Here we go again.

Post Reply
User avatar
honestbroker1
Posts: 7619
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Here we go again.

Post by honestbroker1 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:08 pm

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10413.0

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/ ... asection13

Giles Tremlett wrote that article before release of the files.

While Tremlett was right to conclude that the offer made to the McCanns was not a 'plea-bargain', he was wrong to infer that, therefore, there was no offer made.

Mark Harrison was instructed, by the PJ, by Amaral's boss, Encarnacadio, to investigate that Madeleine had been MURDERED AND BURIED.

Harrison even offered, on request, to investigate possibilities or scenarios other than murder.

Nothing on-line suggests Harrison was taken up on his offer.

The culmination of a murder enquiry was that the McCanns were made arguidos accused of the MURDER of Madeleine.

The deal put to the couple, not a plea-bargain, but nonetheless, a deal, was that if, particularly Kate, were to plead guilty to finding and moving a body, (Madeleine), she would get a few years, while Gerry would get off free: OR, that both would face MURDER charges.

The McCanns called the PJ's bluff and no charges were brought.
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
(Mark Harrison)

And later, this:
In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.

User avatar
honestbroker1
Posts: 7619
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Here we go again.

Post by honestbroker1 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:54 pm

From the point of Grime's shenanigans on, there was a conviction, borne of Eddie's reactions, that Madeleine had been murdered.

Then there was this, written, I believe, by Joao Carlos who, over the whole of the enquiry, proved himself sound, but did have a wobbly bit in the middle, like far too many others, led astray by the dog-handler:
Behaviour susceptible of including the crimes of homicide and hiding of a cadaver is being investigated, according to articles n? 131 and 254 of the CPP.

Therefore, and considering the existence of indications that would substantiate a strong suspicion that inside the vehicle that the McCanns were using, there could be elements of proof (instrumental and direct) of the practice of the crimes that are being investigated in the case and that are susceptible to being of fundamental importance for the objectives of the inquiry.
Of course, homicide embraces murder.

Of course, IF Harrison is correct that Madeleine's remains were thrown into the sea, the culprit, if caught, will certainly face murder charges.

And that final and tentative conclusion of Harrison's makes the chapter of Amaral's book, The Arrival of the Experts: the hypothesis of death is considered makes Amaral look silly.

User avatar
honestbroker1
Posts: 7619
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Here we go again.

Post by honestbroker1 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:52 pm

One of (many) things Amaral should be taken to task for is his patently bogus claim that we talked about death by others, not murder.

User avatar
honestbroker1
Posts: 7619
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Here we go again.

Post by honestbroker1 » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:16 am

From chapter 16 of Amaral's book:
AMAZING STATISTICS

Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.

The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.
As you would expect, I shan't allow that to remain unchallenged. More in an edit.

Here is what Mark Harrison actually said about statistics:
Homicide Disposal Datasets

A limited search has been conducted of datasets that contain body disposal
data in homicide cases (CATCHEM, SCAS, FBI). Although this search was
limited due to the time constraints placed on this reports delivery an inference
can be gained from both the data sets and the authors own case work
experience. I have also consulted with NPIA and FBI colleagues to benefit
from their experiences.
The conclusion inferred is that beach burial is extremely rare. This should not
surprise us as to dig on a beach is a high risk activity requiring expending time
and energy when a more 'least effort" disposal is readily available, that is
directly into the sea. Of those limited cases that were found to be a beach
disposal the overwhelming majority were surface depositions with only one
recorded concealment using rocks on top of a 2 year old child (CATCHEM
Database)
To rule out Mark Harrison's own ,earlier, hypothetical musing that large boulders on the beach could have been used to conceal the body of a child. Harrison inferred that such an event, while precedented , is exceedingly rare and unlikely to be what happened to Madeleine.

Amaral didn't seem to understand the investigation he nominally headed at all.

User avatar
honestbroker1
Posts: 7619
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Here we go again.

Post by honestbroker1 » Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:18 pm

In complying with these terms I undertook a series of briefings and site visits. These were with GNR and PJ personnel who had been involved in the previous searches conducted the week following Madeleine McCann’s disappearance in Praia da Luz.



The output of this process of reconnaissance and review was a written document entitled “Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document” (see appendix 2) and submitted to the PJ with copies supplied to Leicestershire Police and NPIA on 23-07-07.

It recommended considering re searching:



- All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles.

- The villa and garden occupied by Robert Murat and any vehicles he had access to.

- Areas of wasteland adjacent to Murat’s and the McCann’s apartment.

- Areas of the beach in Praia da Luz.

- A portion of the coastline east of Praia da Luz.



These recommendations were based on the fact that these areas had not been previously searched with the specific intent to locate Madeleine McCann’s concealed and deceased body and that the areas recommended afforded likely and obvious places to consider for concealment in such an investigation.
This was written about a week before the first inspection.

Did Harrison really write, with a straight face, that the McCanns' hired villa, moved into long after a full scale police and civilian search for Madeleine, might be an 'obvious place' to search for Madeleine's concealed and deceased remains?

Plain barking,

User avatar
honestbroker1
Posts: 7619
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Here we go again.

Post by honestbroker1 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:29 pm

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.ph ... =10458.915

Davel says:
The mccanns do not need the archiving report to be entitled to the presumption of innocence... That is patently incorrect
Absolutely right. The presumption of innocence is enshrined law and does not need to be stated by anyone.

Still, what the Prosecutors said does come in handy:
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

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.
Of course, the prosecutors missed that the presentation of the English sniffer dogs (Eddie in particular) was fraudulent (no 'enhanced' training on human remains in America); their deployment incompetent and corrupt (not a shred of justification for 'inspecting' clothing, for example)

Post Reply