also that anyone with a staff key could unlock the door.

Which does rather trash Amarals triumphal "Provas Finais" in his documentary. 

[AnneGuedes]

To be perfectly frank it matters not who was responsible. The decision was hasty and till you provide evidence for your claim (not simply names of people who may or may not have said something about it) then my interpretation for that hasty decision is equally as valid as yours.

And my reason for including the name of Amaral in that post is because it was him who claimed that this was the fundamental reason that the direction of the case changed and the McCanns were made arguidos.

You still have not addressed the issue as to whether the use of the forensics was a cynical one or an ignorant one though.

The MP was responsible for the decision. It matters, yes. This is reflected in the AG report. Read it. Mr Amaral explains in his book the positive points of the arguido status. The McCanns had asked to be assistants in the process, which would have given them about the same rights. Among them there is a right to ask for interventions. Did the McCanns use it ?
The dogs episode was indeed a change of orientation in the investigation, as noted by Mrs McCann in her book and dimmed by Mr McCann in his blog. But at the origin of this change was Mr Rainbow who suggested the McCanns should be seriously investigated for the reasons you know. This is why Prof Harrison was solicited..
To answer your question about the use of the forensic, I think it was a big mistake of the PJ, neither cynical (no PJ job) nor ignorant (there's a medico legal institute to answer questions) but naive. The implication (a body in a car) was highly implausible, but the truth was inadmissible for them and this explains that.
It was a big mistake because it relieved the McCanns' tension (they knew Madeleine's body never was in that car) and gave them strength to mock the alerts of Eddie in the flat.

[AnneGuedes]

Fair enough, Anne.  However, the fact remains that the door could be double locked.  But also that anyone with a staff key could unlock the door.

Which does rather trash Amarals triumphal "Provas Finais" in his documentary.

A staff key is possible. I find this a rather complicated solution (steal the key without being noticed, copy it in a hurry in Lagos, put it back, sounds Enid Blyton), if the window door wasn't closed, or was it ?

[gilet]

Actually imo Alipio Ribeiro was very right to say the arguido operation had been hasty. But it was very wrong to say it after 5 months and moreover when the investigation was stagnant mainly because of the rogatory odisseia. The investigators were desperate to achieve something and felt the case would likely be archived. The MP had decided the McCanns wouldn't be interviewed again (what for ? Silence ?) and might have foreseen the reconstruction would be refused.

So now you are not only making guesses for yourself but guessing what the MP might have been guessing.  That's quite an 'odisseia' (oddyssey in English). I wonder where it will lead? Cloud cuckoo land maybe?

Desperation on the part of the investigators is no reason either to cynically ignore the forensic results and to press ahead with making these people arguidos as you seem to be suggesting.

By the way, why do you use Portuguese words in English sentences? Would you like me to recommend an online dictionary? Or is it not lack of a dictionary but some other motive you have for such a weird kind of action?

[AnneGuedes]

The 'breaking in' claim can be explained very easily and put down to a lack of knowledge by the McCanns as to how window shutters worked in Portuguese apartments.  They didn't know that they could be lifted from the outside.  They also didn't know that they could be locked in the down position but still be raised sufficiently to allow some air and light through them without compromising security.

Had they been informed the outcome might well have been so different.

There's nothing in the McCann statements about "break-in". The forced shutters were the version for the family and friends in the UK.
Mr McCann had a certain experience of those shutters since he broke his bedroom's ones on the first night, though a board in the flat says how to use these shutters and what you shouldn't do with them.
These shutters can be in part lifted from the outside but fall and possibly break as soon as you release them, because you can't roll them without using the inside belt.
I don't think these shutters were the modern ones who effectively are lockable.

[Redblossom]

The problem with your comment is that Amaral has told us this was a fundamental point on which the case was moved in that direction and why the McCanns were made arguidos.

As I have pointed out that was either a cynical decision made knowing the alerts from the dogs had not been ratified or was a decision made through ignorance and a complete misunderstanding of the forensic results.

Do you have any other suggestion as to what the motive for this hasty decision could have been?

Yes, a turning point, but not something to make them arguidos just out of the blue, they had their suspicions beforehand no? Even if nothing stuck in the end.  British police normally make very quick movements in making people of interest or suspects or arrested on suspicion on....4/5 months is pushing the boat a little in comparison....and which also supports the fact that despite any suspicions it was treated as an abduction for quite a long time

[gilet]

There's nothing in the McCann statements about "break-in". The forced shutters were the version for the family and friends in the UK.
Mr McCann had a certain experience of those shutters since he broke his bedroom's ones on the first night, though a board in the flat says how to use these shutters and what you shouldn't do with them.
These shutters can be in part lifted from the outside but fall and possibly break as soon as you release them, because you can't roll them without using the inside belt.
I don't think these shutters were the modern ones who effectively are lockable.

