Has support for Amaral and the Mccanns reached devotion by their supporters ?

[icabodcrane]

Well let's look at my views:

What happened to Madeleine?: I don't know whether Madeleine was snatched, wandered or was killed by her family. There is little evidence to decide these matters- the AG said so and I tend to agree.

The Public Prosecutor,  in his final report,  also allowed for the possibility of  'neglectful homicide'  ...  that is to say,  that the missing child died of an accident as a consequence of her parents negligence

That is the one scenario that you seem to have overlooked

[BigFatBlonde]

The Public Prosecutor,  in his final report,  also allowed for the possibility of  'neglectful homicide'  ...  that is to say,  that the missing child died of an accident as a consequence of her parents negligence

That is the one scenario that you seem to have overlooked

Or natural causes and the body hidden could be a possibility.

that's the thing isn't it - there is no real evidence of what happened so it all boils down to interpretation of the known facts. You can't be surprised that the PJ were suspicious of the parents given the circumstances as statistically they were the most likely culprits IF wrongdoing had occurred - they had precious little else to go on.

From the NSPCC (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/statistics/child_homicide_statistics_wda48747.html)

Every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent. In over two thirds (67% on average) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect.

These are figures for the UK.

edited to add stats and link

N

[Aiofe]

The Public Prosecutor,  in his final report,  also allowed for the possibility of  'neglectful homicide'  ...  that is to say,  that the missing child died of an accident as a consequence of her parents negligence

That is the one scenario that you seem to have overlooked

Find another hair to split.

Neglectful homicide is homicide by definition, homicide is the responsibility for killing someone, I said that "killed by parents" was a possibility. If they were guilty of neglectful homicide, that is a finding that she was killed by her parents actions or omissions.

Try to find something substantial to argue with. Petty disagreements are a waste of time.

[Aiofe]

Or natural causes and the body hidden could be a possibility.

that's the thing isn't it - there is no real evidence of what happened so it all boils down to interpretation of the known facts. You can't be surprised that the PJ were suspicious of the parents given the circumstances as statistically they were the most likely culprits IF wrongdoing had occurred and they had precious little else to go on.

N

Abduction by aliens is a possibility. What possible circumstances would lead anyone to conceal a body if there was a death by natural causes?

Statistics are inapplicable to single cases. They give only a probability, not evidence of any kind.

[icabodcrane]

Find another hair to split.

Neglectful homicide is homicide by definition, homicide is the responsibility for killing someone, I said that "killed by parents" was a possibility. If they were guilty of neglectful homicide, that is a finding that she was killed by her parents actions or omissions.

Try to find something substantial to argue with. Petty disagreements are a waste of time.

I just wondered why,  when giving a list of possibilities,  you did not say she might have died of an accident whilst her parents were out at night

[Aiofe]

I just wondered why,  when giving a list of possibilities,  you did not say she might have died of an accident whilst her parents were out at night

Because that would be neglectful homicide.

[BigFatBlonde]

Abduction by aliens is a possibility. What possible circumstances would lead anyone to conceal a body if there was a death by natural causes?

Statistics are inapplicable to single cases. They give only a probability, not evidence of any kind.

The stats were there to illustrate why the PJ focussed on the parents, not as evidence of what most likely occurred. this was clear in my post.

N

[Aiofe]

The stats were there to illustrate why the PJ focussed on the parents, not as evidence of what most likely occurred. this was clear in my post.

N

Statistics are inapplicable to single cases. They should never be used as a criteria for inclusion or exclusion, only as background guidance.

Let me give you an example.

A penny is flipped a hundred times in succession and the result is 49 heads 51 tails.

Flips 101- 109 are all heads.

What does that tell us about flip 110?

What does it tell us about flips 110-120?

[Luz]

Having read some of the threads on forums  and facebook, it seems to me the extremes on both sides have gone to far.

Where will it end ?

Yes.

I would say that, after what I've read here and in other places a sort of fundamentalism has been developed for both sides.

Sometimes it is unbelievable how far people go to the point of almost threatening the other side for a difference of opinion.

It will end when people understand that there is only one victim: a 3 years old child that is most probably dead.

[Aiofe]

Yes.

I would say that, after what I've read here and in other places a sort of fundamentalism has been developed for both sides.

Sometimes it is unbelievable how far people go to the point of almost threatening the other side for a difference of opinion.

It will end when people understand that there is only one victim: a 3 years old child that is most probably dead.

It might help if people backed up their statements with evidence rather than just expressing their opinion as a fact.

[BigFatBlonde]

Statistics are inapplicable to single cases. They should never be used as a criteria for inclusion or exclusion, only as background guidance.

Let me give you an example.

A penny is flipped a hundred times in succession and the result is 49 heads 51 tails.

Flips 101- 109 are all heads.

What does that tell us about flip 110?

What does it tell us about flips 110-120?

