louisiana

It's unlikely the charges would ever have succeeded in that case, as the mother - who the police said had acquired her injuries by throwing herself down stairs, 'Accidental Death of an Anarchist' style - was unable to pick out which of five officers inflicted her injuries, when they were presented on a parade. She did, however, have severe injuries (photographic evidence), and did acquire them while in custody, and she did retract her confession within 2 days of making it, at the same time saying it had been beaten out of her. (I think maybe if she'd been lying, and she had launched herself down a staircase, she would have picked people out anyway?? If she says she can't ID which people in the team actually hit her, which is what she said to her lawyer, that strikes me as a fairly honest don't know. Just a thought.) As I recall, the accusation of police brutality was made by the mother at the time of her trial. The photographic evidence of her injuries was, obviously, from the time of her arrest, some considerable time before the McCann case. (I'm not saying anything at all about the guilt or innocence of the mother in that case - but there did seem to have been police hanky-panky in relation to the violence/confession, Amaral was in charge of that, and there's a long tradition of that in many countries, including our own. The only reason I've raised this issue is I don't see Amaral as some kind of victim here. He's another player who perhaps had one or two of his own axes to grind, and some fairly bizarre ideas of his own. Unfortunately, the southern European legal system (based on Napoleonic lines, and which I deal with all the time) does seem to encourage prosecutors who want to turn themselves into some kind of media stars. They are all writing books, regardless of country or case! The lawyer you mention had nothing to do with that case: he was not one of the defence lawyers in that case, and his view is irrelevant. He seems to have some pretty serious fruitcake tendencies of his own, in my view. I have to say, the McCann case seems to have brought together a fair number of nuts on all sides. 'May contain nuts' - never truer words. Finally, as someone who's been a professional translator (Spanish/Portuguese/Italian/Catalan; legal and financial) for 20+ years, can I say that I've just taken a brief look at some of the translations of Portuguese material from the case. The documents I've glanced at, such as the final PJ report, are risible. Mostly look like free machine translations without editing. Some are complete nonsense, some completely change the language, some change the meaning *substantially*, sometimes in hilarious (or serious) ways. Some have made me laugh out loud. Quality translations they are not. If you're looking at this case with any seriousness, when it comes to material originally in Portuguese I would strongly recommend that you look at the material in the original Portuguese, not at any Noddy translation. It's not a difficult language to learn, after all (unlike, say, Finnish or Japanese), you can pick it up in a few months. And if you can't be bothered to learn, you're maybe not that interested in the case. Some serious errors have been made in this case owing to poor official translations e.g. the suspect IDs published in English and Portuguese described people of substantially different stature, as a consequence of bad translation; there have also been huge differences between British scientific service (FSS) statements and Portuguese equivalents. And so on. Translation and international relations/politics is a difficult area with some very interesting history (going back hundreds of years). So it's not just a question of unofficial vs. official translations. Sadly this kind of thing is all too common, particularly WRT Romance language countries. I've had entire years' worth of court case work from translation f-ups and legal misinterpretations between northern-southern European countries (enough to pay for a house and its renovation), so I shouldn't complain. But when it comes to legal issues, I think people should really be a bit more careful. You cannot create reliable translation via machine. Period.

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You could say that the police officer who was > hounded out of his job, or the falsley accused > whatisname may also consider themselves to be > losers in this matter. Didn't the police officer voluntarily retire early, after being taken off the case when a police investigation was launched into his involvement in the alleged torture (severe beatings involving his four staff to extract a 'confession') of another mother (Portuguese) whose child also went missing just a few miles away? Or are you thinking of a different officer? This would be the same officer that recently said to a Spanish news agency that he believed the British government demanded his removal from the McCann case in exchange for signing the Treaty of Lisbon. (!)

Yes SM, all that 'I'm a new boy around here' guff on every thread did strike me as incredibly fake. It was all just screaming 'I've been around here before but I'm trying to pretend I haven't'. (And the Wolf lives on the Hill, non?) But the thing that's soooo difficult to get rid of is tone of voice.

