MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Reference Forum for all information regarding translations and PT Law etc and other useful information.

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby Richard46 » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:09 am

Dreyfus wrote:
(,,,,)

I think if Kate WAS guilty and her lawyer turned up saying the PJ had watertight forensic evidence and offered a plea bargain (and that's what it WAS, in all but name - same as officially there's no plea bargaining here in the UK but it goes on all the time), she would have cracked at that point and taken it.


According to Phil McCann K McCann did indeed crack at that point;

"Trisha hangs out with a mobile and there I am listening to Kate screaming at the lawyer: "No! No!" and just the emotion and the disgust, her tone, everything that was being conveyed, I mean what she was saying and the anger, you could feel it".

You are assuming someone in that state would make a logical decision; even if the evidence was that conclusive; I don't think it can assumed they would act so rationally.
Richard46
You're Nicked
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:44 am

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby Dreyfus » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:23 am

chalice wrote:
Dreyfus wrote:
None of the prosecution's evidence could be "witheld till trial". It would have to be disclosed within good time to the Defence, to give the Defence time to consider it before the trial. If it wasn't disclosed in good time it would be reason for an appeal.

The story about the report containing the so-called 100% DNA match to Madeleine appeared in the David James Smith article in the Times. This was apparently shown to Pinto de Abreu as absolute proof against his client and would indeed explain his nocturnal visit to Kate. I do not share Tylersmum's great confidence in Abreu's powers of discernment (the report may have been in English and it was very late at night) or belief in the integrity of Inspector Amaral's team (maybe they made it up).

I think if Kate WAS guilty and her lawyer turned up saying the PJ had watertight forensic evidence and offered a plea bargain (and that's what it WAS, in all but name - same as officially there's no plea bargaining here in the UK but it goes on all the time), she would have cracked at that point and taken it.


Really? :shock: So are you saying that in Portugal, unlike UK, the investigating authorities are compelled to share their findings with the arguidos at all stages?
That must make any prosecution in Portugal extremely difficult . No wonder the Fair Trials Abroad spokewoman on Channel 4 described the system as being fairer than that in UK.

Proceedure here is that once charged and a plea has been entered in front of a magistrate, a date is set for the next court appearance. At this stgae the defence team sees the evidence , but nor before. There is then a long wait till the actual trial and it is during this period that the defence organizes it's defence in light of the evidence.

I recall before the Mc's were arguidoized they had begun to ask to be termed "assistants" ,as this would have given them access to some information on the investigation. Hmm maybe you are not quite right on this aspect ?


Chalice, I don't understand what you want to argue about. In Britain and in Portugal (as far as I know) once a suspect has been charged, if a plea of not guilty is entered then a trial date is set and the process starts whereby the prosecution has to disclose to the Defence all the evidence it is holding (even evidence it doesn't intend to use). Of course this doesn't all happen instantly.

My previous point about the Portuguese criminal justice system was that you can be detained on remand for up to 4 months BEFORE being CHARGED. During that time your defence lawyer does not have full access to the Prosecution file against you. The period you can be held without charges in the UK is only 4 days (apart from terrorist crimes).

The other difference is that once you're charged in the UK the police don't usually interview you again formally, while in Portugal the investigating judge can reinterview the suspect before the trial. What difference that would make to the McCann case we can only guess.
Last edited by Dreyfus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dreyfus
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:46 pm
Location: Devil's Island

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby mr bluesky » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:32 am

changing tack on a point that was raised over on the regotory letters thread - but might be more relevant here on the general board for discussion

If the PJ do have the watertight evidence that they allude to - whatever it may be - but puts the Mccaans in the frame for Maddies death / disposal etc etc

Surely then if the PJ know this - they have a duty to share this with at least the british authorities as the Twins are still in the care of Gerry and Kate - they would then be at a desperate risk - as if G & K are the pyscopths that it might seem ( I use that word as I believe that only people with this disposition could do what is claimed - hide the body , move it , bury it etc the lie , carry a charde for months )

Why are the Twins not in care - I appreciate that the portugese system is that they dont make any charges until they ahve everything ready - but surely they must have a duty of care towards the twins
mr bluesky
Suspect
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:18 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby Dreyfus » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:50 am

Mr. Bluesky - good point. It's just another reason which makes me think the PJ haven't got this watertight evidence we speak about.

As I've said elsewhere, there's a lot of wishful thinking on these Boards, which involves people quoting newspaper reports from last September about the forensic evidence, whilst ignoring the reports following the PJ's trip to the UK to discuss the findings with the FSS people at the end of November. Those reports said the evidence was inconclusive.

