2 August 2009

The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part V


G - Appreciation and Juridical Frame [continued]

In a final synthesis, based on facts, it seems to us that the following can be asserted:

- On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy – like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established – headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep;

- She’d barely entered the apartment when she noticed that her daughter Kate [sic] had disappeared, not being in her bed nor in any other location inside the residence and that the bedroom’s window and shutters were open;

- Then, Kate Healy ran to the restaurant, immediately alerting Gerald McCann and the other friends;

- Following that alert, the entire apartment was searched and rummaged by an indeterminate number of people, thus resulting in the contamination of traces, with irreversible and undetermined damage in terms of the acquisition of evidence;

- Immediately, intense and extensive terrestrial, maritime and aerial searches were launched, which lasted for several days, involving hundreds of people and equipment and means, as sophisticated and advanced as presently available;

- Several hundred people were heard, formally and informally, whose hearing was anticipated as being of interest for the clarification of the matter, thousands of pieces of information and suggestions were analysed, and tens of sightings and locations that seemed plausible were checked. Telephone interceptions were performed and the traffic data from thousands of telephone conversations was analysed and crossed, and many thousands of diligences of the most diverse nature were developed;

- The obliging cooperation and commitment of Police forces from many Countries, with a very special mention for the British police entities, was counted upon;

- Tests and analyses were performed in two of the most prestigious and credentialed institutions for this effect – the National Institute for Legal Medicine and the British lab Forensic Science Service -, whose final results did not positively value the collected residues, or corroborated the canine markings;

- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.

Finally, it should be underlined that this case, unfortunately, is not a police novel, an appropriate scenario for a “crime” that is tailored for the success of the investigative work of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always manage to re-establish the altered order, returning to society the peace and the tranquillity that were only accidentally disturbed.

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is rather an implacable and intricate case of real life, which lies closer to the lucid narrative by Friedrich Duerrenmatt, - “The Pledge. Requiem for the police novel” – because reality and everyday life owe little or no obedience, most of the times, to logic.

Life’s events do not conform to stereotyped novel-like schemes, it is rather the case that its outcome is often the product of chance or conditioned by accidental and unpredictable factors, and therefore, hard to envision.

The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.

Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.

Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.

Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:

a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.

Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.

Portimão, 21.07.08

The Republic’s Prosecutor

(José de Magalhães e Menezes)

The Joint General Prosecutor

(João Melchior Gomes)


in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4645-4649 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)

Related:

The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part I
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part II
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part III
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part IV
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part V
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VI
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VII
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VIII

PDF File via Expresso


14 comments:

  1. Continuing my comment on the article before, the key of the car had no cadaver scent but blood.
    I just checked on Amaral's book.
    About the blood on the wall in the apartment:
    that false story was spreaded around by Duarte Levy.Watch Amaral's documentary above, you can see Levy confessing it and the comment of somebody of the British laboratory.At that moment the laboratory had no results of the tests yet.
    the flowerbed: I don't know but a mattress on the flower
    bed would not have been enought to contaminate with cadaver scent.I understood that cadaver scent does not go from object to object but directly from cadaver to object.The cadaver must be in touch with the object.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joana or Astro, can you inform us if the church in Luz has a cript, a place underground?
    And where is its door?
    Are there graves in this cript?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "....Nevertheless, anyone who
    feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue..."

    ANYONE WHO FEELS UNSATISFIED...!?

    I suspect I wasn't meant to laugh out loud at this absurd understatement.

    Is anyone else shocked by this sloppy, fanciful (Sherlock Holmes?!) and unprofessional summing up by José de Magalhães e Menezes? It looks to me like he was holding to an agenda and just going through the motions in producing this.


    Obrigada, dear Joana & astro, your work in bringing this to us is much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps the body was put on the flowerbed for a short time, in order to convince Tapas 10 that it was an accident.Madeleine fell down out of the window of the parents bedroom, while searching for them.
    The GNR dogs would smell Madeleine's scent everywhere, also on the flowerbed.
    This would explain also the broken bones of her chest and eventual blood.
    And Tapas 10 believed the story.
    No good explanation for the scent on the flowerbed, except for to cheat on Tapas 10.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joana, may God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon what an excellent thought , this has been driving me crazy. My thought was that Mccann was just about to move madeleine from the apartment when Mccann spots Wilkins first and lays her in the flower bed... Your theory sounds much more natural which would account for the pact of silence.

    IRONSIDE

    ReplyDelete
  7. HOW THE ABDUCTION THEORY AND THE CHECKING AFFAIR OF THE FLAT DID NOT MATCH OR MAKE SENSE:


    -SUPOSING there is an abductor and that abductor is a completly strange to all Tapas 9 ( The most convennient situation for Gerry and Kate). That abductor did not fall in the place as an accident just on the exact and parfait minute to take the child leaving no trace. He must be there for quite long time waiting. He must see the Tapas 9 checking the flats AND THIS MUST DISSUADATE HIM FOR ANY TENTATIVE TO GET CLOSE TO HE FLAT. HE WILL LEAVE HIS INTENTIONS TO ANNOTHER TIME WITH MORE FREEDMON IN THE STREET AND SURROUDED ENVIRONMENT.... CLEAR!! ONLY THE TAPAS 9 with their poor and framed imagination will spread that tale.

