L'enquête ne pouvait continuer, le statut du plus ancien arguido ayant épuisé tous les recours d'extension et devant être maintenu jusqu'à la fin de l'enquête, même si Robert M avait été mis hors de cause.
Our aim was identical with that of the Attorney-General's department. Attending a reconstruction and answering the questions arising from that exercise did not presume criminal conduct by any of the nine. The Attorney-General made it clear that there was no evidence of any crime by the parents and the Bureau always accepted that statement and agreed with it, as I do again now. But — the heart of the matter — there was no point in broadening the investigation until those questions were resolved in depth. That, it appears, remains the Portuguese authorities' view. This summer we felt that those questions were finally going to be put, though perhaps not answered, as part of the review process and said so. According to Scotland Yard the nine will not be re-interviewed, there is no evidence that they have been re-interviewed already and so we were wrong according to the evidence. Since we'd always tried to comment and campaign on the case using known evidence as a basis, rather than subjective theories without evidence, we got egg on our face and apologised to the parents for making a specific unjustified assertion. When the Yard review was announced the BB said that it would not accomplish its objectives until they did those interviews and resolved the "interruption"; no evidence has emerged to change that view. So, going on what the Yard have told us, it's my personal belief that the review will fail and the Madeleine McCann mystery will not be solved. That is not something to celebrate. Next, a word on the libel case. Then a look at the Yard and its review.
Une fois l'enquête classée sans suite, les arguidos avaient le droit de requérir la phase d'instruction, qui dure quelques mois, sous la direction du juge d'instruction, et culmine avec un débat contradictoire à l'issue duquel le Ministère public décide de poursuivre ou de classer sans suite.
Oddly, it did: that is what the Portuguese constitution allows. In a somewhat tight-lipped final paragraph of the PJ report Inspector João Carlos, having admitted that they were frankly unable to determine just what had happened on May 3, wrote: "...we do not currently envisage any further investigative steps likely to produce useful results, I submit this report for your consideration and decision." Or in modified English practice and parlance "the police are not looking for anyone else in relation to..." So with the PJ's official admission that they had no other leads and no plans to look any further for the child the investigation into her disappearance came to an end. Now, without stepping into the shadows of the Portuguese legal system, it is obvious that this self-consciously public dotting of "i"s and crossing of "t"s by police and prosecutors must have been the outcome of much unrecorded discussion at all levels - but nobody wants to talk about that. To Amaral it all stank of a behind-closed-doors stitch-up, a determination to end the inquiry for raisons d'etat, and from an English point of view one can see why he was outraged. That, however, is a matter for the Portuguese themselves.
Temos para nos que os principais prejudicados foram arguidos McCann, que perderam a possibilidade de comprovarem aquilo que desde a sua constittuicao como arguidos tem protestado : a sua inocencia face ao fatidico acontecimento : tambem estorvada restou a investigacao, porque tais factos ficarem por esclarecer.We believe that the main losers were the McCanns, who lost the opportunity to prove the truth of their assertions – maintained ever since they were made arguidos – that they were innocent, and the investigation itself because of this failure to clarify the facts.
Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.
and caused the parents
Si ce qu'établit GA dans son livre est vrai, il ne peut être accusé de diffamation. Si ce qu'il établit comme vrai ne peut être prouvé, mais s'il prouve qu'il l'a établi de bonne foi (donc sans malice), il est difficile de l'accuser de diffamation.
Et pourtant le leit-motiv des supporters est que Amaral a suspecté sournoisement les parents dès le départ, à leur insu et donc sans leur laisser une chance d'être mis hors de cause.
As for Madeleine there are sixty entries for "Amaral" but for some reason she is as silent about the truth or falsity of Amaral's central claim as M/S Duarte has been all this week. Not one entry states that the claim is untrue. As for claim 2 we do have a suggestive entry, perhaps the last word on the validly of the medical and psychiatric claims of "total destruction." It runs:
I've always been considered quite a gentle person but these attacks stirred up terrible emotions in me. It was as if my whole body was trying to scream but a tightly screwed-on lid was preventing the scream from escaping. Instead I was just howling internally. My punch bag certainly came in handy at times. Amaral's documentary was the last straw. On 20 April we took the decision with Isabel Duarte to sue him. While she did the preparatory work, we were off to the States again – to appear on Oprah Winfrey's talk show.That leaves the fragments and comments from days three and four. I must say I've felt uncomfortable with some of the forum stuff I've seen. Many supporters and critics seem more concerned with what the media, particularly the UK media, are saying about the case than with the evidence itself.
Les supporters, ayant du mal à croire à l'absence totale de preuves, ont déduit qu'étaient omis des rapports les éléments dérangeants pour les sceptiques, ou du moins les références à ces preuves qui sûrement figuraient dans le dossier. Ils n'ont pas voulu croire non plus qu'un procès est un événement oral, que les témoignages écrits n'en font pas partie, que les témoins doivent venir à la barre et répondre aux questions, etc. L'épisode "Michael Wright" où le témoin est surpris et blâmé car il a amené des notes qu'il consulte de temps à autre, témoigne bien de l'oralité nécessaire du procès.
