Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard

... will be a witness for Goncalo Amaral in Lisbon in January 2010.

Not a lot of info around about this (that I can find, anyway).

Anyone know anything?

was he involved in investigating the case at all?

Yes but details seem few and far between...

He collected Madeleine's DNA sample from the McCanns house

Thanks muratfan. I wonder what his contribution will be?

Not a lot.

I'm absolutedly fascinated to know what his witnesses will attest to, we have all seen the files and the various reports and we know that Amaral appears to have made up his theory to fit the speculation contained within the interim report, essentially, to use a sporting analogy, he took a look at the game just before the half time break and decided to run with that, completely ignoring the vital second half of the game.

So are his witnesses all going to state that yes at one point it was felt vital to try and rule out the parents and then they errr.... did.

At one time it was speculated there might be evidence that Madeleine came to harm inside the apartment but once the material was collected and analysed it seemed there was nothing to support it.

At one time it was felt that Robert Murat might be being less than honest about his whereabouts that night but after examination there seemed to be no link between him and the family or Madeleine.

Ho hum.

tyra wrote: we know that Amaral appears to have made up his theory to fit the speculation contained within the interim report,
Ho hum.

Step back a minute. the report may have been signed by somebody else, but who compiled the report? Who was the co-ordinator when the report was submitted? Who provided the speculation in the interim report?

So did his theory fit the report, or was the report a result of his theory? (then taken off the job)

Could this possibly refer to the so called medical sleep chart that Amaral referred to in his book?

And should the court date not be Jan 2010 ? :flower:

oops 2010 indeed - edited. :flower:

It looks like Freitas was a liaison officer, who's left as soon as the McCanns left Portgugal. Amaral wrote he's been passing on any relevant reports. He's passed on Madeleine's DNA profile to the PJ (in October).

According to Amaral's book the "fall from the sofa and died" is Guilhermino Encarnação's theory.

These witnesses that are named, are they people who have said 'yes we will testify for you old chum' or are they people that have been dragged into this against their will - named as those who he thinks will back up his claim that the contents of the book are all in the files, and that everyone shared his opinion?

No-one seems to know this, and it's pretty crucial.

it doesn't matter what any of his witnesses say. The investigation moved on and the decision was to clear them. They could stand up in court and shout till the cows come home "oh yes the mccanns did it". When the defence lawyer stands up and asks them to prove it - well what do they say?

Err isn't Amaral's lawyer the defence lawyer?
The McCann's lawyer asked for the injunction.

Molly wrote:Err isn't Amaral's lawyer the defence lawyer?
The McCann's lawyer asked for the injunction.

Oh - OK but you get my drift!

DCB1 wrote:it doesn't matter what any of his witnesses say. The investigation moved on and the decision was to clear them. They could stand up in court and shout till the cows come home "oh yes the mccanns did it". When the defence lawyer stands up and asks them to prove it - well what do they say?

The decision was not to go ahead with a prosecution as there was insufficient evidence. Nobody was cleared. I read the nearest UK equivalent was released without charge. Which is not quite the same thing as declared not guilty by a court. Perhaps this might be clarified by the January hearing.

@ DCB1 : Yes.

Unless they produce evidence to substantiate Amaral's claims. Which they can't, according to the GA.

MaryB wrote:

DCB1 wrote:it doesn't matter what any of his witnesses say. The investigation moved on and the decision was to clear them. They could stand up in court and shout till the cows come home "oh yes the mccanns did it". When the defence lawyer stands up and asks them to prove it - well what do they say?

The decision was not to go ahead with a prosecution as there was insufficient evidence. Nobody was cleared. I read the nearest UK equivalent was released without charge. Which is not quite the same thing as declared not guilty by a court. Perhaps this might be clarified by the January hearing.

Thankyou for repeating that.

TB - you will have to go to court and be found not guilty to clear your name.

MaryB wrote:

DCB1 wrote:it doesn't matter what any of his witnesses say. The investigation moved on and the decision was to clear them. They could stand up in court and shout till the cows come home "oh yes the mccanns did it". When the defence lawyer stands up and asks them to prove it - well what do they say?

The decision was not to go ahead with a prosecution as there was insufficient evidence. Nobody was cleared. I read the nearest UK equivalent was released without charge. Which is not quite the same thing as declared not guilty by a court. Perhaps this might be clarified by the January hearing.

It has already been decided.
People are not declared cleared by courts. It is assumed that they have done nothing wrong until proved otherwise.
The McCanns were not even charged due to the fact of there being NO evidence as opposed to insufficient.
The trial in January has nothing to do with their legal status. They are innocent in the eyes of the law.

But didn't the files say there was no evidence of a crime being committed. And yet a child has disappeared so obviously a crime has been committed. So no evidence doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing. It just means there is no evidence of wrongdoing. The evidence could have been cleared up, disguised or hidden. By somebody.

MaryB wrote:But didn't the files say there was no evidence of a crime being committed. And yet a child has disappeared so obviously a crime has been committed. So no evidence doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing. It just means there is no evidence of wrongdoing. The evidence could have been cleared up, disguised or hidden. By somebody.

?

