Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

by MaryB 18.12.09 0:16

Wouldn't there have been a death certificate for that person who disappeared and then turned up again. So a death certificate doesn't seem to always mean your're dead. And neither does the absence of a death certificate necessary mean a person is alive.

by DCB1 18.12.09 0:22

MaryB wrote:Wouldn't there have been a death certificate for that person who disappeared and then turned up again. So a death certificate doesn't seem to always mean your're dead. And neither does the absence of a death certificate necessary mean a person is alive.

did you read what I said:

"In the case of Madeleine there is no death certificate."

Are you suggesting that someone is fraudulently claiming that Madeleine is dead?

I just don't understand your point.

by MaryB 18.12.09 0:30

What was your point. Perhaps I misunderstood your point as you were the one who first mentioned death certificate. And I only said I didn't think death certificate was always conclusive in practice. (Either way) Especially in a case of disappearance. Because of the person who turned up again who was supposed to be dead. That yachtsman guy.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.09 0:31

DCB1 wrote:
MaryB wrote:Wouldn't there have been a death certificate for that person who disappeared and then turned up again. So a death certificate doesn't seem to always mean your're dead. And neither does the absence of a death certificate necessary mean a person is alive.

did you read what I said:

"In the case of Madeleine there is no death certificate."

Are you suggesting that someone is fraudulently claiming that Madeleine is dead?

I just don't understand your point.

MaryB is saying, quite plainly, that the absence of a death certificate is an indication that Madeleine may still be alive but by no means proof of that as a fact.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.09 0:36

Raffle wrote:Where is the evidence they both died?

We might of course consider this published evidence from Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, published 10 September 2007:

QUOTE

The facts point to Madeleine dying on 3rd May in Apartment 5A:

From everything that was established, the facts point in the direction that the death of Madeleine McCann occurred on the night of 3 May 2007, inside apartment 5A, at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, which was occupied by the McCann couple and by their three children. There is a coincidence between the markings of cadaver odour and blood [by the two dogs], according to the (partial) Laboratory Report that has been annexed to the files.

The said marking occurred behind the living room sofa (cadaver odour/blood/DNA), which unarguably proves that said piece of furniture was pushed back by someone, after the death of Madeleine McCann was confirmed. Because of the few traces that were recovered on location and subject to examination, it has to be admitted as a strong hypothesis that it [the room] was subject to a clean-up operation at some time following the occurrence of death.

In the same manner, the soft toy that was used by the dead child, which was found at the top of the bed where she usually slept (see the photos from the initial inspection) reveals that someone put it there at a moment after Madeleine’s death, given the fact that the bed itself doesn’t have any cadaver odour.

This is to say, an intentional alteration of things in that apartment took place, in order to create a false scenario that doesn’t match reality, in an attempt to develop opportunities to create a bogus abduction scenario. It must be added that the cadaver dog strongly signalled the bedroom where the McCann couple slept, which may indicate the moving of the corpse from the actual death spot (the living room) into a non-visible part of the said master bedroom of the McCanns.

Furthermore, a strong marking of cadaver odour was made on Kate McCann’s clothes, which may indicate that she was in touch with the cadaver. There was also a strong marking of cadaver odour in the car that was used by the McCann couple after 27 May 2007). Taking together the blood dog’s marking, and based on the forensics that are included in the process files, which indicate the presence of Madeleine McCann’s DNA in the car boot, we cannot exclude a strong hypothesis that this vehicle may have possibly been used move the cadaver, 24 days or more after Madeleine’s death.

The indication from the cadaver dog, as well as from the blood detection dog, on the key of the aforementioned vehicle, where the laboratory would confirm the existence of Dr Gerald McCann’s DNA, cannot be dismissed. This last signalling was obtained by the dogs after the key was put far away from the vehicle, in a non-visible location.

Conclusions:

From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:

A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007

B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place

C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted

D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann

E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;

F. from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

G. Therefore, we suggest that the case files are sent to the Republic’s Prosecutor, in the Lagos legal district, for:

1) possible new questioning of the arguidos Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann, and

2) an evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case.

During the house search at the McCann couple’s residence, a diary style manuscript was found, already photocopied, possibly authored by Dr Kate McCann; admitting that it may contain information that may help to reach the material truth of facts.

We therefore propose that the photocopies of the said document are presented to the illustrious judge for the purpose of its apprehension (if legal), its translation and eventual collection of information to be included in the files, as necessary for the investigation.

At this date, I submit the case files for your appreciation, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.

10 September 2007 - Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida

UNQUOTE

by Slartibartfast 18.12.09 0:45

And then followed the prosecutor's report.

(Excuse the translation.)

Accordingly, in places and pieces marked and signed by the dog blood, expert examinations were performed, especially in a UK accredited laboratory (Forensic Science Service - see attached I and VII - Final Report of the FSS -) and also some in National Institute of Legal Medicine (see attached I), whose final results have not corroborate the canine markings, or cellular material was collected, however, was not identified as belonging to someone in particular, not having even been possible to determine the quality of the material (eg it could be blood or other body fluid). Note that the choice of this laboratory has been and continues to be obvious in view of its prestige, independence and scientific reputation, in spite opinion appears in the first instance the possibility of alignment of the DNA profile of MADELEINE with some of the traces collected (of which the large car in the Renault Scenic rented by the couple McCann), taking into account the content of that fax, then it incorporates the precise terms in the file (fls. 2620 et seq) but whose consistency as noted by the above mentioned final report of the FSS, was not to confirm, after the completion of long and complex examinations.

by Guest 18.12.09 11:16

Tony Bennett wrote:Let's put it another way.

What actual evidence do we have that either girl is alive?

Do we need evidence they are alive? Why?
There's been cases of missing children, assumed to be dead, who were found alive even if it was years after they disappeared.
Without proof of their death, I think it's unfair to any missing child to give up on him/her, stop searching, declare them dead.
There's no harm in assuming they are alive, there is or can be harm in assuming they are dead.

by Guest 18.12.09 12:23

Bennett: "Let's put it another way.

What actual evidence do we have that either girl is alive?"

What an extraordinary question from someone who professes to be a christian and who, apparently, has had legal training.

HOPE, Bennett - HOPE - as a christian, and lack of evidence that they are dead, neither body having been found.

by preciousramotswe 18.12.09 15:45

10 September 2007 - Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida

Note the date Mr Bennett.

A snapshot of the current team's thinking - the team headed by GA. The assertions made there were not later backed up by the forensics.

I also find the use of a press report in Tavares' opus, misquoting what Mr Healey said about sedation, absolutely chilling.

WTF was a senior detective doing, misquoting a press report as EVIDENCE in such a serious case?
If you cannot see what's wrong with this, then I can quite understand why you are no longer practicing law.

by Guest 19.12.09 16:27

Ruby wrote:He didn't botch it, he was stopped.
Read his book for enlightenment if this is truly news to you.
Which of the 14 photofits do you favour, then?

IS THAT YOU IN THAT AVATAR? ARE YOU RELATED TO BENT BENNETT

by Guest 19.12.09 16:28

by Ruby 19.12.09 22:01

benttoiletguy wrote:
Ruby wrote:He didn't botch it, he was stopped.
Read his book for enlightenment if this is truly news to you.
Which of the 14 photofits do you favour, then?

IS THAT YOU IN THAT AVATAR? ARE YOU RELATED TO BENT BENNETT

Yes. Yes it is.
Yes. Yes I am.
Glad you spotted the physical resemblance - it's out now.
Tony for business, Ruby for pleasure.
Think the big shoes were always a giveaway never mind

by Honoria 20.12.09 0:53

@ Ruby

Log in for more topics