Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect #31

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #261
This was the take of the Portuguese prosecutors:

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.

X X X

Add to that that PJ Inspector Joao Carlos concluded Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of Kate's alert.

Pretty much non of Amaral's accusations can be verified or sustained.

The Court covers this aspect - the judgement is well worth a read - though quite hard going

The first instance court appeared to find that GA went beyond offering his mere opinion

The Supreme Court placed weight on the fact that so much of the foundation was public domain already. So the point about them being made suspects, or the dog videos going public etc, was that all the public sphere debate was already happening, so in the Court's view, GA could offer his view.

I tend to think that the real damage to the plaintiffs was done by that material becoming public in the first place.
 
  • #262
The Court covers this aspect - the judgement is well worth a read - though quite hard going

The first instance court appeared to find that GA went beyond offering his mere opinion

The Supreme Court placed weight on the fact that so much of the foundation was public domain already. So the point about them being made suspects, or the dog videos going public etc, was that all the public sphere debate was already happening, so in the Court's view, GA could offer his view.

I tend to think that the real damage to the plaintiffs was done by that material becoming public in the first place.
Lies and falsehoods were in the public domain already, including, directly attributable to Amaral, the lie that Gerry was not Madeleine's father.

Amaral didn't seem to understand that, from before the British arrived, the enquiry became a murder enquiry.

What chance of him understanding what did, or didn't go on during the course of that murder enquiry?

And how does that qualify him to pronounce, in (almost) the most pejorative way possible (given that he didn't accuse the McCanns of murder, but the enquiry he nominally headed did!) on what the McCanns did, or didn't, do?
 
  • #263
From the below, 64.2% of child murders in high-income countries are committed by parents.

On 4 May 2007 GM stated that he entered the apartment via the front door. On 10 May 2007 this had changed to the patio doors. I don’t believe this was poorly recorded. In the circumstance, it’s a significant change and one that would draw suspicion. This is just one example.

I think rather than poor recording, the inconsistencies were an attempt, by the McCanns and T7, to cover themselves from neglect or similar allegations. Until the evidence on CB is public and providing it reveals far more than we already know, there are other people who should remain suspects.


ETA, another 12.6% are committed by acquaintances. Purely from probability perspective, there is at 77% chance that MM was killed by her parents or someone else in the file that knew her. While obviously this doesn’t mean they did it, it’s a tree well worth shaking by LE, especially if there are other things that arouse suspicion. The dogs didn’t strengthen the case against the McCanns BUT they certainly didn’t rule them out either.
Forget statistics. You only have to know that it is documented, proven and true that children have been abducted from their own homes, even while the whole family was in, to know that it could happen again.

Peter Voisey snatched his victim from the bath of her family home while the whole family was in,

 
  • #264
The Court covers this aspect - the judgement is well worth a read - though quite hard going

The first instance court appeared to find that GA went beyond offering his mere opinion

The Supreme Court placed weight on the fact that so much of the foundation was public domain already. So the point about them being made suspects, or the dog videos going public etc, was that all the public sphere debate was already happening, so in the Court's view, GA could offer his view.

I tend to think that the real damage to the plaintiffs was done by that material becoming public in the first place.
Certainly publication of 'the files' opened the McCanns up to a lot of unwelcome scrutiny.
 
  • #265
Well in any event, we'll get the ECHR judgement soon, and see what they make of it all.

I would encourage posters to read the Supreme Court judgement, because the way the case is argued is quite different to how it is presented in the UK media as a 'libel' case, where the defendant would likely have to prove the allegations were true on the balance of probabilities.
 
  • #266
I expect the ensuing discussion of the result will require a new thread
 
  • #267
Certainly publication of 'the files' opened the McCanns up to a lot of unwelcome scrutiny.
The Portuguese prosecutors read a set of files both more complete and more accurate than anything on line, and concluded that Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by a stranger.

PJ Inspector Carlos concluded that, at the moment of Kate's alert, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant. If he was wrong to do so, those who insist he was wrong must point to the commentary in the files of efforts to find Gerry following Kate's alert, including where he was when found and who found him. PJ Inspector Ferria (spelling?) dismissed the testimony of the English social services woman who tried to implicate David Payne.

Amaral's only point of (genuine!) credit was to dismiss 'before May 3rd'.

Pretty much all else, he got wrong.

Mark Harrison ruled out burial, at least on the beach, and made plain he had no real idea what happened to Madeleine.

Amaral's mangling and misrepresenting of Mark Harrison's work, on its own, should cost Amaral the libel trial.
 
  • #268
Forget statistics. You only have to know that it is documented, proven and true that children have been abducted from their own homes, even while the whole family was in, to know that it could happen again.