I'm English, so I would not commit the forum folly of daring to suggest a British police dog might actually have got it wrong, but somewhere along the line, I would say, the validity of Eddie and Keela's findings seems to have been exaggerated to the PJ (and also to the Mirror Forum for that matter).

On Arguido Day they accused Kate of having death smell smeared all over her pants of ganga, Cuddle Cat, the apartment and the hire car but don't seem to be able to back these claims up very well. To use one of those poker terms people are so fond of referring to on here, it looks like the PJ are holding a busted flush.

Whether there were translation errors in passing on the info from the Brummies in the FSS to the Portuguese in Portimao I don't know, but it looks to me that the PJ played their cards too soon.

Of course, that's mere speculation on my part. The PJ may be about to throw some cast-iron proof down on the table next week to break the silence of the Tapas 9's pact. It just doesn't look that way to me.
Dreyfus
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:46 pm
Location: Devil's Island

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby mr bluesky » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:05 pm

Dreyfus wrote:Mr. Bluesky - good point. It's just another reason which makes me think the PJ haven't got this watertight evidence we speak about.

As I've said elsewhere, there's a lot of wishful thinking on these Boards, which involves people quoting newspaper reports from last September about the forensic evidence, whilst ignoring the reports following the PJ's trip to the UK to discuss the findings with the FSS people at the end of November. Those reports said the evidence was inconclusive.

I'm English, so I would not commit the forum folly of daring to suggest a British police dog might actually have got it wrong, but somewhere along the line, I would say, the validity of Eddie and Keela's findings seems to have been exaggerated to the PJ (and also to the Mirror Forum for that matter).

On Arguido Day they accused Kate of having death smell smeared all over her pants of ganga, Cuddle Cat, the apartment and the hire car but don't seem to be able to back these claims up very well. To use one of those poker terms people are so fond of referring to on here, it looks like the PJ are holding a busted flush.

Whether there were translation errors in passing on the info from the Brummies in the FSS to the Portuguese in Portimao I don't know, but it looks to me that the PJ played their cards too soon.

Of course, that's mere speculation on my part. The PJ may be about to throw some cast-iron proof down on the table next week to break the silence of the Tapas 9's pact. It just doesn't look that way to me.


At present I am in broad agreement with you - could be way off mark - but my gut feel is that there isnt the smoking gun that everyone talks about.

I know what you mean about the dogs - When all the searching started in Jersey - I think they found about 6 seperate sites where they got excited - or went crazy or whatever they do - but thankfully there have not been 6 seperate bodies ( caveat so far )

I do think that if G & K have done half what they are supposed to have done they will go down as the most heartless , devious , pyscopthatic couple for a long time.

I just dont see them as that - stupid , arrogant, foolish - is more like it
mr bluesky
Suspect
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:18 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby Dreyfus » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:19 pm

I think Gerry, Kate and the Tapas 7 brought most of this on themselves because they weren't honest about their checking routine (or rather lack of it) on the night of 3rd May and the preceding evenings. Kate's opening words to Ian Woods in that first Sky interview - "As you know, we were checking regularly. It was during one of my checks.........." demonstrate to me how much she had to cover up. It wasn't during ONE of your checks, love, it was your ONLY check - the rest of the time you were glugging cocktails and wine.

But that doesn't make Kate a child killer. Bridget O'Donnell who worked on Crimewatch said there's usually a vehicle involved in these things and I think she's right. Going right back to the beginning, I think Madeleine overheated in a stuffy bedroom, woke up because she was hot and went out while it was still light to look for her parents. As no body has been found, I think she had the gross misfortune to get picked up by someone with a car who abducted her, rather than returning her safely to her Mum and Dad. I think it's a shame she didn't meet Robert Murat that night, because he seems a kind man and I think he would have gone to the trouble of getting her reunited her with her parents safe and sound.

Anyone is entitled to disagree with me and insist that the McCanns did it, but in that case you have to come up with a plausible explanation about how they got rid of the body. The one thing that still makes me lean towards the McCanns' involvement is the no-show by the kids after tea down by the tennis courts. This seems like just too much of a coincidence for me.
Dreyfus
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:46 pm
Location: Devil's Island

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby Meadow » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:33 pm

The evidence - or what we think is evidence

The dogs that indicated scent & some forensics, we really don't know too much about, except the indicators are that Madeleine died in the apartment

verses

Nine people who have an alibi of dining whilst their children were home alone. Within that time frame according to BOD (Guardian) Mr McCann was seen (9.15 ish) in the road, where it said he had checked his daughter and how beautiful was (taking that particular statement as being most correct)
Then there is the possible sighting of Jane Tanner at approximately 9.20 ish of a man carrying a child, wearing Madeleines pyjamas, all whilst Mr McCann stood chatting in the road.