As far as critics are concerned, of what possible value are the views of the press who lethally contaminated the legal process in May 2007 and manufactured the Kate & Gerry McCann package? They're the same people. For supporters, what possible value are the views of a press that, led by Mr Jerry Lawton, contaminated the legal process in September 2007 by claiming that the McCanns were murderers? They're the same people. The media don't ultimately decide anything: the facts do. The Lisbon process is just another stage in adding to the limited number of facts in the case – whichever way they point – and another opportunity for people to assess whether their views are in accordance with those facts as they emerge. So I don't really get it when many people seem to be appraising what they've read of witness evidence by whether it agrees with their view of the case and how it will play in the papers. Isn't that what juries are always warned against?
The Internet monitor Mr Wright is, of course, the same Michael Wright who has featured so helpfully before in the Madeleine McCann affair – helpful, that is, and I regret having to say it, to the parents, rather than the child. Mr Wright has the doubtful honour of being the very first person to start putting in place alibis for the parents' behaviour – on May 4. It was he who, after conferring with Gerry McCann, contacted the Evening Standard to get the clan's version of events out having been persuaded to say that he was defending them against unfair criticism. He did this early in the day so that it would make the London Evening Standard before the evening of May 4. Alert readers will note that this is well ahead of the "surprise" that Gerry McCann told parliament and Leveson he got when he returned from Portimao police headquarters to find a media mob waiting for them. Some surprise! As I wrote in the Cracked Mirror in 2009 Gerry McCann had been on his mobile all morning providing feeds for that media – from within the very police headquarters where he was supposedly present to help the police search for the child. You'd think he'd have been so busy racking his brains for any detail that he could pass on to the police to assist the search or help his child that he'd have no interest in what the media thought. Mr Wright told the Standard that there had been "spin" against the McCanns that had given a misleading impression of what had happened the previous evening. If I may be permitted to quote the whole relevant passage from the Cracked Mirror regarding Gerry McCann's organization of friends and family to brief the media from Portimao police HQ:
Perhaps M/S Renwick's next comment was her own - or perhaps not. "She said," The Standard continues, "the McCanns had chosen the resort because it was family friendly. [Untrue; the resort was not, as we have seen, chosen by the McCanns but by David Payne] This is the first time they have done this,” she added [untrue; it was not the first time they had done this] They are very, very anxious parents and very careful," she said. [As we have seen earlier, in Praia de Luz the parents had in practice been neither very anxious nor very careful]. And then The Standard had this: "Michael Healy[this was Michael Wright], the missing girl's uncle, added: "There has been some negative spin put on this, with people criticising them for leaving the kids and going on the tear.” Mr Healy added, "But it's nonsense, they were close by and were eating within sight of where the children were and checking on them. Other members of the group were checking on her as well. (faux) No one was rip-roaring drunk.
There was a possibility that the writer might be giving evidence in the Portuguese libel proceedings later in the month. That being the case it would have been grossly unfair to comment on or criticise witnesses for the claimants who testified before me and as a result I stopped writing about the case, without giving the reasons. I will not be giving evidence so refraining from comment is no longer necessary. But there was a further reason for reconsidering the way in which we post about the case. It was obvious back in February, when the parents' attempt to settle the case failed, that a twin phase of the case was, at last, coming to an end: the phase of strangled MSM coverage in which the latter only published material favourable to Kate & Gerry McCann and that in which responsible Internet analysis of the case was continually at risk should lawyers for the McCanns choose to follow the Lord McAlpine route. The foundation of those threats was current UK libel law and the way in which lawyers for the parents used the Archiving Summary as a formal legal summation of the case. As is well known Carter Ruck threatened commentators on the case using precisely this tactic. Even after the Portuguese appeal court ruling, which was not reported in the UK MSM, it could still be argued in overseas jurisdictions that the Archiving Summary was a fair and above all neutral assessment of the evidence, or absence of it, against Kate & Gerry McCann. Even as late as the Bennett case the judge appears to have taken that view, at least provisionally. But then he didn't have a lawyer to correct him. All this is now in the past. The notes to the 2013 libel act, brought in by our MPs after a long struggle by campaigners to whom we a debt of gratitude, under the heading "Reports etc. protected by privilege"* states:
..but you know and then you're looking for information to, to try and fit in with what you thinks happened and then you know when, when we knew that we just thought, you know, that is it, that is who’s taken her.
So you would like to remove this then?Well I don't...If we remove.Yeah, from.This is the final check before Madeleine was noticed missing' if we remove that?Yeah, yeah, actually, yeah, it's mainly me just commenting on what Matt said.