Peter Voisey snatched his victim from the bath of her family home while the whole family was in,

Of course it happens but significantly less frequently than with people they know. It’s right for LE to try to eliminate parents at the early stage of an investigation given this.
 
  • #269
Of course it happens but significantly less frequently than with people they know. It’s right for LE to try to eliminate parents at the early stage of an investigation given this.
The first 4 words of your post are the only ones that matter.
 
  • #270
From the below, 64.2% of child murders in high-income countries are committed by parents.

On 4 May 2007 GM stated that he entered the apartment via the front door. On 10 May 2007 this had changed to the patio doors. I don’t believe this was poorly recorded. In the circumstance, it’s a significant change and one that would draw suspicion. This is just one example.

I think rather than poor recording, the inconsistencies were an attempt, by the McCanns and T7, to cover themselves from neglect or similar allegations. Until the evidence on CB is public and providing it reveals far more than we already know, there are other people who should remain suspects.


ETA, another 12.6% are committed by acquaintances. Purely from probability perspective, there is at 77% chance that MM was killed by her parents or someone else in the file that knew her. While obviously this doesn’t mean they did it, it’s a tree well worth shaking by LE, especially if there are other things that arouse suspicion. The dogs didn’t strengthen the case against the McCanns BUT they certainly didn’t rule them out either.
I don't think you are applying your statistics correctly. First I don't think anyone is suggesting the McCanns murdered Maddie.and your figures are not case specific..Taking all the evidence into account the odds of amaral being right is infinitesimally small
 
  • #271
I don't think you are applying your statistics correctly. First I don't think anyone is suggesting the McCanns murdered Maddie.and your figures are not case specific..Taking all the evidence into account the odds of amaral being right is infinitesimally small
GA is absolutely suggesting that the McCanns killed Maddie. I’m saying that he was right to suspect them and until someone is convicted suspicion remains on several people.

ETA, based on what we know about CB, the odds of HCW being right are probably less than those of GA’s theory.
 
Last edited:
  • #272
Last edited:
  • #273
Taking all the evidence into account the odds of amaral being right is infinitesimally small

RSBM - reading a bit between the lines, I think the difficulty for the plaintiffs is that they failed to prove this in the first instance Court.

So in other words, the SC accepted the book as a defence of the status of the investigation as it was, and documentary and witness testimony (i.e other detectives) proved that this was indeed the official theory of the investigation, held in good faith - i.e. not just by GA, but by the official process.

This is IMO, why the plaintiffs might stand better in the ECHR, where the freedom of expression aspect will presumably take a back seat, and the action is against the state of Portugal.
 
  • #274
Mark Harrison ruled out burial, at least on the beach, and made plain he had no real idea what happened to Madeleine.

Amaral's mangling and misrepresenting of Mark Harrison's work, on its own, should cost Amaral the libel trial.

OK but was Harrison called at trial? What did he say? i think there are issues of proof that GA and his colleagues were present for discussions with Harrison whereas the plaintiffs were not.

In your series of posts you have assumed quite a number of facts that weren't alleged, or issues that weren't argued.

As far as I can tell, (and the translated judgement is very dense and hard to follow), the main difference between the trial court and the supreme court is the trial court felt GA went beyond merely reflecting the status of the investigation (as it was when he left), and beyond merely his opinion on public available info, to offering some kind of underlying truth. The Supreme Court felt he was more offering his opinion on a set of facts already widely discussed in order to explain how the investigation had proceeded up until he left. To 'set the record straight' in the face of widespread criticism - this is a valid factor IMO when the plaintiffs routinely gave their own commentary in the media.

This is one reason why it doesn't matter what happened subsequently with the investigation, or indeed in Germany now.

@Dave55 is correct that the ECHR will take a dim view of bad faith on the part of GA, but as far as the Supreme Court was concerned, that wasn't proven.

Let's see what ECHR makes of it all.
 
  • #275
  • #276
So the decision has dropped.

Be interested to read the judgement

The parents of Madeleine McCann have lost their European court of human rights challenge to the Portuguese supreme court’s decision to throw out their libel case against a former detective who implicated them in their daughter’s disappearance.


It seems based on the press release the key finding is that the harm to reputation arose primarily from being named as suspects, even before the publication of the files or the book.
 
  • #277
Judgement only available in French at this stage!
 
  • #278
Judgement only available in French at this stage!
A lot of people can read French so there will be little danger of mis-translation.
 
  • #279
DBM
 
  • #280
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
154
Guests online
3,213
Total visitors
3,367

Forum statistics

Threads
632,630
Messages
18,629,423
Members
243,229
Latest member
philscott66
Back
Top