How useful is discussion if people post opinions but claim they are facts? The only way to check if a fact is a fact is by a cite being provided. The rules which distinguish opinion from fact were introduced because heated arguments were taking place over unsubstantiated 'facts', as I recall.
I don't think the media were wrong to settle out of court because they were guilty of repeating rumours about what evidence the PJ had. Unlike Amaral who repeated what the PJ actually had, as the Portuguese courts noted.
There was a moment in time when Amaral was in charge of an investigation which in my opinion followed entirely the wrong tack.
That situation was rectified when he was sacked and replaced by a competent investigation led by Paulo Rebelo which followed and investigated the evidence which had been misunderstood and which was misinterpreted by the investigation despite having Portuguese experts on hand well capable of interpreting and explaining complex scientific data to them.
Rebelo did that. He carried out due diligence and followed and analysed the evidence.
SnipThe comments came a day after a four-strong team of Portuguese police and forensic experts met with their British counterparts in Leicestershire to hold a “summit” on the case.
The Portuguese team spent Thursday afternoon with five experts from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service (FSS) considering DNA results from tests the organisation has been conducting on behalf of the authorities in Portugal over the last four months.
The tests are said to have been carried out on microscopic blood samples, bodily fluids and hair found in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and the vehicle they hired 25 days after the four-year-old disappeared.
Sources close to the investigation said the results had proved “inconclusive” and were not alone strong enough to support a prosecution against Madeleine’s parents.
But following “crisis talks” over the future of the investigation at the regional headquarters of the Policia Judiciaria in Faro, detectives were finally granted permission to pursue their inquiries in Britain, according to a report on SIC, the Portuguese news broadcaster.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571058/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-may-face-more-questions.htmlGoncalo Amaral coordinated an investigation which reached opinions and conclusions which were superseded and dismissed by properly conducted investigation which resulted in the McCanns and Murat being released from their arguido status with what should have been without a stain on their characters.
Patently that did not happen.
The misconceptions of the original investigation were leaked to the Portuguese press and were picked up and repeated by the British press as well as worldwide.
But that was not the whole story ... the reasons behind making the McCanns arguidos could not be sustained once the forensics came in and were understood and the owner of the English dogs actual statement was released and understood.
The press printed defamation and libel and paid the price as a result not least to their integrity.
Don't you think it is about time that you and others consign the failed first investigation with it's interim report to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
In my opinion it signifies little more than failure and a stumbling investigation which had lost its way leaving Rebelo to pick up the pieces until ... sadly for Madeleine ... he was in my opinion overtaken by the legal strictures of time which led to her case being archived.
