Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
Page 1 of 5 • Share
Page 1 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
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?
Not a lot of info around about this (that I can find, anyway).
Anyone know anything?
Ruby- Posts : 688
Activity : 704
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2009-11-27
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
was he involved in investigating the case at all?
Guest- Guest
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
Yes but details seem few and far between...
Ruby- Posts : 688
Activity : 704
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2009-11-27
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
He collected Madeleine's DNA sample from the McCanns house
Guest- Guest
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
Thanks muratfan. I wonder what his contribution will be?
Ruby- Posts : 688
Activity : 704
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2009-11-27
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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.
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.
Guest- Guest
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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)
DCB1- Posts : 334
Activity : 365
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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:
And should the court date not be Jan 2010 ? :flower:
Honoria- Posts : 22
Activity : 20
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2009-12-16
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
oops 2010 indeed - edited. :flower:
Ruby- Posts : 688
Activity : 704
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2009-11-27
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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.
According to Amaral's book the "fall from the sofa and died" is Guilhermino Encarnação's theory.
Guest- Guest
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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.
No-one seems to know this, and it's pretty crucial.
preciousramotswe- Posts : 269
Activity : 259
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2009-12-02
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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?
DCB1- Posts : 334
Activity : 365
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
Err isn't Amaral's lawyer the defence lawyer?
The McCann's lawyer asked for the injunction.
The McCann's lawyer asked for the injunction.
Guest- Guest
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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- Posts : 334
Activity : 365
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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.
MaryB- Posts : 204
Activity : 246
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2009-11-29
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
@ DCB1 : Yes.
Unless they produce evidence to substantiate Amaral's claims. Which they can't, according to the GA.
Unless they produce evidence to substantiate Amaral's claims. Which they can't, according to the GA.
Guest- Guest
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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.
DCB1- Posts : 334
Activity : 365
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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.
Slartibartfast- Posts : 135
Activity : 127
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2009-12-07
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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- Posts : 204
Activity : 246
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2009-11-29
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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.
?
DCB1- Posts : 334
Activity : 365
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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.
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- Posts : 234
Activity : 233
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2009-12-07
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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
vaguely- Posts : 440
Activity : 428
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2009-12-16
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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?
Guest- Guest
Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard
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.
sans_souci- Posts : 58
Activity : 60
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2009-12-02
Page 1 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 1 of 5
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum