I’ve said elsewhere that its not my intention to simply replicate on this blog material that’s widely available elsewhere. Which remains true, but there are exceptions. If I come across something that seems to me to be particularly interesting, or particularly significant, or worthy of specific mention, well, that’s a different matter entirely.
And this is one of those occasions.
So, from the Joana Morais blog…
Vodpod videos no longer available.
I’m especially intrigued by Dr Amaral’s mention that, whilst many enquirers appear to focus upon later stages of the timeline established by the testimonies of the “Tapas 9”, it could prove that an earlier segment of the timeline is quite revealing. This reinforces one of the impressions I’d formed when I first came to the matter and I have to confess that in studying the events of that evening I shall now probably end up looking very closely at the various testimonies about the entire day.
Dr Amaral also refers to some impressive research done by one “Textusa” that demonstrates the improbability of some variations of the “abductor theory” due to some very practical/logistical reasons which is well worth examining, although I have certain reservations about a particular theory that the same researcher appears to have developed.
And talking of videos I notice that the video “Maddie: The Truth of the Lie” that first started me on this quest has once again been removed from blip.tv… or at least it appears to not be accessible at the moment. Just as well then that I saved a copy to my archives.
π
Correction 06.06.09 16:49 – Its not Dr Amaral that refers to “Textusa” but Paulo Sargento. The reference from Dr Amaral at 12:33 is to an anonymous person who writes a blog and that we are going to know who that is.
Thanks to the visitor that spotted this. – Mike
Mike,
At 04-25 to 04-34 minutes of the featured video Duarte Levy states “And I don’t know if he remembers, but in the files … or better yet, in the process that is archived, (quote) in that part that is under judicial secrecy…(unquote)
Does this not therefore suggest / confirm that there are 2 versions of the official DVD in circulation 1) the McCann’s copy which is a full copy (how else would their PIs have come across Raymond Hewlett) and 2) the copy released to the press / interested parties (edited as necessitated) ?
Does the quoted section above not confirm that Duarte Levy has in his possion or at least been privvy to the full copy ?
This whole case reminds me of the phrase – A Mystery Wrapped In A Riddle Inside An Enigma !!!
Aha… now you begin to see the sort of issues that were driving my concerns behind our most recent emails.
π
Update: Well, some of them, anyway.
Thanks Mike π¦
May I paraphrase
“here’s a little job”
Many thanks for another LATE night, just when I thought I had your questions answered !!!!!!! π I’m actualy re-energised…..
Somewhat like the entire case I suppose… few things are quite as straightforward as they may appear on the surface.
π
I have just listened to the video and don’t think it can be said, on the basis of the video, that the McCanns and/or Duarte Levy have seen the part under judicial secret.
The report of the PJ to the MP stated that vol x pages y-z had the list of people that had been investigated, etc, so we know that that list exists (also, the newspapers reported that the British authorities asked that that list not be made public).
Some people think that the McCanns have the list on the basis of the McCans documentary: some screenshots seem to show pages information that is not in the DVD files.
Isabel I can understand why the British authorities would request that the contents of Vol. X Pages Y-Z are not included on the DVD released to the mainstream media.
But it beggars the question how the McCanns’ private detectives have “discovered” Raymond Hewlett without knowledge of the contents of Vol. X Pages Y-Z.
From my earlier post;
Quoting Duarte Levy of Goncalo Amaral-
βAnd I donβt know if he remembers, but in the files β¦ or better yet, in the process that is archived, in that part that is under judicial secrecy”
This quote surely implies that Duarte Levy has at the very least read or has / had access to those parts that are “under judicial secrecy”.
To me this would suggest that there are two versions of the DVD in circulation, I have read previously that the version released to the McCanns had an additional 4000+ pages more than the version released to the media.
I have asked an authorative source to clarify this, I will post the details and reference points if and when they become available.
I must admit that my immediate impression whilst watching the video wasn’t that Duarte Levy had gained access to the “secret” files.
But then again, I was watching it in a far more casual mode than with the concentration I tend to bring to bear when trying to pin down specific facts… as is evidenced by my having completely messed up in attributing a remark to Dr Amaral when it should have been attributed to Paulo Sargento. At least, I’m assuming so having had it pointed out to my by a correspondent rather than by re-watching the video itself.
