"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Thanks for the link DJKQ it looks like the police in Portugal may not have handled things as well as they might, but the Wiki page is a bit out of date I think. The charges against the officer were thrown out as far as I am aware as the complainant had different and contradictory accounts. The person pushing the prosecution was the lawyer employed by one of the investigation agencies instructed by the McCanns and involved in the McCann case long before the allegations arose, so in my opinion not credible.

[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.

[DJKillaQueen]

Very interesting points Louisiana and I can totally understand the issues regarding translation - speaking two other european languages fluently and having seen for myself just how bad auto translation machines are.

It seems to me as though there were two parallel investigations ongoing anyway. Scotland Yard seemed to be more concerned with the abduction theory and pursuing interpol intelligence (much of which has not been released into the public domain) and the Portuguese were more concerned in the end with the immediate scene, including the parents.

I take Impetuous's point on the Wiki overview not having been updated recently as well, although that doesn't change anything with regards to the poor process followed by the Portuguese Police in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance. And also still leaves questions regarding Amaral's comments, behaviour and dubious selection of evidence for his theory intact. The Wiki overview does seem to be a well researched, balanced and considered overview, as opposed to some of the biased sensationalist blogs presnted elsewhere on this thread.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Thanks Louisiana for your insight. It seems that the McCann case is a bit of a quagmire and it is very difficult to form an opinion about what may have happened.

The no comment interview seems to have been made months after the incident and was when the Portugese police seemed to have changed tack in their investigation if Wikipedia is anything to go by. I was under the impression from previous posts that the no comment interview was immediatley after Madeline went missing.

If it is the former then it would make the case against the McCanns weaker in my opinion. It's hard to know what is hype and what is fact from either side the more you delve into this sorry affair.

[DJKillaQueen]

I totally agree with all of that Impetuous and yes, the impression is given that the 'no comment' interview was an early one. It changes everything when you realise it took place four months after initial interviews (and again, something conveniently omitted by those seeking to implicate the McCanns). It is perfectly understandable why 'no comment' was used given the change in direction of the investigation. The timeline is very important in something which you aptly describe as a quagmire.

[Mick Mac]

Santerme Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Personally, I think the parents were directly

> responsible for whatever happened to their child.

>

That's about the worst post I have read this year. Leaving your child alone is ill advised in most cases, but it does not justify or deserve your child being taken from you.

Because there are people out there who are a danger to children should not result in us feeling our children should never be out of our sight, which only makes for paranoid parenting and a closeted upbringing for the child.

The fault in this case lies wholly with the person who took madeline.

[i have not read this thread but this particular post caught my eye]

[hibbs]

Edited because I sounded like a Mail reader :-(

[DJKillaQueen]

If their child was being targetted to order (as one line of investigation by Scotland Yard was pursuing).....then it wouldn't have made any difference if the McCanns had been in the apartment. The criminal organisation involved would have found another way to take the child....they always do.

[Huguenot]

If their child had been abducted to order, there was as much evidence of that as there was for an alien abduction.

Occam's razor suggests that a sensible approach would be to choose the simplest solution to these conundrums, so long as they are still sufficient to explain it.

Whilst a criminal gang is marginally more likely than an alien abduction, a lone opportunist is streets ahead of both alternatives.

Likewise someone known to the child is more likely than a stranger.... and a family member is ten times more likely than a non-family member.

Since there are physical hints that the story was inconsistent with reality, and that the parents were not supporting the enquiry, and that they threatened people who challenged their account of events, I'd tend to view their story with some skepticism.

Having said that, I assume they were innocent and would treat them accordingly.

[Alan Dale]

removed

[Sue]

I'm trying to post on this thread but can't.

Not sure if it's a formatting problem (I copied and pasted from Word) or whether the post is too long.

I may have to try dividing it into several posts, which I was trying to avoid :-S

[Sue]

OK going to try it bit by bit.

Thanks Alan.

Hope you all had a great Christmas, as I did :)

Picking up on some points made in my absence

- So far as I can recall, I have never made any personal or abusive remarks to DJKQ on this forum, and to the best of my knowledge I have never met her. I therefore have no idea what is going on, but perhaps she could shed some light on why I appear to upset her so much.

- Sr Amaral?s surname is Amaral, not ?Almara?.