I don't need an example, but thanks. As I have made clear - the PJ had nothing to go on, no evidence of abduction and very little forensic evidence. So it is understandable that they looked at the parents rather than an accident, alien abduction etc. They know that 67% of the time it's the parents so they investigate them. It was all they had.

That doesn't mean it was the parents, but it would be negligent of them to ignore the figures.

If you have no idea where your car keys are but historically you tend to find them in your coat pocket - where is the first place you look? Do you discount what *tends* to be the most likely place because this time it might not be? Do you start looking for evidence that someone has entered your house and taken them? I would suggest that most people would go with the stats and look in their coat. This is the crux of what I am saying.

Missing car keys are complex than coin flips as there are more than two possible outcomes - the bloody things could be anywhere so you have to have some sort of plan for their discovery.
N

[Aiofe]

I don't need an example, but thanks. As I have made clear - the PJ had nothing to go on, no evidence of abduction and very little forensic evidence. So it is understandable that they looked at the parents rather than an accident, alien abduction etc. They know that 67% of the time it's the parents so they investigate them. It was all they had.

That doesn't mean it was the parents, but it would be negligent of them to ignore the figures.

If you have no idea where your car keys are but historically you tend to find them in your coat pocket - where is the first place you look? Do you discount what *tends* to be the most likely place because this time it might not be? Do you start looking for evidence that someone has entered your house and taken them? I would suggest that most people would go with the stats and look in their coat. This is the crux of what I am saying.

Missing car keys are complex than coin flips as there are more than two possible outcomes - the bloody things could be anywhere so you have to have some sort of plan for their discovery.
N

Of course all avenues should be investigated. But any reliance on statistics for any real information in a single case is totally useless.

[Luz]

Meanwhile, fundamentalists keep making other victims, that if you allow me I won't mention, but that everyone is conscious of.

Police officers didn't kidnap the child;
All the random sightings were media fakes and some with victimization of some children and adults ;
Web commentators didn't harm the child;
The last pretended suspects are but another attempt to divert guilt away...

As I said, there is one victim: a 3 year old girl, there is no need to make more as has been done along these last years.

[BigFatBlonde]

Of course all avenues should be investigated. But any reliance on statistics for any real information in a single case is totally useless.

I never said anyone relied on it. Put yourself in their shoes at the start of the investigation, there is no evidence of abduction other than a statement made by 1 person who had been with a group who were drinking.

so, you start to search and don't find anything.

You are scuppered - you have nothing to go on. Witness statements don't match and everyone is screaming for a resolution.

In these circumstances it is perfectly understandable why attention turned to the parents. Not even because you *think* they did it, but because you can justify your decision to your superiors.

It was the only option the PJ had at the time.

N

[Wonderfulspam]

I never said anyone relied on it. Put yourself in their shoes at the start of the investigation, there is no evidence of abduction other than a statement made by 1 person who had been with a group who were drinking.

so, you start to search and don't find anything.

You are scuppered - you have nothing to go on. Witness statements don't match and everyone is screaming for a resolution.

In these circumstances it is perfectly understandable why attention turned to the parents. Not even because you *think* they did it, but because you can justify your decision to your superiors.

It was the only option the PJ had at the time.

N

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2765.0

Francisco Moita Flores is a retired Polícia Judiciária (PJ) Inspector, he is also a writer. 

SO – What reason did you have to comment on this case?

MF says that first it is his job.  He does it professionally because he has experience of being a police inspector and has connections with the police. In this particular case he says that very early he claimed that the police were making errors.

SO – Why?

MF Because they should have considered all the possible hypotheses instead of restricting the investigation to the prefabricated idea of abduction.



GP – Do you think that, because of the book, they stopped investigating the case?

MF says he was perplexed when the case was shelved. He feels he has to say that the case was very well investigated. If the Public Ministry doesn't reopen the case, it's because no relevant piece of evidence has been brought. The witness suggests that the case suffered carnival aspects and early errors, the biggest being not to have investigated the parents. Life shows us that there are parents who mistreat their children and this eventuality could not be properly discarded.



RA – When you said that the police had committed an error in investigating only the abduction hypothesis, what do you base that assumption on?

MF answers that it is based on his own experience. Experience says that the main suspects are closest to the victim and that the solution is often the simpler one. He adds that an abduction assumption cannot be discarded, but should not be the first or only one to be examined.


RA – Why were you perplexed when the process was shelved?

MF  I found that the contradictions by the people who had access to the McCann apartment were not explored sufficiently. It was a fundamental error not to isolate them, check who had access to the apartment and collect the data relating to their phone calls in order to clarify the discrepancies in their statements. If it had been done, we wouldn't be here, involved in a trial on freedom of opinion.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id347.html

The former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral said today that it was a "victory for democracy" - the decision of the Supreme Court to allow distribution of his book "The Truth of the Lie" about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Gonçalo Amaral

"This decision was a victory for democracy. What was at issue was freedom of speech,"

"From that couple, I already expect everything. Nonetheless, if in fact they are looking for their daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her"