Goncalo Amaral interviewed after the Appeal Court decision.

[Robittybob1]

Their words were "failed to demonstrate their innocence"....which is a disgrace...its up to the police to find evidence of guilt .....the mccanns could not refuse to attend  a reconstruction....they were not asked to....but I doubt you are aware of that

Are you certain about that?  I had a feeling not all of the T9 had been asked to attend and Jez Wilkins was asked and he was outside of the T9.  So quite clearly the reconstruction wasn't based on the T9 group but on certain witnesses.  I had always thought the McCanns were asked, but I could be wrong.

[Mr Gray]

Are you certain about that?  I had a feeling not all of the T9 had been asked to attend and Jez Wilkins was asked and he was outside of the T9.  So quite clearly the reconstruction wasn't based on the T9 group but on certain witnesses.  I had always thought the McCanns were asked, but I could be wrong.

The reconstruction never got off the ground because the pj were unable to persuade others to come.....
as far as I am aware the mccanns were never asked....they didnt need to be asked....they would have been ordered

[Robittybob1]

The reconstruction never got off the ground because the pj were unable to persuade others to come.....
as far as I am aware the mccanns were never asked....they didnt need to be asked....they would have been ordered

There is a file with all the emails asking them to attend I was going to base the numbers on that.  Trouble with this case it is hard to remember where everything is all the time.  G-unit seems to have an indexing system so will be able to help but we need our own.
The McCanns were allowed to go back to England while they were still arguidos so yes it would have been a condition that they return if requested or ordered as you put it.

[ShiningInLuz]

Here's the perfect opportunity for you to explain to us lesser mortals how a reconstruction would have demonstrated the McCanns' innocence.  Over to you.

I very much doubt a reconstruction would have demonstrated the McCanns innocence.  Over to you.

[Mr Gray]

I very much doubt a reconstruction would have demonstrated the McCanns innocence.  Over to you.

then it was rather stupid of the archiving report to state that it could

[Robittybob1]

With all due respects, rubbish.  There are laws in Portugal re what is released into the public domain and what is not.  They followed the law.

Is the file with the Gaspar letters attached the only PJ file that is banned from this forum's website?  If it was lawful to publish it why is it banned here?

[ShiningInLuz]

Is the file with the Gaspar letters attached the only PJ file that is banned from this forum's website?  If it was lawful to publish it why is it banned here?

Debate about the statements is not welcome for the simple reason that the mods do not wish to superglue themselves to the screen to remove libel 24 hours per day.

Feel free to post links to the statements.

But don't try to discuss aka wander down libel lane.

[Robittybob1]

Debate about the statements is not welcome for the simple reason that the mods do not wish to superglue themselves to the screen to remove libel 24 hours per day.

Feel free to post links to the statements.

But don't try to discuss aka wander down libel lane.

Eleanor made it clear the links aren't allowed.  Safe than sorry possibly.

[Alfie]

I very much doubt a reconstruction would have demonstrated the McCanns innocence.  Over to you.

Then why do the Portuguese authorities and Sc Judges keep harping on about it?  As Davel said earlier it's a good example of their mischief-making.

[ShiningInLuz]

Then why do the Portuguese authorities and Sc Judges keep harping on about it?  As Davel said earlier it's a good example of their mischief-making.

The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.

[Robittybob1]

The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.

Mischief making might make it sound a bit frivolous but I did see it written somewhere it was important to always make it appear that the Portuguese police are not discredited in the public eye.   To have the population of Portugal respecting the police is an incredibly valuable asset and to think that two potentially guilty English perpetrators could take a former inspector of the PJ to court and win would not be a good look.  So any bluff saying they are not proven innocent partly because they didn't have the reconstruction, which as far as I can see was never blocked by the McCanns, gives them what appears to the general population credence to say their appeal is over ruled.

[Robittybob1]

I believe the archiving report covers what could and could not be released.  However you have impugned the Portuguese authorities with "shows the mischief the Portuguese were trying to cause" so it is up to you to provide evidence supporting this nonsense.

I didn't find anything in the archiving report about the release of the file.
On every document is the statement "This information belongs to the Ministério Público in Portimão, Portugal. It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law".
So what is this law?

"Later the attorney general's office in Portugal, where secrecy laws prevent information about ongoing cases being released, issued a rare statement to clarify the position. The office confirmed the "final report" had been prepared by the police and sent to the public prosecutor. The statement said the report would be considered carefully, adding: "The prosecutor's office will proceed with the global analysis and evaluation of the whole case (which contains dozens of files) in order to determine whether or not the necessary and sufficient conditions have been met allowing for the case's closure."

The statement concluded by saying that the case remained "under judicial secrecy until mid-August"."

So it seems a very rare event that requires special authorisation.  It seems initially that the case had to be closed (with the potential to be reopened on request).  https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/02/madeleinemccann.ukcrime

From the same article "Henrique Machado, of the Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manhã, which reported that the case was being closed, told the Guardian: "This is not surprising. With no evidence to go on this was only expected." He said many people in Portugal felt the police were overwhelmed by the frenzy surrounding the case.

"In Portugal there is a feeling this was always a difficult case from the start which was not helped by the media coverage."

The latest developments came only hours after police officer Gonçalo Amaral, who was removed from the case in October, retired. He is believed to be writing a book on the case."

The timing of the writing of the book, the release of the file, and retirement seem more than coincidental.
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
came out on the 10th SEP 2007.

[Mr Gray]

The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.

The decision of the SC is beyond ludicrous when we take into account what amaral has said
But as you showed last week you are not aware of quite a lot of his accusations

[Robittybob1]

Getting a bit more idea why the file was released:
"Their Portuguese lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu was lodging an application for access to the files today and they are expected to be released by the end of the week.
The McCanns will then have 20 days to appeal against the Portuguese attorney general's decision to drop the case, although this is unlikely.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036698/Police-report-Madeleines-disappearance-leaked-online-McCanns-threaten-sue-police-bungled-probe.html#ixzz4bNLh7Edx"

[Mr Gray]

The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.

Another example of clear mischief making is that the McCanns were not charged because there was not enough evidence against them when in realliy there is no real evidence that implicates them
An accusation you have repeated
If there is evidence please state it
Otherwise stick to the facts