Pick any sentence from Kate's book.

[slartibartfast]

Your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and in my opinion insults Portuguese jurisprudence and the rule of law.

It seems to make sense, why does it insult PT jurisprudence?

[G-Unit]

When you know you're innocent you find it hard to believe that other people cannot see that you are innocent, you believe and hope that someone, somewhere will recognize that you haven't done the things you have been accused of, and that you are being treated unjustly.  It's human to feel this way, and Kate is expressing in her book her human feelings of frustration.    Surely she was within her rights to suggest that there might be some intelligent Portuguese people in authority who didn't believe her guilty of the crimes of which she was being accused?  Why is she wrong to do so, in your opinion?

All your posts seem to rest on the bolded text, which is what you believe. The rest of it is how you imagine such a person might think and feel.

She had no right whatsoever to suggest that people were scared to speak against Amaral.

[Eleanor]

All your posts seem to rest on the bolded text, which is what you believe. The rest of it is how you imagine such a person might think and feel.

She had no right whatsoever to suggest that people were scared to speak against Amaral.

I might.

[Benice]

All your posts seem to rest on the bolded text, which is what you believe. The rest of it is how you imagine such a person might think and feel.

She had no right whatsoever to suggest that people were scared to speak against Amaral.

 Mrs Murat provided a public place for locals who might have information but were scared to approach the police.    Amaral was one of 'the police' in this instance.   He was in charge of the case.    Are you saying she had no right to do that?

[Alfie]

All your posts seem to rest on the bolded text, which is what you believe. The rest of it is how you imagine such a person might think and feel.

She had no right whatsoever to suggest that people were scared to speak against Amaral.

You just don't get it do you?  I am not making any judgements on Kate's innocence or otherwise - YOU are.  Try and understand what I am saying:
Kate is writing the book from the perspective of an innocent person.  Whether or not you believe she is innocent is beside the point.  From the perspective of an innocent person it is perfectly reasonable to write what she did IMO.  Of course, she could be guilty and telling terrible lies throughout the book, but she is consistent in her portrayal of the thoughts and feelings of someone who is innocent and who feels they have been treated unjustly -  by Amaral and the media in Portugal who seemed eager to give him a platform, without any serious challenge to his "thesis".
I don't know if I can make my point any clearer, please don't feel you need to repeat that "we don't know if Kate is innocent or not" - I heard you the first time, shame you didn't understand my first reply!

[ferryman]

Didn't Rebelo say that making The McCanns Arguidos was somewhat hasty hasty?  And was it not to do with an imminent change in the law?

Alipo Ribeiro ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7224347.stm

[Eleanor]

Alipo Ribeiro ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7224347.stm

Thanks, Ferryman.

Ribeiro, not Rebelo.  Sorry.

[G-Unit]

I, personally, am a little bit fed up with the way some people are allowed to get away with making comments on this board without proper context.

The comment of the deputy chief constable of Leicester police was made before release of the files.

The key question is whether, having read them, he would make the same comment.

Surely not ....

Context?

17th May 2007 Madeleine made a Ward of Court.
22nd May 2007 A disclosure order issued by the Court.

Disclosure order served on Leicestershire Police requiring them to release all their evidence on the case to the parents. They refused and the Attorney General and SOCA also got involved in arguing against the order.

Kate doesn't say when the Order was served on LP, but we know it was issued by the Court on 22nd May 2007.

While we were away, there was a hearing in the High Court relating to an application we had made on Madeleine’s behalf for access to all the information held by Leicestershire police relating to her case. [Madeleine]

The reason Kate gives for serving the order on LP is that no-one is searching for Madeleine so they want the information to give to their PI's.

Kate believes the searching stopped when they were made arguidos, so the order may have been served in Autumn 2007.

She was surprised by the force of their refusal;

The UK authorities fought our application tooth and nail. I was shocked by the force of their opposition and the lengths to which they seemed prepared to go to deny us this access in these circumstances. [Madeleine]

I have never heard of the police handing over evidence to anyone, let alone to people under suspicion. I'm surprised the McCann's lawyers didn't point this out to them. In this case a lot of the evidence had been gathered to help the official investigation in Portugal, so it didn't even belong to LP. That, it seems, the McCanns were aware of. The order seems to have been a way of forcing LP legally to do something which the Portuguese wouldn't like.

I’d thought a court order would be seen by the police, who were always telling us their hands were tied, as a way of helping us without upsetting their Portuguese counterparts. If they were required by law to pass us this information, surely the PJ would need to accept that? [Madeleine]

So Kate believed that LP wanted to help them, but were constrained in some way. I wonder why she formed that impression? I'm sure the LP officers behaved entirely professionally and never gave the McCanns reason to believe they were biased in their favour.

