On it goes...

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.10 20:30

John Blacksmith writes: Well, in the end GA couldn’t pull it off. The archiving summary, by the prosecutors, represents the official Portuguese view that there is no evidence that the child is dead, nor any evidence likely to lead to a successful prosecution of the McCanns for negligence or anything else.

Which means that, like anyone else in the EU who has not been charged or prosecuted, they are innocent.

Accordingly Goncalo Amaral had to show the court that the evidence existed to justify his claims that they were far from innocent and that the child had died in the family apartment. This he was unable to do.

He certainly showed that there was a consensus among the investigating team that the parents’ version of events was not true. That is now established. He was, however, unable to show that the investigation as a whole supported his view. There was, in fact, a double void at the centre of his case:
.
1) The absence of any evidence from officers working under his successor Rebelo, either in a personal or official capacity. If, for example, it had been shown in court that Rebelo's team, after their own investigation, came to the same view of the parents as their predecessors, then the presumption of innocence is slightly weakened.

2) The failure to provide solid inferential evidence based on the conduct of the parents since May 3 2007. Is their conduct consistent and, if so, in what way and what possible conclusions can be inferred from it? Are there any elements of their conduct, approaches to witnesses, say, or breaches of the Portuguese legal code, which could weaken their otherwise automatic human rights?

Anyway, with that double failure to dent the presumption of innocence he lost his case; the judge took a strict interpretation of the law and made, I think, the correct decision.

There are some lessons to be learned, although I have no intention of helping the parents by discussing them in detail here. The most obvious one, I regret to say, is that regardless of the merits or otherwise of Goncalo Amaral’s thesis, his defence team was not up to the challenge.

The most important witness in Amaral’s favour, a very surprising one, a man who begged for a detailed cross examination with a strategic end in view, was almost ignored: throughout the hearing there was a failure to develop Amaral’s case dynamically, building on what the mostly admirable witnesses said and making a current and expanding case rather than a semi-static recital of what people believed in early 2007. It is an issue which must be addressed before the full libel trial.

I am proud to have supported Goncalo Amaral during the hearing. Now there is work to be done.
-----
SourceL http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-it-goes.html

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.10 20:31

Is this the same 'blacksmith' as from the Cracked Mirror blog?

by Cath 18.02.10 21:10

I don't know Jill.

by jack 18.02.10 21:14

All Amaral needed was an expert witness to confirm that the reaction of the dogs proved the presence of a corpse . The fact that he did not produce one shows that there is no evidence that Maddie is dead.

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.10 21:20

jack wrote:All Amaral needed was an expert witness to confirm that the reaction of the dogs proved the presence of a corpse . The fact that he did not produce one shows that there is no evidence that Maddie is dead.

Surely all it proves is that there is no corpse? Which we know.

Doesn't mean to say there wasn't a corpse or that Maddie isn't dead. They just need to find the corpse.

I don't understand how two dogs can be wrong in the same places when they haven't been wrong before.

I hope they were, but I don't see how.

by Cath 18.02.10 21:25

Different dogs, trained for different purposes Jill.
And even dogs don't get it always right.

by whoknowsthetruth 18.02.10 21:32

Wasn't there posts that says that both dogs alert to blood. If so did they both alert to blood?

by vaguely1 18.02.10 21:34

whoknowsthetruth wrote:Wasn't there posts that says that both dogs alert to blood. If so did they both alert to blood?

Yes they both alert to blood.

But if Eddie reacts and Keela doesn't then this would suggest cadaver odour.

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.10 22:45

Well, if they both reacted to blood then there must have been an awful lot of blood for it to be behind the sofa, up the wall, under a floor tile, in the wardrobe, on the verandah, on some items of clothes and in the hire car.

Who would abduct a child who was bleeding that much? And why did the bleeding seem to stop on the verandah and not all across the street? Who would hide a bleeding child in so many various places before 'abducting' her, when there was only supposed to be a 3 minute timeframe? And then why bring her back so she could bleed in the hire car 25 days later?

by Pascal 18.02.10 22:46

jkh wrote:Well, if they both reacted to blood then there must have been an awful lot of blood for it to be behind the sofa, up the wall, under a floor tile, in the wardrobe, on the verandah, on some items of clothes and in the hire car.

Who would abduct a child who was bleeding that much? And why did the bleeding seem to stop on the verandah and not all across the street? Who would hide a bleeding child in so many various places before 'abducting' her, when there was only supposed to be a 3 minute timeframe?