So there you have it, an alibi !

So we are only forums posters & readers oh ! and a few lurkers no doubt.

This case goes NO where, until the people involved are reinterviewed, we all await round 2.

Madeleine waits for the people who know and love her to pull their fingers out! Because for some bizarre reason they have chosen not to co-operate, that is to say it has required another country to take legal action in order to interview these people.

There is now a stalemate between all concerned, the McCanns do not like being made arguidos, and it seems basically are non co-operative unless this status is ''immediately lifted'' Well done to them ! Nothing like walking to the ends of the earth on your knees begging to help.
Meadow
Local Lag
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:03 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby twiglet1963 » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:44 pm

Dreyfus wrote:
The story about the report containing the so-called 100% DNA match to Madeleine appeared in the David James Smith article in the Times. This was apparently shown to Pinto de Abreu as absolute proof against his client and would indeed explain his nocturnal visit to Kate. I do not share Tylersmum's great confidence in Abreu's powers of discernment (the report may have been in English and it was very late at night) or belief in the integrity of Inspector Amaral's team (maybe they made it up).



So, accepting, albeit surrounded in caveats, that Pinto de Abreu was shown a report, you think it is possible that he couldn't understand it because it might have been in English and he was a bit sleepy? You think maybe he then waited a while and took himself to the McCann's villa in the early hours of the morning to try to get her to plead guilty to a crime, even though he was uncertain about what the report might have said?

Either that or the PJ were just waving a bundle of paper from the recycling.

Come on. At least Verbatim's explanation had the merit of not assuming Pinto de Abreu was an idiot. He is, after all, only one of Portugal's top criminal lawyers. Even if the PJ was trying to pull a stunt with a frightened and vulnerable witness (and I think tylersmum makes a good point about the risks they would take doing that) that's what expensive lawyers are for. They're in the room to stop their client's being railroaded and misled. If there was nothing in the report, or he wasn't sure, why didn't he just wait until morning?
twiglet1963
 

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby twiglet1963 » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:10 pm

Dreyfus wrote:. ...I think Madeleine overheated in a stuffy bedroom, woke up because she was hot and went out while it was still light to look for her parents. ...



According to Tanner's account of Bundleman it was cold that evening.

According to the Astronomical Applications Department of the US Naval Observatory, the sun set in Portimao at 8.25pm (BST) on 3 May 2007. By the time the McCanns went out to dinner it was already getting dark.
twiglet1963
 

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby Dreyfus » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:25 pm

[
quote="twiglet1963
So, accepting, albeit surrounded in caveats, that Pinto de Abreu was shown a report, you think it is possible that he couldn't understand it because it might have been in English and he was a bit sleepy? You think maybe he then waited a while and took himself to the McCann's villa in the early hours of the morning to try to get her to plead guilty to a crime, even though he was uncertain about what the report might have said?

Either that or the PJ were just waving a bundle of paper from the recycling.

Come on. At least Verbatim's explanation had the merit of not assuming Pinto de Abreu was an idiot. He is, after all, only one of Portugal's top criminal lawyers. Even if the PJ was trying to pull a stunt with a frightened and vulnerable witness (and I think tylersmum makes a good point about the risks they would take doing that) that's what expensive lawyers are for. They're in the room to stop their client's being railroaded and misled. If there was nothing in the report, or he wasn't sure, why didn't he just wait until morning?
[/quote]
Here is the passage from the predominantly pro-McCann David James Smith article:
"During Kate's interviews with the PJ in September, just before she was declared an arguido, she was separated from her lawyer, and he was presented with a long list of factors pointing to her guilt, including entries from her entirely innocuous diary and a passage they believed she had marked in a Bible (which in fact had been given to her and marked by the original owner).

The PJ also told the lawyer there was a 100% DNA match with Madeleine in the car and showed him a document that appeared to prove it. Possibly, this was the document showing Madeleine's control sample of DNA. The McCanns feared even their own lawyer thought they were guilty."

