Well he does mention cross contamination as a result of a variety of possible scenarios. Right after the bit where he says no intelligence reliability to be drawn without corroborating evidence.
Yes it would be great if all this was thrashed out in a court of law, would sort everything out once and for all
I have no idea what he bases his hypothesis on.
As we discovered in his recent court case, he has access to a great deal more information about the case than the general public. I'm just someone with a computer trying to make sense of what is in the public domain, and I know nothing about freezers, and how they might have been acquired or used.
Its not an hypothesis, he tells us its a fact as 'we policemen, experts, know'. Its all in C de M. Public domain. Part of the libel case. Which you support him in, don't you?
If it's his opinion he still has to back that up with fact. See "Fair Comment"
"The comment must be based on true facts which are either contained in the publication or are sufficiently referred to. It is for the defendant to prove that the underlying facts are true. If he or she is unable to do so, then the defence will fail"
And giving an opinion that the parents covered up the death of their daughter, that is a criminal act that will lower their reputation(further, if you like).
You are basing all this on the Defamation act as it applies in England and Wales - do you know that the same applies in Portugal ?
The same doesn't even apply in Scotland, so it's a bit dangerous to assume that you can apply an interpretation of the English law to the situation which will apply in Lisbon.
Its not an hypothesis, he tells us its a fact as 'we policemen, experts, know'. Its all in C de M. Public domain. Part of the libel case. Which you support him in, don't you?
Its not an hypothesis, he tells us its a fact as 'we policemen, experts, know'. Its all in C de M. Public domain. Part of the libel case. Which you support him in, don't you?
That's really interesting, Cath - can you give me a link to that bit? Where he says the freezer is a fact. You see I thought that he was drawing conclusions from evidence that had been found through the course of the investigation.
If only that were true, but there's no evidence you see.
I don't see, so there are thousands of police file pages, hundreds of witnesses interviewed, umpteen other investigations and there is no evidence of anything? THAT must be material for a Dr Seuss book
In a court of law all this could get straightened out
The mistake of the Portuguese was to not bring it to court and leave it in the air
surely someone who has heard someone calling Madeleine would not have a choice about giving a statement.
Well, since her husband's statement is widely available and there's no sign of hers, it looks as if she didn't give a statement. If she didn't, there may be a good reason. Or maybe she did have a choice about making one or not.
That's really interesting, Cath - can you give me a link to that bit? Where he says the freezer is a fact.
There are no end of links to "facts" spouted by the McCann family. But they are glossed over. Or accepted as facts. But not by the PJ or the PP in the archiving despatch.
What has the distance to Murat's house got to do with anything?
Not all the Tapas group could be in the Tapas bar could they? 9-15/9-30 was the time of maximum traffic with Gerry/Jane/Russell and Matt all stepping out.
Sorry I mis spelled. The voice wasn't heard coming from the apartment. It was some distance away, in the opposite direction, near Murat's house.
That's really interesting, Cath - can you give me a link to that bit? Where he says the freezer is a fact. You see I thought that he was drawing conclusions from evidence that had been found through the course of the investigation.
Really? What evidence of a freezer or freezing was found then? Oh none. Just like no evidence of death. And no evidence of cover up.
Its all on Morais' site somewhere. It was front page in C de M. He gave quite a few other interviews along similar lines.
I'm disinclined to go looking for it for people who aren't even aware of the statements and behaviour of the man they support. When I say man, I mean convicted criminal of course.
I would imagine that proving it wasn't her brother's would be an easy enough job.
I would be amazed if there wasn't unidentified DNA found in a holiday let - however well it was cleaned.
The PJ weren't trying to prove how much dna there was in the whole apartment. They were trying to match forensic samples, and they needed a control specimen
No , I think the unidentified dna was a forensic sample..
I remeber when they were found, it was the day Mr Python and I moved in together in our first house. An exciting day for us changed when I heard the very sad news their bodies had been found.:(
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling “Madeleine, Madeleine”, this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine’s disappearance”.