(Interestingly though, that wrongful attribution merely serves to emphasise how unreliable witness testimony can be when the witnesses have no conception at the time of the significance of what they’re seeing.)
Addressing the point of how the ‘tecs “discovered” Raymond Hewlett, I’d been assuming (the danger of assumptions again!) that they or the McCanns had become aware of Hewlett’s existence via the Thomsons and had basically tracked him down from that point.
Rich, I still don’t read in that sentence that Levy has seen that part.
And I agree that the Mccanns might have known of him through the Thompsons. Alternatively, I would think that any ex-policemen worth their salt would be able to unearth a few suitable paedophiles living in Algarve.
And if we want to go “cloak and dagger” all the way, that might explain that an indication that the McCanns have those files has been given in their program, with some lines visible and others scrambled. Some people rightly pointed out that it seemed deliberate (to “pretend” that they have a lot more than they have?).
Oh well.. π
(And you make a good point about witnesses, Mike)
I try my best… sometimes π
One thing that does concern/intrigue me…
Given the Thomsons’ track record (well, ok, let’s be fair… one recorded incident; but boy, what an incident) of being in the right place at the right time I cannot help but speculate whether it was purely fortuitous that with respect to Hewlett they were once again “in the right place at the right time”… if indeed they were.
Is it at all conceivable perhaps that they were “primed” about Hewlett so that they could subsequently bring his existence, and possible involvement, to the attention of the world at large?
And if that’s not stretching the bounds of credibility too much, who conceivably could have “primed” them?
Oh, this is all far too conspiratorial for me… about time I retired for some sleep.
have you turned into rip van wrinkle ?
Oh… is it time to wake up again already?
π
Hi Mike, the documentary based on Dr. GonΓ§alo Amaral book βMaddie: The Truth of the Lieβ is available at http://blip.tv/file/2103407 . Regards
Thanks Joana, that’s much appreciated
π
‘Ohβ¦ is it time to wake up again already?’
well it would nice nice, but if not, that’s fine too. π
ooops, just one nice. π
Madeleine was abducted and she died in another place in the Portugal, but Conzalo Amaral have no evidence that sniffer dog has fond Madeleine’s senses of dead evidence in Ocean Club resort at Praia Da Luz.
That is intriguing Tony; now how could you possibly know that?
Mike: I am thinking that perhaps Tony watched the documentary ‘Haunting Evidence’ Paranormal investigation.
On a different note:
Your impressions argument mentioned that cadaver sniffer dog evidence was rightly incriminating, and juxtaposed this argument against Kate McCann’s professional duties in attending 6 deaths prior to arrival in Portugal. The veracity of this evidence surely must have been checked out by British police.
You should also note that the scent ‘of death’ cannot be washed away , as you implied it should have been. No matter how many times an article has been washed, the dog’s can still sniff that ‘death’ scent; and after many years as well.
Arguably , if Kate is telling the truth, and her story is easily checked, she would have been absolutely ‘drenched in that type of scent!’
The question is rather, if the scent is on her handbag, luggage or shoes from her patients bedrooms, nursing homes’ etc, the following questions need to be answered:
1. How was the scent transferred to the wardrobe? Answer- Perhaps from Shoes, handbag or Luggage, Briefcase, Drs Bag or Laptop Bag.
2. How did the scent come to be on cuddlecat?
A- Because Kate arguably packed cuddlecat into Madeleine’s luggage for Portugal trip directly after attending the deceased patient; or within a suitable suitable time-frame.
3. How did the scent appear behind the lounge suite.? A: Possibly from luggage, shoes placed there. Remotely possible.
4. How did the blood appear in that very same spot? A: VERY GOOD QUESTION.
5. How did the death scent appear on the driver’s side of the rental car hired some weeks after the alleged kidnapping?
6. And in the boot, and on the car key, and elsewhere? (Car key kept in handbag contaminated with death scent from Kate handling objects therein after attending deceased patients?)
Question: Is this even possible, could the transference have contaminated her belongings within a handbag?
The apartment was seriously contaminated on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance; after the alarm had been sounded it appears that police have stated ( I have read the evidence) that very large numbers of men and women, I think he said ever increasing crowds, and possibly children, traipsed right throughout the apartment 5A, into each and every room, and outside, hunting for Madeleine in cupboards, under beds etc, thereby destroying every bit of available evidence apart from the teeniest amount. In the process these gangs of searchers seriously contaminated and destroyed whatever evidence HAD been there initially.