Was it blood or cadaver in the flower bed?

by vaguely1 18.02.10 22:55

jkh wrote:Well, if they both reacted to blood then there must have been an awful lot of blood for it to be behind the sofa, up the wall, under a floor tile, in the wardrobe, on the verandah, on some items of clothes and in the hire car.

Who would abduct a child who was bleeding that much? And why did the bleeding seem to stop on the verandah and not all across the street? Who would hide a bleeding child in so many various places before 'abducting' her, when there was only supposed to be a 3 minute timeframe? And then why bring her back so she could bleed in the hire car 25 days later?

'reacts' not reacted. - just in case you misread my wording x

by jmbd 18.02.10 22:56

jkh wrote:Well, if they both reacted to blood then there must have been an awful lot of blood for it to be behind the sofa, up the wall, under a floor tile, in the wardrobe, on the verandah, on some items of clothes and in the hire car.

Who would abduct a child who was bleeding that much? And why did the bleeding seem to stop on the verandah and not all across the street? Who would hide a bleeding child in so many various places before 'abducting' her, when there was only supposed to be a 3 minute timeframe? And then why bring her back so she could bleed in the hire car 25 days later?

So much blood that the PJ missed on the initial forensic sweep of the apt - and it was only detected and not forensically proved to be blood months later.

by Mgunnill 19.02.10 12:51

After the result from Portugal how does that affect Mr Bennett's new book? I am looking forward to its publication as a positive step forward but I am worried we may never get to see it in England.

by vaguely1 19.02.10 12:54

I don't think his book is based on Amaral's book. If it's just excepts from the files and no opinion piece then there can't be a problem with publishing it. Unless the fact the files are copyrighted makes a difference?

by **Tony Bennett** 19.02.10 19:11

JoMc wrote:After the result from Portugal how does that affect Mr Bennett's new book? I am looking forward to its publication as a positive step forward but I am worried we may never get to see it in England.

Just to clarify, our latest book consists of a dozen key statements from the released Portuguese police files. Apart from a short introduction, it is comment-free, so should not attract any libel letters. It is not based on Goncalo Amaral's thesis or indeed any other thesis. People will be able to make up their mind on the basis of what they read.

We hope to have the booklet out in time for our fourth conference on 27 February:

www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

http://www.ukfreepress.com/id6.html

by Cath 19.02.10 19:14

Oh dear what about the other date you've mentioned?
Wasn't it supposed to have been printed already?

For information about our new book, titled: “The Madeleine
McCann Case Files: Volume 1”, due out February 2010, please see below.

by bunny 19.02.10 19:14

Wasnt it due out this month?

by **Tony Bennett** 19.02.10 19:19

Inyx wrote:Oh dear what about the other date you've mentioned?
Wasn't it supposed to have been printed already?

For information about our new book, titled: “The Madeleine
McCann Case Files: Volume 1”, due out February 2010, please see below.

What 'other date'?

We've never given 'another date'.

Are you thinking perhaps of Steve Marsden's book 'Faked Abduction' which he said would be out 'before Christmas'?

by **Tony Bennett** 19.02.10 19:21

bunny wrote:Wasn't it due out this month?

Correct.

Hopefully by 27 February.

But it depends on the printers now.

by vaguely1 19.02.10 19:23

I thought I'd seen a photograph of a copy of it already printed or was that a test run or something?

by **Tony Bennett** 19.02.10 19:25

vaguely1 wrote:I thought I'd seen a photograph of a copy of it already printed or was that a test run or something?

It's what's known in the printing trade as a 'proof copy' - they send you a 'proof' of the finished article before they do their print run.

Pre-orders are looking good so far.

by vaguely1 19.02.10 19:26

by Cath 19.02.10 19:40

I responded to your post before mine, the one on page 1, the one you've edited now.

Tony Bennett wrote:Just to clarify, our latest book consists of a dozen key statements from the released Portuguese police files. Apart from a short introduction, it is comment-free, so should not attract any libel letters. It is not based on Goncalo Amaral's thesis or indeed any other thesis. People will be able to make up their mind on the basis of what they read. We hope to have the booklet out in time for our fourth conference on 27 August:

www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

http://www.ukfreepress.com/id6.html

That's how you've caused the confusion.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.02.10 19:48

Inyx wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Just to clarify, our latest book consists of a dozen key statements from the released Portuguese police files. Apart from a short introduction, it is comment-free, so should not attract any libel letters. It is not based on Goncalo Amaral's thesis or indeed any other thesis. People will be able to make up their mind on the basis of what they read. We hope to have the booklet out in time for our fourth conference on ~~27 August:~~[TB: That should have read 27 February, my apologies]
www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

http://www.ukfreepress.com/id6.html

That's how you've caused the confusion.