It's a startling passage because it is the McCanns actually admitting the PJ claimed to have cast-iron evidence against them. Pinto de Abreu is still their lawyer, so they would be unlikely to tell the story to a journalist if it wasn't true. Abreu admits visiting Kate in the middle of the night to explain about the sentence she would face if she pleaded guilty to the lesser crime. It's a logical assumption that the reason for his visit was the report plus the "long list of factors" pointing to Kate's guilt.

IF the report was genuine, why were the news reports following the PJ's meeting with the FSS at the end of November that the forensics were inconclusive? Why have we seen no arrests in the 6 long months since Arguido Day? Why did the PJ director Ribeiro make the comment about the "hasty" decision to arguido the McCanns? Would the PJ keep back from their own director the fact that they had such strong evidence and let him make an idiot of himself? It doesn't make sense.

De Abreu may be a whizz-kid on Portuguese law, but we know his English isn't so hot (albeit far better than my or the McCanns' Portuguese). Something somewhere in this mess is lost in translation, unless the PJ are keeping the smoking gun so well hidden even their own bosses don't know.
Dreyfus
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:46 pm
Location: Devil's Island

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby Dreyfus » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:31 pm

twiglet1963 wrote:
Dreyfus wrote:. ...I think Madeleine overheated in a stuffy bedroom, woke up because she was hot and went out while it was still light to look for her parents. ...



According to Tanner's account of Bundleman it was cold that evening.

According to the Astronomical Applications Department of the US Naval Observatory, the sun set in Portimao at 8.25pm (BST) on 3 May 2007. By the time the McCanns went out to dinner it was already getting dark.


Onda on the Mirror Forum said it was light till quarter to nine. We do not have a report from an independent witness who says what time the McCanns arrived at the Tapas Bar. Anyway, although I think it far more likely Madeleine would be brave enough to venture out alone in the light rather than the dark, other than Kate's "I know she wouldn't do that", we have no evidence she couldn't or wouldn't have done so. Alex Woolfall of Mark Warner's said the early assumption was that she had wandered off.
Dreyfus
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:46 pm
Location: Devil's Island

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby pear » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:43 pm

[quote="Dreyfus"]
De Abreu may be a whizz-kid on Portuguese law, but we know his English isn't so hot quote]

We do?
pear
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:24 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby diddy » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:51 pm

Dreyfus,
My understanding is that even the PJ aren't thinking K is a killer.

I think the others may not know anything, but all this trying to seem like good parents is getting in the way.

Whatever checking the Mccanns were doing patently wasn't enough as Madeleine was either abducted from the apartment, or wandered and was abducted.
If she had an accident whilst alone, and wasn't found until she had been dead a while, then they obviously weren't checking enough.

In all events, she disappeared whilst in their "care".
And if any of the above were true, I don't see how being with a group, when they should have been looking after the children is an alibi.

If there was an accident at K's hand, then the checking perhaps doesn't really come into it.
The charade must go on.
User avatar
diddy
On Parole
 
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby Dreyfus » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:59 pm

pear wrote:
Dreyfus wrote:De Abreu may be a whizz-kid on Portuguese law, but we know his English isn't so hot quote]

We do?
We've heard him speak Pear - when Gerry came out of Portimao cop shop. When Kate came out he preferred not to speak in English, he just spoke in Portuguese.

Anyway, it's a detail.

If the DNA report he was shown was genuine and he didn't make a mistake, why did the PJ allow the McCanns to leave the country? As soon as they saw the McCanns were booked on that Easyjet flight from Faro, why didn't they apply to the judge for pre-charge custody, if they had rock-solid evidence against the couple?
Dreyfus
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:46 pm
Location: Devil's Island

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK II

Postby RRR » Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:03 pm

diddy wrote:Dreyfus,
My understanding is that even the PJ aren't thinking K is a killer.

I think the others may not know anything, but all this trying to seem like good parents is getting in the way.

Whatever checking the Mccanns were doing patently wasn't enough as Madeleine was either abducted from the apartment, or wandered and was abducted.
If she had an accident whilst alone, and wasn't found until she had been dead a while, then they obviously weren't checking enough.

In all events, she disappeared whilst in their "care".
And if any of the above were true, I don't see how being with a group, when they should have been looking after the children is an alibi.

If there was an accident at K's hand, then the checking perhaps doesn't really come into it.


But Verbatim claims to think that the parents' behaviour pre-"abduction" was well within the normal range, and not neglectful. So maybe all the rest of us have got it wrong.
RRR
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to Maddy - Reference Forum and Investigations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
cron