    THEN... ON that night... or there is no abductor or there is no checking on the childs. OR.... more faithful for me... that night not even exist for Madeleine, she died late in the afternoon and the Mccann's spend their time trying a solution for the case, framing their friends with all the secrets they know about them. I just remember reading in some newspaper that M.O. has a legal process against him regarding medical negligence and Gerry it is one of his most important witnesses. THE CASE CaN BE MORE COMPLICATED THEN ONLY A LITLE CHILD EVAPORATING WITH NO TRACES.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, Joana and Astro, your the ONLY blog where one can have a serious discussion now. Sky News blog is dead quiet, Claudia's blog is all about her and her sick relatives, 3 Arguidos is in shambles and Viv is tired of discussing this subject. By the way, surprise you're not discussing Tony Benett's big horse and doggie show that happened yesterday....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello
    To Anonymous who posted:

    "Perhaps the body was put on the flowerbed for a short time, in order to convince Tapas 10 that it was an accident.Madeleine fell down out of the window of the parents bedroom, while searching for them.
    The GNR dogs would smell Madeleine's scent everywhere, also on the flowerbed.
    This would explain also the broken bones of her chest and eventual blood.
    And Tapas 10 believed the story.
    No good explanation for the scent on the flowerbed, except for to cheat on Tapas 10."

    Who is the 10th Tapas?
    What broken bones?
    Sorry, not sure I follow.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To Anonymous, whose reply (2 Aug) started: "It is not difficult to find out if somebody died in the apartment, before Maddie and the PJ checket on it (Amaral's book)."

    Yes, I agree with you that in the case of a foreigner staying in a holiday rental apartment, managed by OC, besides doctors, ambulance staff, etc., the OC would have made a statement. A coroner would probably have also been brought in as well as consular staff, and airline records in the event of repatriation, etc.

    However, without knowing the full history of that apartment, it's hard to tell whether it was always a holiday apartment managed by OC or not.

    I'm still curious about this aspect and I hope someone can help find the report (it could simply be that I have missed it in the mass of documents). One of my main questions is how far back records were checked as I believe it may only have been quite some time later that the fact that the dogs could detect scents going back a hundred years or more (just checked: yes, this was part of the Q/A rogatory statement in 5/08). Therefore, at the time, a check into the past 5-6 years may have seemed perfectly adequate. This, of course, would not prove or disprove whether the little girl also died there or not. It might simply add another piece to the jigsaw puzzle.

    A few other thoughts to share (for whatever they're worth).

    ReplyDelete
  11. You mention that it would have to have been a small body to fit in the cupboard. I'm not so sure that the scent came from inside the cupboard. I checked the video again.

    Here is what Martin Grime says on the video of Eddie in 5a:

    "Hmm, as he's worked through the house, hmm, the only two places where he picks up enough scent to give me the bark alert are in this bedroom in this corner where he was barking. Hmm, what we have to be able to understand in a situation like this is that, hmm, in a hot climate, hmm, with the apartment being closed down, hmm, this scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e, hmm, a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will, hmm, collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, of the apartment. Hmm, and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me, hmm, a bark indication. Hmm, but the source may not be in that cupboard; the source may well be in this room somewhere else, but the air is actually pushing it into that corner. Hmm, but his strong indication, hmm, and, hmm, I would say it's positive for, hmm, the things that he's trained to find, hmm, which will be part of a separate debrief."

    I understand that to mean that the scent COULD have come from the cupboard, but that air currents could have simply made the scent accumulate in that part of the room.

    He further states: "The first alert (i.e. the bedroom) was given with the dogs head in the air WITHOUT (my caps) a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.

    "The second alert (i.e. behind the sofa) was one where a definitive area was evident".

    Re direct contamination between a body and an object: yes, this is also my interpretation when MG mentions "cadaver scent contaminant". However, he goes on to mention cross-contamination, which I (perhaps wrongly) believe means that the odour was in contact with object a, which could then have been transferred to object b.

    "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Re the car, you're right. The book does not state that Eddie reacted to the car key. However, reports do say so. And, if you look back to Part IV, it states that both dogs reacted to the key when hidden in a sandbox.
    However, MG says: "It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant OR (my caps) human blood scent."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sorry, I'd like to rephrase this bit of my previous post where I said:

    "Re direct contamination between a body and an object: yes, this is also my interpretation when MG mentions "cadaver scent contaminant". However, he goes on to mention cross-contamination, which I (perhaps wrongly) believe means that the odour was in contact with object a, which could then have been transferred to object b."

    I think I should have said:

    ...cross-contamination refers to a situation in which odour has been in contact with object a, which has then been transferred to object b.

    I.e. Nothing to do with this case in particular, simply my understanding of what cross-contamination means in general terms.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ahh. Sorry, have just seen how to quote a previous poster via time posted.

    A bit late, my next question isn't in response to anyone's post in particular.

    Another question on the doggie bit:
    - The Grime report states that Eddie reacted on the balcony outside the parents' bedroom. I don't see this picked up in other reports. Was it discounted for some reason?

    ReplyDelete