Where, there does it say the calling was coming from the direction of the Murat house?
Some workers at the complex in their statements say the alarm was raised before 9.30.
Oh it had if you've decided most of the witnesses are liars, a few others are well meaning but a bit out, and one (or maybe 2) were absolutely atomic clock correct. And of course, that the PJ concluded incorrectly.
Really? What evidence of a freezer or freezing was found then? Oh none. Just like no evidence of death. And no evidence of cover up.
Its all on Morais' site somewhere. It was front page in C de M. He gave quite a few other interviews along similar lines.
I'm disinclined to go looking for it for people who aren't even aware of the statements and behaviour of the man they support. When I say man, I mean convicted criminal of course.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz d-
must try harder
what will you say when/if tanner is found guilty that the whole thesis of abduction is based on her testimony - oh the irony
Comments
Yes it would be great if all this was thrashed out in a court of law, would sort everything out once and for all
That's not it. That's her husband's statement.
you're not suggesting that the abductor and murat were one and the same or connected are you?
Its not an hypothesis, he tells us its a fact as 'we policemen, experts, know'. Its all in C de M. Public domain. Part of the libel case. Which you support him in, don't you?
Yes, most likely. I wouldn't either.
You are basing all this on the Defamation act as it applies in England and Wales - do you know that the same applies in Portugal ?
The same doesn't even apply in Scotland, so it's a bit dangerous to assume that you can apply an interpretation of the English law to the situation which will apply in Lisbon.
If only that were true, but there's no evidence you see.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/02/mystery-of-rag-doll-by-ironside.html
Have you got a link to that please?
We' re led to believe that Carter Ruck monitor's certain areas of the internet. That might be used as evidence that their reputation has been damaged.
That's really interesting, Cath - can you give me a link to that bit? Where he says the freezer is a fact. You see I thought that he was drawing conclusions from evidence that had been found through the course of the investigation.
I don't see, so there are thousands of police file pages, hundreds of witnesses interviewed, umpteen other investigations and there is no evidence of anything? THAT must be material for a Dr Seuss book
In a court of law all this could get straightened out
The mistake of the Portuguese was to not bring it to court and leave it in the air
Whose? Carter Ruck? No!! Never!! :eek:
Lee Rainbow's report is not in the published files
Well, since her husband's statement is widely available and there's no sign of hers, it looks as if she didn't give a statement. If she didn't, there may be a good reason. Or maybe she did have a choice about making one or not.
There are no end of links to "facts" spouted by the McCann family. But they are glossed over. Or accepted as facts. But not by the PJ or the PP in the archiving despatch.
Sorry I mis spelled. The voice wasn't heard coming from the apartment. It was some distance away, in the opposite direction, near Murat's house.
The alarm hadn't been raised by 9.30.
Really? What evidence of a freezer or freezing was found then? Oh none. Just like no evidence of death. And no evidence of cover up.
Its all on Morais' site somewhere. It was front page in C de M. He gave quite a few other interviews along similar lines.
I'm disinclined to go looking for it for people who aren't even aware of the statements and behaviour of the man they support. When I say man, I mean convicted criminal of course.
The PJ weren't trying to prove how much dna there was in the whole apartment. They were trying to match forensic samples, and they needed a control specimen
No , I think the unidentified dna was a forensic sample..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/26/soham.ukcrime
I remeber when they were found, it was the day Mr Python and I moved in together in our first house. An exciting day for us changed when I heard the very sad news their bodies had been found.:(
And hopefully we will hear more such material as the various trials progress. Unless the McCanns listen to risk assessment warnings.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
Where, there does it say the calling was coming from the direction of the Murat house?
Some workers at the complex in their statements say the alarm was raised before 9.30.
Oh it had if you've decided most of the witnesses are liars, a few others are well meaning but a bit out, and one (or maybe 2) were absolutely atomic clock correct. And of course, that the PJ concluded incorrectly.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz d-
must try harder
what will you say when/if tanner is found guilty that the whole thesis of abduction is based on her testimony - oh the irony