I'm reviewing what I currently have installed (inadequate) and need advice. But I don't have time or inclination to wade through Building Regs that may or may not be relevant or comprehensible even if I could find the right 'Part'. Not sure whether kitchen should have both smoke and heat alarms. Or which smoke alarm technology is better. Or where alarms should be placed. I have 2 potential sources of CO (boiler in kitchen, wood-burning stove in sitting room), and the units would need to be battery operated. Has anyone else been through this recently?

wjfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Food and energy prices will get noticeably higher, > with oil hitting $100/barrel by the summer. > It's gone from 66 to 91 in last 52 weeks, and current 52 week forecast is 105... I wouldn't be surprised if it went higher. Also affecting some people (rural, without gas) a lot is heating oil price, which has risen 70% in last three months. Scary if you depend on it to heat your home.

DFTT.

The only way is up. I feel for the poor souls who use heating oil (to heat their homes, mainly in rural areas with no gas). Prices have risen 70% in a few weeks.

Sue, if you were Aung San Suu Kyi or even Bradley Manning, or the people with MI5 cars sitting outside their houses day and night at the moment, you might have a point. But given your position and posts on this matter, I can only laugh. It is not that anybody would prefer things not to be said, or about making anyone's life any easier. There is no plot and you are not the courageous victim; and if you think there is, you are deluded. (This is, after all, just an internet forum.) If you want to make a real difference, why not get out there and *do something* and really put your head above the parapet. And learn what a parapet really is. Sorry, I'm still laughing...

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SeanMacGabhann Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Ok, now im scared > > xxxxxxx > > > > Play your games if you want to, but the fact is > that a little girl has been missing for three > years, and slagging me off doesn't alter either > that fact or any of the facts which I have posted > on this thread. But the missing girl case won't be resolved by you posting about it. > > I have never been scared of putting my head above > the parapet, In what way are you putting your head above the parapet? You are not involved in the case in any shape or form. and many of the responses on this > thread demonstrate all too well to me why most > people are. Quite a few of us 'put our head above the parapet' in cases and situations in which we are actually involved and can make a difference. In Real Life. Your comment certainly seems to belittle (or even insult) such people. 'now I'm scared' (after your point about you belonging to forums dedicated to the McCann case) in my books means you seem to be obsessive about pushing a certain view, far beyond what is normal in an onlooker who has no involvement; nothing to do with the McCann case itself. In other words, it's about you, not the case, and it's a wry comment with a semi-tongue-in-cheek. (SM will now correct me for my mis-interpretation, but that's how I see it.) There are of course private individuals who do great work in these spaces. For example, in the Ben Needham case, a private individual pushed for images of the child to be updated as he grew older, and visited and interviewed witnesses in an attempt to drive the case forward. But that is making a real contribution in Real Life. Quite, quite different.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Ok, now im scared +1 There are other kids that have disappeared in not dissimilar circumstances, but have had almost zero press coverage, or the peculiar honour of forums devoted to them. Perhaps because their parents were not middle class doctors (for example, Ben Needham case). In each child disappearance case, you could argue that the parents exhibited some seemingly strange behaviour. (In the case of the Scottish 12-yr-old abducted in France last year, the parents hadn't even reported her missing when she was recovered at the airport and the abductor arrested on a plane bound for Spain. They thought she was playing outside the house. So much for parents always knowing where their children are.)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BRASICAS? > > Which no-good low-down dirty fiend was reavealed > to be a broccoli fan???? I think the dangerous Brussels sprouts lovers will be emerging over the next few days, but shockingly that will be in the privacy of their own kitchens, so we will be reliant on first-hand reports and webcams. They will, of course, be the first against the wall. I am, of course, on the lookout for any Wikileaks cables throwing light on the adoption of a foreign brasica (Brussels! Europe!) by the good ol' UK of GB and NI.

Hill Dweller, perhaps there is a difference between public information that we pay people to generate, out of our taxes, as part of their jobs, and that we authorise them to generate, as part of their jobs, through the ballot box (where such a thing exists); in other words their official, tax-payer-funded duties for which they are professionally accountable and people's private lives, the stuff they do when they go home at night, their love or hatred for chicken vindaloo, Family Guy, brasicas or bondage. Non?