- Yes of course corroborative evidence was needed for the dogs? findings, as I clearly stated in one of my initial posts. That is obvious and has never been in doubt.

The fact remains that one of the most highly trained and highly successful sniffer dogs in the world, a dog who had never had a false alert in 200 previous cases, alerted in various places connected with the McCanns, and did not alert anywhere else. A second dog also independently alerted. As I said previously, this is indicative and not conclusive, and is not evidence which could be used in court..

The dogs? alerting was just one of the factors which appeared to point towards death and not abduction being the more likely .

[Sue]

- I don?t know who has contributed to the Wikipedia overview of this case, but I would not take even an up-to-date account on Wikipedia as being necessarily accurate, on any subject at all. I never use it, for that reason.

?- DJKQ?s post on 27 December at 02.54pm (sorry, but easier to do this than make direct quotes when there are so many posts involved) says ?there are other factors to support the theory of abduction ? like the burglary that used a key and the speck of DNA found in the bedroom (by the dogs) that did not belong to the McCanns or their three children.

I don?t know what the reference to a key is about, since the McCanns claimed that an abductor got into the apartment through an unlocked door.

I don?t know what this other speck of DNA was, or what its significance was supposed to be - perhaps someone could enlighten me. However I understand (and this may be either incorrect or irrelevant, as I don?t know the source of the DNA) that the McCanns allowed their holiday friends and hotel staff to tramp around the apartment before the arrival of the police. Also ? presumably people had stayed there before the McCanns.

?- In the same post, DJKQ says ?My view is that there is some truth to the criticism that Portuguese Police instinctively wanted to avoid yet another embarrassment regarding paedophile rings and abduction ?.; and so preferred to look for a way to implicate the McCanns if they could, but in doing so neglected to run the investigation properly ?..?

That?s quite a ?criticism?, DJKQ. What?s your evidence for it? Do you think the British police, who were working with the Portuguese police and in fact brought in the dogs, were also ?looking for a way to implicate the McCanns??

[Panda]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> sick is possibly too strong but it's not sitting

> comfortably with me either

>

> I think some papes were sued for libel last year

> and it's probably worth people thinking before

> they post

Completley agree with you

[Sue]

I take complete responsibility for everything I have posted on this thread.

[Sue]

Still having a lot of trouble posting, so sorry for the dribs and drabs.

Louisiana, your points about the translations are very sound. Computer translations do result in all sorts of stupidities and inaccuracies. I think they have sometimes been used in this case for speed, on the basis that they are better than nothing until somebody (who as you have pointed out may also not be a professional translator) has time to produce something a bit better.

Unfortunately my interest in the case and my language skills do not extend to "picking up" Portuguese in "a few months" :)

[Sue]

It may be that some of the variation in the suspect IDs were down to poor translation, as you say. However, I believe it is the case that Jane Tanner (for example) did change her description several times of the person she claimed to have seen. I may be wrong.

Also, given the nature of the light, it is hard to understand how she could have seen some of the details which she apparently claimed to have seen. This, of course, would be one of the things which a reconstruction of the evening's events could have thrown light on (sorry for the pun) so it is a pity that the parents and their friends declined to attend one.

[Sue]

DJKQ refers to "biased" sites. As I said in my OP, there are many many internet forums discussing this case. Unless they are exceptionally well moderated (and some are better than others) they are likely to be biased in one way or another (as are sites like Wiki, depending on who contributes to them). This is because it is human nature that people will tend to gravitate to sites which appear to share their own views.

If DJKQ has found some completely unbiased sites, I would be genuinely interested in knowing about them. I know of several sites which contain source material relating to the case, for example interviews with the McCanns, witness statements etc, but of course people having read this then want to discuss it. As soon as a discussion starts, then there is potential bias, if that's what you wish to call it, because surely discussion is the presentation of various views?

[Sue]

Sorry to be so dim, but I don't know what the "no comment" references are. Did I miss a post somewhere in the thread? Duh if so.

I have already put forward a fair amount of information which I think all points in the direction (and I put it no stronger than that) of an accidental death in the apartment. I would rather not have to repeat it all again, but if you don't want to trawl back through all this stuff you can click on my name and my posts will come up in one place. EDITED TO ADD: Actually, ignore that, there's too much, probably easier just to look back on the thread.