Anyone is 'innocent' until their trial. Rose West then was 'innocent' up until a court of law found her guilty, by your reckoning. If someone escapes from justice by some means after they have committed a crime and before a trial they may be deemed innocent in the eyes of the law at that point but they are guilty of the crime nonetheless.
There was nothing to clear the Mccanns. There was no evidence of an abductor whatsoever and they were the last people to see her alive. They were made arguidos for a reason. If they escape justice because they evade a court of law, this doesn't prove their innocence, rather it points to clever lawyers and an abundance of cash.

marigold wrote:Anyone is 'innocent' until their trial. Rose West then was 'innocent' up until a court of law found her guilty, by your reckoning. If someone escapes from justice by some means after they have committed a crime and before a trial they may be deemed innocent in the eyes of the law at that point but they are guilty of the crime nonetheless.
There was nothing to clear the Mccanns. There was no evidence of an abductor whatsoever and they were the last people to see her alive. They were made arguidos for a reason. If they escape justice because they evade a court of law, this doesn't prove their innocence, rather it points to clever lawyers and an abundance of cash.

or an abductor

Were they made arguido's for a reason, I mean there is a list in the files to explain why Robert Murat was made an arguido but not one for the Mccanns, perhaps the PJ just realised a bit late that it might be a good idea to rule out the closest people to Madeleine, her family. It was documented that the Mccanns were planning to leave Portugal after 4 months, perhaps they thought they should try and do that before they came home to the uk?

marigold wrote:Anyone is 'innocent' until their trial. Rose West then was 'innocent' up until a court of law found her guilty, by your reckoning. If someone escapes from justice by some means after they have committed a crime and before a trial they may be deemed innocent in the eyes of the law at that point but they are guilty of the crime nonetheless.
There was nothing to clear the Mccanns. There was no evidence of an abductor whatsoever and they were the last people to see her alive. They were made arguidos for a reason. If they escape justice because they evade a court of law, this doesn't prove their innocence, rather it points to clever lawyers and an abundance of cash.

That really is a bit desperate. Innocent until proven guilty is a good principle for a good reason. It demands that before declaring an individual guilty of any crime it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In Rose Wests case she was regarded as innocent until the prosecution proved her guilty on the evidence provided, and she was duly sentenced.

You appear to be suggesting that in the McCanns case they must provide some sort of proof that there was an abductor. In other words to be regarded as guilty until they can demonstrate that they are innocent. Thank heavens a civilised society does not operate that way.

tyra wrote:Were they made arguido's for a reason, I mean there is a list in the files to explain why Robert Murat was made an arguido but not one for the Mccanns, perhaps the PJ just realised a bit late that it might be a good idea to rule out the closest people to Madeleine, her family. It was documented that the Mccanns were planning to leave Portugal after 4 months, perhaps they thought they should try and do that before they came home to the uk?

Did I read somewhere that it was unlikely they would have been made Arguidoes if it had not been rushed through?

PearlB wrote:

tyra wrote:Were they made arguido's for a reason, I mean there is a list in the files to explain why Robert Murat was made an arguido but not one for the Mccanns, perhaps the PJ just realised a bit late that it might be a good idea to rule out the closest people to Madeleine, her family. It was documented that the Mccanns were planning to leave Portugal after 4 months, perhaps they thought they should try and do that before they came home to the uk?

Did I read somewhere that it was unlikely they would have been made Arguidoes if it had not been rushed through?

The protocol for naming people as arguidos was about to change, that evidence would soon be required to justify the move, rather than simply a wish to ask questions that might technically result in an individual incriminating themselves.

tyra wrote:

PearlB wrote:

tyra wrote:Were they made arguido's for a reason, I mean there is a list in the files to explain why Robert Murat was made an arguido but not one for the Mccanns, perhaps the PJ just realised a bit late that it might be a good idea to rule out the closest people to Madeleine, her family. It was documented that the Mccanns were planning to leave Portugal after 4 months, perhaps they thought they should try and do that before they came home to the uk?

Did I read somewhere that it was unlikely they would have been made Arguidoes if it had not been rushed through?

The protocol for naming people as arguidos was about to change, that evidence would soon be required to justify the move, rather than simply a wish to ask questions that might technically result in an individual incriminating themselves.

I thought that was the case. Thanks.

"As they were summoned to depose again, while there was no plausible explanation for those situations and as they were to be confronted with the dogs’ findings and with the lab information, which were susceptible of rendering them responsible as authors of crimes (at least, of neglectful homicide and of concealment of a cadaver), they were, obligatorily and inexorably, made arguidos, in strict obedience to article 59 nr. 1 of the Penal Process Code; thus the disposition from nr. 4 of article 58 (presently 5) – its new redaction was not in force yet, taking into account that they were made arguidos on the 6th of September 2009 – and on the other hand they could benefit from arguido status, with all the rights and guarantees of defence that are inherent to it, despite the stigma that is associated with it, which is techno-juridically misadjusted. In effect, the constitution and questioning as arguidos, while used to confirm indications towards the committing of crimes, are also used, with equal strength and reason, to infirm indications and to eliminate suspects.

As judicially stressed in the sentence dated 06.10.1990 by the then Judge of the Police Court of Lisbon. “The authority that directs the inquiry is not free to postpone the moment when a witness passes into arguido status (…) if diligences are being performed, which are destined to prove her imputation, that affect her personally (…)”
Colectânea de Jurisprudência, 1990, vol. IV. p.323 and following.

The constitution of Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos at that moment is nothing more that the practical fulfilment of the right to defence of those arguidos, which is to say, to ensure their concrete rights to “co-determine or conform the process’ final decision. Said rights assume consistency and effectiveness, according to the new Code, right after the moment of constitution as an arguido, and therefore, still during the inquiry and the instruction.” - Professor Jorge de Figueiredo Dias, "Sobre os sujeitos processuais no novo Código de Processo Penal" Jornadas de Processo Penal, CEJ, Livraria Almedina, 1988, p 28.

Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act."

from http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic488.html
Archiving dispatch - "Legal summary"

I think that the act of making the McCanns Arguidos put a different slant on the case. There was and is no evidence against them so who would benefit......It didn't seem to benefit the McCanns in any way that I could see. Maybe I'm a little slow.