Many years ago (18 or 19?) I went to a wine tasting of wines from the former Soviet Union. Many of them were from the early 60s and 70s, and most were of incredibly tawny tones, but were amongst the best wines I had ever tasted. Some wines will age better than others. Only way to find out it to open them up and see.

Statistically, a very large proportion of criminals are known to their victims, as DJKQ says. Children or no children. But while stranger danger is generally overblown, statistically, most middle class parents don't kill their own children, on holiday or at any other time.

John Waite! Who knew!! :)) Ha ha, I can pinpoint exactly geographically where I heard those words... (I shall have to go back to The Orb recording to go through the words.) Indeed, you could pretty well get away with murder in those days. But it did cost an arm and a leg to sample anything of any length owing to the technology. (And did Eno and Byrne ever pay anything at all for anything on Bush of Ghosts?) Anyways, I'm currently listening to The Grandfather Paradox: 50 Years of Minimalistic Music (eds. Schwarz, Ame, Dixon), which is how I came by this...

If there is, it probably hasn't been refilled since the last round of snow (see my comments on James Barber's thread).

HAL, the adding of victims, witnesses, partners of victims and a long etc. (children!) to the DNA database is just so wrong on so many levels. You know you can appeal that, get yourself removed....? Not at all easy, but eventually possible.

Gotta say, Jah, he's looking older than my gran (96) :)

After my house has been broken into, why are my fingerprints, and those of my painter and decorator, the only ones to be found? Because anyone breaking into here is (one can assume) not a fool. I've had someone break into my home that had 30+ breaking and entering tools in his (carefully designed) clothing. Found on arrest.

My apologies. The article I mentioned, discussing LCN DNA, was in Nature. A prestigious publication. Really worth reading. (my memory's sh*t) http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464347a.html

Anyone read the autobiog yet? Any good?

Have known *of* Steve Reich for some time (Music for 18 Musicians etc.), but have just realised that a certain tune *by* The Orb is Pat Metheny/Steve Reich (Electric Counterpoint/Different Trains) rearranged. Was I the only one who didn't know? :-S Anyway, it's lovely.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DJKillaQueen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The DNA evidence isn't > > conclusive. > > > This is a technical issue, but I understand that > most of the markers matched Madeleine's and that > in some countries this would have been sufficient > in law. However I cannot follow all the scientific > discussions about it, duh. > This is NOT a technical issue, which suggests a technicality. Last year, at the Royal Society, I heard Alec Jeffreys - the inventor of DNA fingerprinting - say in the strongest terms that he disagreed with low copy number methods and the way they are being used, owing to huge uncertainty about their accuracy because there's virtually nothing to test and similarities are hugely exaggerated, purely owing to the method (nothing to do with the actual evidence). In 2008, when all this was playing out, LCN was in and out of favour in the UK itself, owing to scientific disagreement about whether it was worth anything at all. In an article in Science (prestigious peer-reviewed publication), the authors of an article on the method themselves said their own DNA gathered on LCN principles would probably also qualify them as suspects, owing to the number of common markers. The trouble is, there are often common markers at this level, owing to both missing information (owing to count being very low and therefore material being missing) and contamination. So on both the plus and minus sides. And of course, in any family, there will be many common markers. Furthermore, in this case, after the UK police said the DNA evidence gathered was 'inconclusive', the Portuguese police then said (untruth), of the same 'evidence', that there was some DNA evidence based on the UK report. In other words, the Portuguese police at the time completely misrepresented the UK forensic science service evidence report. I can't say I'm surprised (southern Europe is really crap at forensic science, and they have very little experience using it or interpreting it, and have very few test centres, which is why it has to be sent elsewhere for testing), but I do object to people then pointing to such *misrepresentation* of the science as somehow having any meaning. The basic failure in this case was of the Portuguese authorities to secure the site forensically. That kind of screws up everything that came after.

Maybe I should say it's now been turned up to 11!

Always worth keeping some water in a large container, for such an eventuality (if you, like me, don't have any water tanks). We like to think that utility services are always there, but sometimes they aren't (I speak as someone who has had a number of power cuts for many hours in recent times - I now have boxes of candles, torches etc etc. - and the water disappearing too often as well.) Grab some off your neighbours now, and plan to have some stored for the next time this happens.