However, I am still not sure quite what theory DJKQ is putting forward, if any, and based on what evidence. I don't want to put words into her mouth, but based on her posts, it seems to be that there was probably an abduction, but that the Portuguese police were incompetent and corrupt and therefore tried to frame the McCanns, even though British police were involved.

Is that correct, DJKQ, or have I misread your posts?

Edited to add: Thanks anyone who has managed to stay with me through this barrage of posts, and I'm sorry - should have had my nose glued to the EDF over Christmas, obviously ....

[expat]

>accidental death in the apartment.

So I ask again how was the body disposed off in such a way nobody has found it?

[Sue]

expat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >accidental death in the apartment.

>

> So I ask again how was the body disposed off in

> such a way nobody has found it?

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Well that's one of the unknown things about the case, isn't it?

Bit like, why a supposed abductor would choose to come in through an unlocked door and leave through a small window.

There are several theories about how a body could have been disposed of, but I have tried not to venture into speculation that isn't based on known information, and I would rather not repeat any of them here.

You can find plenty of speculative discussion elsewhere, I'm sure.

[DJKillaQueen]

And why assume the abductor came through an unlocked door. They could have had a key, especially if we are talking about an organisted criminal gang (not hard to get hold of the key to a holiday let and copy it after all).

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And why assume the abductor came through a locked

> door. They could have had a key, especially if we

> are talking about an organisted criminal gang (not

> hard to get hold of the key to a holiday let and

> copy it after all).

xxxxxx

Eh?

The McCanns said that the apartment was left unlocked.

Of course anybody could have had a key or got one copied, what is your point?

Where is there any evidence for an "organised criminal gang"?

Edited to remove reference to DJKQ's use of "locked" rather than "unlocked" in the post of hers which I quoted.

[DJKillaQueen]

There are potential trails to criminal gangs.....but SY can't publicise that all of that kind of information because it can jepoardise other investigations into the same gangs. There are several plausable theories and Portugal has a poor record on this...even you must acknowledge that.....which has made it a soft target for these gangs and their operations.

My point on the key is that it is perfectly possible that an organised gang pre-ordered Madeliene, surveilled her and then abducted her in an organised fashion, leaving very little physical evidence. Thousands of children disappear world-wide every year at the hands of these gangs, no trace ever left.

You also must admit that the procedure followed by the Portuguese Police in their failure to seal off the crime scene and properly examine it forensically in the early part of the investigation has probably destroyed any chance of forensic evidence ever being anything but contaminated and inadmissable. That's a major criticism.

My issue with your argument in the early part of the thread has always been your eagerness to blame some failings of the case (and Police) on the McCanns. You did it there again, blaming the poor ferensic evidence on them letting friends into the apartment after they first saw Madeleine had gone. Well I think most people in the immediate aftermath of their child being missing would lets friends join a search, it wouldn't even occur to them that they might be affecting forensic evidence. They are not police officers after all. It is the Police's job to seal off, secure, and collect evidence.

That is the crux my problem with your debate. We all agree that leaving chidlren unspervised is not a good idea but you confuse that with the mental state of someone that has lost a child and so have looked for 'deliberate meaning' in things relating to the McCanns that have no meaning at all (in order to support Amarals theory). At times you seem more intent on assigning blame to the McCanns than having a debate around evidence, or lack of, or procedure.

As impetuous has said when you look at ALL the leads, devlopments etc, within the timeline of their occurance, the picture is a quagmire. There is no clear cut 'most likely' theory, but a mess of conflicting information any part of which could be possible but none of which proves any theory likely enough in either way.

I also wouldn't dismiss the Wiki article out of hand. It seems to me to be a well researched and balanced attempt at presenting a fair overview. There are two acompanying pages by the author as well where he (or she) lists things omiitted or edited out either because they couldn't be corroberated or sources provided. And in itself it is a good example of just how complicated the case is.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are potential trails to criminal

> gangs.....but SY can't publicise that all of that

> kind of information because it can jepoardise

> other investigations into the same gangs. There

> are several plausable theories

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What are they? Why are they plausible?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

and Portugal has a

> poor record on this...even you must acknowledge

> that.....which has made it a soft target for these

> gangs and their operations.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That does not mean a gang was operating in this case.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> My point on the key is that it is perfectly

> possible that an organised gang pre-ordered

> Madeliene, surveilled her and then abducted her in

> an organised fashion, leaving very little physical

> evidence.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What's a key got to do with it?