In this context the statement by the Deputy Chief Constable makes LP's official position perfectly clear;

‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ [Madeleine]

A statement as true now as it was then. There may be no evidence to implicate them, but equally there's no clear evidence which eliminates them. If there is, it hasn't been shared with the general public. Speculating as to whether that view has changed is fine, but there's no evidence that it has.

For anyone interested, more here;
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

[sadie]

It is impossible to judge the (shelved) enquiry properly without reading the files.

And it ought to be impossible to conclude other than to conclude (upon reading the files) that the decision to drop the McCanns' arguido status was justified through-and-through.

It's technically accurate to say the McCanns weren't "cleared" (because they were never charged) and to be "cleared" you, first, have to be charged and tried.

The question of whether they should have been made arguidos is likely to be the stumbling point of disagreement.

Even the prosecutors said the decision (to declare them arguidos) was justified (a rare point of disagreement with the prosecutors I, personally, have.  On the whole, I think think the Prosecutors were very good.)

This board won't allow discussion of my reasons for disagreeing with the prosecutors that the decision to make kate and Gerry arguidos was  justified.

Why ever not?

I would like to see your reasons for disagreeing with the prosecutors for their decision against Kate and Gerry.

I find your arguments very solid.


Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech ?

[G-Unit]

You just don't get it do you?  I am not making any judgements on Kate's innocence or otherwise - YOU are.  Try and understand what I am saying:
Kate is writing the book from the perspective of an innocent person.  Whether or not you believe she is innocent is beside the point.  From the perspective of an innocent person it is perfectly reasonable to write what she did IMO.  Of course, she could be guilty and telling terrible lies throughout the book, but she is consistent in her portrayal of the thoughts and feelings of someone who is innocent and who feels they have been treated unjustly -  by Amaral and the media in Portugal who seemed eager to give him a platform, without any serious challenge to his "thesis".
I don't know if I can make my point any clearer, please don't feel you need to repeat that "we don't know if Kate is innocent or not" - I heard you the first time, shame you didn't understand my first reply!

I don't think anyone has the right to suggest that people stay quiet because they're scared without explaining why they think that. As it stands, it's an unfounded allegation.

[ferryman]

Context?

17th May 2007 Madeleine made a Ward of Court.
22nd May 2007 A disclosure order issued by the Court.

Disclosure order served on Leicestershire Police requiring them to release all their evidence on the case to the parents. They refused and the Attorney General and SOCA also got involved in arguing against the order.

Kate doesn't say when the Order was served on LP, but we know it was issued by the Court on 22nd May 2007.

While we were away, there was a hearing in the High Court relating to an application we had made on Madeleine’s behalf for access to all the information held by Leicestershire police relating to her case. [Madeleine]

The reason Kate gives for serving the order on LP is that no-one is searching for Madeleine so they want the information to give to their PI's.

Kate believes the searching stopped when they were made arguidos, so the order may have been served in Autumn 2007.

She was surprised by the force of their refusal;

The UK authorities fought our application tooth and nail. I was shocked by the force of their opposition and the lengths to which they seemed prepared to go to deny us this access in these circumstances. [Madeleine]

I have never heard of the police handing over evidence to anyone, let alone to people under suspicion. I'm surprised the McCann's lawyers didn't point this out to them. In this case a lot of the evidence had been gathered to help the official investigation in Portugal, so it didn't even belong to LP. That, it seems, the McCanns were aware of. The order seems to have been a way of forcing LP legally to do something which the Portuguese wouldn't like.

I’d thought a court order would be seen by the police, who were always telling us their hands were tied, as a way of helping us without upsetting their Portuguese counterparts. If they were required by law to pass us this information, surely the PJ would need to accept that? [Madeleine]

So Kate believed that LP wanted to help them, but were constrained in some way. I wonder why she formed that impression? I'm sure the LP officers behaved entirely professionally and never gave the McCanns reason to believe they were biased in their favour.

In this context the statement by the Deputy Chief Constable makes LP's official position perfectly clear;

‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ [Madeleine]

A statement as true now as it was then. There may be no evidence to implicate them, but equally there's no clear evidence which eliminates them. If there is, it hasn't been shared with the general public. Speculating as to whether that view has changed is fine, but there's no evidence that it has.

For anyone interested, more here;
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

Yes, context.

The case was shelved in August 2008.

By the autumn of 2007, ill-founded suspicion against the McCanns was beginning to gather force.