The section I have underlined in your post is very interesting.

It shows that you have a preset notion of the reason for those claims.

Perhaps they were simply an initial reaction from an extremely anxious parent about a situation he wasn't fully comprehending and transmitted as such to the family in the UK who were in no position to verify things for themselves. And perhaps by the time the interviews took place the following day, then the situation regarding the window/shutters was clearer.

Your presumption that the McCanns, who come from a country quite unused to shutters of this nature, should simply read a board which you tell us explains everything is pretty silly. In the blind panic of a child going missing do you really think that people might not get confused over things which they are unfamiliar with?

Your post shows no real understanding at all of what might have been happening that night. It is devoid of any recognition that you are posting without emotional involvement and with the benefit of hindsight.

[AnneGuedes]

Yes, a turning point, but not something to make them arguidos just out of the blue, they had their suspicions beforehand no? Even if nothing stuck in the end.  British police normally make very quick movements in making people of interest or suspects or arrested on suspicion on....4/5 months is pushing the boat a little in comparison....and which also supports the fact that despite any suspicions it was treated as an abduction for quite a long time

In fact, it was extra-ordinary to imagine people, educated ones, lied not to cover an homicide, but the disposal of a body as the result of an accident. Two desolated parents (no doubt about that) stated with discrepancies and claimed the abduction hypothesis as the only possible one because "they knew", though evidently they were not there (as they illogically lamented...). What for ? This is the mystery. But having no evident answer shouldn't be a reason to reject the involvement.
Lee Rainbow, pragmatically, said it had to be investigated.

[gilet]

In fact, it was extra-ordinary to imagine people, educated ones, lied not to cover an homicide, but the disposal of a body as the result of an accident. Two desolated parents (no doubt about that) stated with discrepancies and claimed the abduction hypothesis as the only possible one because "they knew", though evidently they were not there (as they illogically lamented...). What for ? This is the mystery. But having no evident answer shouldn't be a reason to reject the involvement.
Lee Rainbow, pragmatically, said it had to be investigated.

But you are forgetting that it was investigated. And the result was that the McCanns were released from their arguido status because there was no evidence against them.

And that it has subsequently been investigated and the Scotland Yard team have stated that neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects or even persons of interest in the case.

Such forgetfulness on your part is quite alarming.

[AnneGuedes]

The forced shutters were the version for the family and friends in the UK.
The version of Mr McCann to the PJ at the same time is "open shutters".

[gilet]

The forced shutters were the version for the family and friends in the UK.
The version of Mr McCann to the PJ at the same time is "open shutters".

And once again you are completely ignoring the post I made earlier with a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why in the heat of the panic of a missing child the McCanns may have not understood the mechanism of the shutters when talking with family but by the time of the interviews may have become more aware of how they work.

Why are you deliberately ignoring this and posting a suggestion that it might have been two deliberate stories created by the McCanns for different audiences?

Why are you completely unable to grasp that there is for parents an emotional impact when a child goes missing which might cloud your immediate understanding of certain things particularly things as unfamiliar as the mechanism of shutters which you very rarely have any contact with? Why are you unable to recognise that you are posting without that emotional stress and with the benefit of hindsight.

Till you recognise that there are other potential explanations for what you are claiming is so clear cut then you will be seen by readers to be very blinkered in outlook.

[Jean-Pierre]

Of course they should have been investigated, Anne.  That is not in dispute, and they were, and AG made his statement. 

The fact is that after 15 September 2007, the PJ would not have been able to constiute the McCanns or Murat as Argidos, becuase they did not have any proof of involvement.  Of course if they wanted to ask them certain questions (like the 48 questions) then they would not have been able to without the McCanns having arguido right, and for this they would have needed some proof beyond suspicion.  (which is an interesting problem for the Portuguese police under the revised penal code - and has a parallel in the UK with the revised "sus" laws.

I have just watched Amaral's documentary / drama again.  It is truly dreadful.  If he thinks what he has produced is "proof", then god help those investigate by him.  As far as I can see, made for one purpose - to make some cash out of the disappearance of a little child.