CRIME 101; SECURE THE CRIME-SCENE
Surely the greatest mistake made after the alleged kidnapping , by ALL of those adults responsible here, is that they allowed this contamination to occur.
Even we in a general sense, the general public know how vital this evidence would have been. And the majority of us do NOT have medical degrees, yet the majority of those who were present DO HAVE MEDICAL DEGREES, and surely they should have, and would have known better.
This is a little info for you to go on with Mike:
Post-Graduate: Hi, and thanks for the input.
For me the whole issue of the findings of the sniffer dogs is highly problematic, largely because I simply don’t know enough about the science behind it, nor how it works in practise.
And so, from that position of ignorance, I regard their findings as suggestive – highly suggestive – but little more than that. Certainly not sufficient to conclude it constitutes any sort of proof of the McCanns’ guilt.
However, if I take on board the points you make about the persistence of the “death smell” then it seems curious that such a smell was not more widespread in the apartment than it appears to have been.
And if this persistence, and contamination of the environment, is so readily achieved what of the police themselves. How many of them had attended scenes of death and had their uniforms/clothing contaminated thereby, and thus brought that into the apartment?
One could almost build a case for arguing that virtually any environment has probably been contaminated by a “death smell” at some time or another, in one way or another. And if that truly were the case then the deployment of sniffer dogs would seem to be a bit of a waste of time. Doesn’t really help much, does it?
I’m not entirely certain we can assume (absent some confirmation) that the claim that Kate McCann attended patients’ deaths prior to the trip to Portugal would have been checked by the British police.
Common sense suggests that would have been the case, but was it?
Its always a risky thing, building a case on assumptions.
Although I’ve been rather quiet on this blog of late that doesn’t mean I’ve been entirely idle in this matter, and one of the aspects I’ve been engaged upon is trying to sift assumptions from known (as in proveable) fact. A rather laborious undertaking I have to confess.
Regarding securing the crime scene; absolutely! I totally agree that this is something that should have been done… and quite conceivably would have been done had the first responders been fully aware that they were present at a potential crime scene.
However (and I could be completely mistaken in this), my impression is that there was some confusion initially and that those first responders did not immediately appreciate that a crime may have been committed.
Its simply far too easy for all of us to say what should have been done with the benefit of hindsight, and far removed from the chaos and panic that must have been occurring (whether genuine or deliberately fostered).
And yes, the general public are broadly aware of how important forensic evidence can be. (Largely thanks to television I suspect.) Doesn’t stop them trying to trample all over a crime scene though, very often out of nothing more than idle curiosity. And a “known” crime scene at that! That’s something I’ve witnessed myself almost too many times to count.
Nor am I entirely convinced that simply having possession of some sort of medical qualification would necessarily override human nature. Particularly if a desire to help/comfort the parents were the prevalent concern.
These are all issues that, to my mind, are still open to widely different interpretations and I suspect the biggest risk all us “after the event enquirers” face is becoming so locked in to a preferred interpretation that we become blind to alternatives.
Hi Tony. Thanks for that, but your comment leaves me somewhat puzzled.
The findings of the sniffer dogs are, admittedly, problematic and don’t seem to me to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Madeleine died at Praia Da Luz, and wherever I’ve referred to those findings I’ve tried to make plain that I consider them to be suggestive of probabilities rather than cast-iron certainties. Albeit strong probabilities, but probabilities nevertheless.
However, its your first two assertions that intrigue me. That Madeleine was abducted and that she died elsewhere in Portugal.
Are those just opinions or do you have indisputable evidence of such?
Your blog is so informative β¦ ..I just bookmarked you….keep up the good work!!!!
Hey, I found your blog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, anyway cool blog, I bookmarked you. π
–Robert Shumake Paul Nicoletti
Fotdmike. If every environment was contaminated then why would the dogs alert only in the Mccanns apartment in this particular case? Why only the Mccanns car? The reactions of the cadaver and blood dog in the same place is highly indicative. It should be relatively easy to check whether a death had occurred before in this apartment and I think that check took place. Also, they would be alerting everywhere and would be pointless, when the fact is these dogs have never had a false positive and are used extensively and successfully. It may be that she died elsewhere and was placed in 5A later. The reaction of these world class dogs cannot be overestimated.