That is the context of the comment.

[Benice]

Context?

17th May 2007 Madeleine made a Ward of Court.
22nd May 2007 A disclosure order issued by the Court.

Disclosure order served on Leicestershire Police requiring them to release all their evidence on the case to the parents. They refused and the Attorney General and SOCA also got involved in arguing against the order.

Kate doesn't say when the Order was served on LP, but we know it was issued by the Court on 22nd May 2007.

While we were away, there was a hearing in the High Court relating to an application we had made on Madeleine’s behalf for access to all the information held by Leicestershire police relating to her case. [Madeleine]

The reason Kate gives for serving the order on LP is that no-one is searching for Madeleine so they want the information to give to their PI's.

Kate believes the searching stopped when they were made arguidos, so the order may have been served in Autumn 2007.

She was surprised by the force of their refusal;

The UK authorities fought our application tooth and nail. I was shocked by the force of their opposition and the lengths to which they seemed prepared to go to deny us this access in these circumstances. [Madeleine]

I have never heard of the police handing over evidence to anyone, let alone to people under suspicion. I'm surprised the McCann's lawyers didn't point this out to them. In this case a lot of the evidence had been gathered to help the official investigation in Portugal, so it didn't even belong to LP. That, it seems, the McCanns were aware of. The order seems to have been a way of forcing LP legally to do something which the Portuguese wouldn't like.

I’d thought a court order would be seen by the police, who were always telling us their hands were tied, as a way of helping us without upsetting their Portuguese counterparts. If they were required by law to pass us this information, surely the PJ would need to accept that? [Madeleine]

So Kate believed that LP wanted to help them, but were constrained in some way. I wonder why she formed that impression? I'm sure the LP officers behaved entirely professionally and never gave the McCanns reason to believe they were biased in their favour.

In this context the statement by the Deputy Chief Constable makes LP's official position perfectly clear;

‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ [Madeleine]

A statement as true now as it was then. There may be no evidence to implicate them, but equally there's no clear evidence which eliminates them. If there is, it hasn't been shared with the general public. Speculating as to whether that view has changed is fine, but there's no evidence that it has.

For anyone interested, more here;
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

The McCanns were still arguidos.   The DCC would have caused a diplomatic incident had he appeared to do anything which even hinted that he disagreed with that decision by the PT police force.     Releasing the files to arguidos would have given that impression imo.

IMO he tried to steer a middle road by making the statement he did.

The McCanns were badly advised to expect or to even ask for the release of files - while they were still arguidos imo.

[sadie]

I don't think anyone has the right to suggest that people stay quiet because they're scared without explaining why they think that. As it stands, it's an unfounded allegation.

Even with my limited knowledge of the PJ's modus operandi, I would be frightened to go to them for any reason.

Both in the Michael Cook case and in the Leonor Cipriano case we have 'witnesses' whose statements were used in Court to convict.  In both these instances the statements were later withdrawn by the 'witnesses'.

We know from reports that Leandro Silvas statement came as the result of having been physically attacked ...

We dont know why the other witness withdrew his statement after it had been used in Court to help convict Michael Cook, but we can make an educated guerss.


Jenny Murat set up her stand, she says, in case people who had knowledge of what happened to Madeleine were frightened to go to the Police.

That is enough for me.

Sounds like the Salazar (spelling?) era is exerting its influence.

[Alfie]

I don't think anyone has the right to suggest that people stay quiet because they're scared without explaining why they think that. As it stands, it's an unfounded allegation.

  Priceless.  It's called "having an opinion" - she's writing a book about her own experiences, thoughts and feelings at the time, not giving evidence in court FFS. EVERYONE has a right to an opinion and to express themselves I thought?

[G-Unit]

Mrs Murat provided a public place for locals who might have information but were scared to approach the police.    Amaral was one of 'the police' in this instance.   He was in charge of the case.    Are you saying she had no right to do that?

She said;

the deponent states that because she has been in Portugal for a long time and knows many people, she decided to mount a "post" to collect information in order to be able to determine things about the subject and thus could channel them to the competent authorities. For three days (Friday 11/05, Saturday 12/05 and Sunday 13/05) she was at the "post" mounted near to the cinema having obtained some information that she gave to Robert who, in turn, gave it to the Police.
--- Her idea was to try to sensitise people not to feel intimidated by the presence of police and lead them to give all the information that they knew.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JENNIFER-MURAT.htm

You are assuming that intimidated means scared.

Sensitise; make people aware. Intimidated; overawed.

So her aim can be seen as an effort to make people aware there was no need to feel overawed by the police presence.