Is that your theory then?

Is there any evidence that Madeleine was under surveillance before she disappeared?

Is there any evidence of an organised gang?

I understand that most abductors take younger children. Why wasn't one of the twins taken, or all three children come to that if the operation was so organised?

They didn't leave "very little physical evidence" of an abduction, to the best of my knowledge they left none at all, despite the McCanns initially claiming that the shutters had been forced open from the outside, which was subsequently shown to be untrue.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thousands of children disappear

> world-wide every year at the hands of these gangs,

> no trace ever left.

>

> You also must admit that the procedure followed by

> the Portuguese Police in their failure to seal off

> the crime scene and properly examine it

> forensically in the early part of the

> investigation has probably destroyed any chance of

> forensic evidence ever being anything but

> contaminated and inadmissable. That's a major

> criticism.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yes, if that is true (and I believe it is) of course it is a major criticism. So the police just have to go on what other evidence they have, in that situation.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> My issue with your argument in the early part of

> the thread has always been your eagerness to blame

> some failings of the case (and Police) on the

> McCanns. You did it there again, blaming the poor

> ferensic evidence on them letting friends into the

> apartment after they first saw Madeleine had gone.

> Well I think most people in the immediate

> aftermath of their child being missing would lets

> friends join a search, it wouldn't even occur to

> them that they might be affecting forensic

> evidence. They are not police officers after all.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That's weird, because I believe Mrs McCann said in at least one interview that she was well aware of the importance of not contaminating a crime scene.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> That is the crux my problem with your debate. We

> all agree that leaving chidlren unspervised is not

> a good idea but you confuse that with the mental

> state of someone that has lost a child and so have

> looked for 'deliberate meaning' in things relating

> to the McCanns that have no meaning at all (in

> order to support Amarals theory). At times you

> seem more intent on assigning blame to the McCanns

> than having a debate around evidence, or lack of,

> or procedure.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

OK, DJKQ, let me ask YOU just a few questions.

1. The door of the apartment was, according to the McCanns, left unlocked. Mrs McCann says she "knew immediately" that Madeleine had been abducted. Madeleine was nearly four. Why wasn't Mrs McCann's first thought that Madeleine had got out of bed, gone through the apparently unlocked door, and wandered off, perhaps trying to find her parents?

2. Why, if there was an abduction, did Mrs McCann refuse to answer 48 questions put to her by the police? Yes it was her legal right to do so - but you might consider it rather a strange way to help find out what had happened to her daughter.

3. Why did the McCanns and their friends refuse a police request to return to Portugal for a reconstruction which would have clarified inconsistencies in their statements and help establish a more accurate timeline, including whatever window/s of opportunity there could have been for an abductor to enter the apartment and carry Madeleine away?

4. Regardless of whether the DNA in the apartment was degraded or not, what were the two highly trained dogs alerting to, if a live child had been taken out of the apartment by an abductor?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> As impetuous has said when you look at ALL the

> leads, devlopments etc, within the timeline of

> their occurance, the picture is a quagmire.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yes it is. That's why the police wanted a reconstruction. So why did the parents and their friends refuse to go?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There

> is no clear cut 'most likely' theory, but a mess

> of conflicting information any part of which could

> be possible but none of which proves any theory

> likely enough in either way.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Well I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, yet again.

I've stated what I think is the most likely theory, with supporting evidence.

You have given no evidence for any other theory apart from vague statements about gangs in Portugal - have you? Have I missed it? I'm not being sarcastic, I actually would genuinely like to know.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> I also wouldn't dismiss the Wiki article out of

> hand. It seems to me to be a well researched and

> balanced attempt at presenting a fair overview.

> There are two acompanying pages by the author as

> well where he (or she) lists things omiitted or

> edited out either because they couldn't be

> corroberated or sources provided. And in itself it

> is a good example of just how complicated the case

> is.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I will have a look at it, but it has always been my understanding that Wiki is not in general a reliable source of information.

I really think we are going round in circles again DJKQ, unless you can come up with some supporting evidence for your theory that Madeleine was abducted by an organised gang who left no trace.