"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"

Stella by Starlight · **Joined:** Sat May 24, 2008 3:33 pm **Posts:** 406

There you are, Goncalo Amaral tells us exactly why they were made official suspects.

Why were the British never told about this on the day?

Did we stand by the Portuguese?

Why was the fund not immediately frozen and investigated?

Why is it still not being reported, even with this announcement?

The way this country has dealt with this case is absolutely disgracefull. The entire world will look upon this exactly the same way.

All of this support for one part time GP?, I don't think so, do you...

(*)

Pogacsa · **Joined:** Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:27 pm **Posts:** 142

Stella by Starlight wrote:

Why were the British never told about this on the day?

(*)

To be fair, the Portuguese weren't told either.

I should say I always assumed arguido means "person of interest with respect to a case", not "person of interest with respect to a crime (or crimes) within a case." Which is my excuse for not knowing or asking!

Stella by Starlight · **Joined:** Sat May 24, 2008 3:33 pm **Posts:** 406

Pogacsa wrote:

Stella by Starlight wrote:

Why were the British never told about this on the day?

(*)

To be fair, the Portuguese weren't told either.

I should say I always assumed arguido means "person of interest with respect to a case", not "person of interest with respect to a crime (or crimes) within a case." Which is my excuse for not knowing or asking!

Even so, it was the British who were asked to contribute to their fighting fund, a fund we now know was to assist them in hiding the "simulation of a crime", an abduction hoax...

(*)

Jeanne d'Arc · **Joined:** Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:25 pm **Posts:** 143

the Journal de Noticias reported quite early on that the arguido status was based on the suspicion that the McCanns were responsible for the conceilment of a body and the simulation of an abduction.

BeoWulf · **Joined:** Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:05 pm **Posts:** 311

Even today, after all the McCanns & Co. supicious behavior, and all other things that made us believe that they are guilty for Madie's disappearance, you still find people hurried to defend them and to criticize the PJ...
Imagine if the PJ made them suspects from the first days and made that public... I believe UK would raise a war against Portugal.
Remember that many Antis here were Pros in the first months and hasty criticizers about the Portuguese Police.

fcm · **Joined:** Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:52 am **Posts:** 61

Stella by Starlight wrote:

There you are, Goncalo Amaral tells us exactly why they were made official suspects.

Why were the British never told about this on the day?

Did we stand by the Portuguese?

Why was the fund not immediately frozen and investigated?

Why is it still not being reported, even with this announcement?

The way this country has dealt with this case is absolutely disgracefull. The entire world will look upon this exactly the same way.

All of this support for one part time GP?, I don't think so, do you...

(*)

Claps.Great post.You can obviously see there is a "wider agenda".Seriously, how many people do you think have that level of control over the media ?..............and why excercise it ?

Respectfully.

BeoWulf · **Joined:** Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:05 pm **Posts:** 311

And remember also that the McCanns preparation to manipulate the public started before calling the police when they first called the Sky news in the night of May 3rd

Stella by Starlight · **Joined:** Sat May 24, 2008 3:33 pm **Posts:** 406

The sad thing is I have seen the wider agenda for over a year now, and was just waiting for someone like Goncalo to lift the lid to expose this..

(*)

Marianna · **Joined:** Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:27 pm **Posts:** 267

There's a lot of anti-Europeanism among Brits. Not hard to stir up sentiment against Portugal. When Fritzl's children escaped, there were some outrageous things said about Austria -- forget Fred West, Brady & Hindley etc in UK. Sometimes playing the "foreigners are our enemies" card is the best card you can play.

templehedron · **Joined:** Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:45 pm **Posts:** 179

These are police theories:
"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"

and are not necessarily evidence based.

The police are expected to consider many different scenarios.

The fact that they considered this scenario makes it no more likely, than the fact that they considered abduction as a possibility makes that likely.

Police scenarios are important, but unless backed up by evidence to prove it in court, scenarios are just scenarios, not proof or the truth.

Stella by Starlight · **Joined:** Sat May 24, 2008 3:33 pm **Posts:** 406

BeoWulf wrote:

Even today, after all the McCanns & Co. supicious behavior, and all other things that made us believe that they are guilty for Madie's disappearance, you still find people hurried to defend them and to criticize the PJ...
Imagine if the PJ made them suspects from the first days and made that public... I believe UK would raise a war against Portugal.
Remember that many Antis here were Pros in the first months and hasty criticizers about the Portuguese Police.

You can see from what Goncalo has been saying that not only was his hands tied, but he refused to go along with the farce. He mentions there were many others who also agreed with him, did they also get removed or were they forced to continue with a cover up??

Disgracefull, absolutely disgracefull.

(*)

Stella by Starlight · **Joined:** Sat May 24, 2008 3:33 pm **Posts:** 406

templehedron wrote:

These are police theories:
"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"

and are not necessarily evidence based.

The police are expected to consider many different scenarios.

The fact that they considered this scenario makes it no more likely, than the fact that they considered abduction as a possibility makes that likely.

Police scenarios are important, but unless backed up by evidence to prove it in court, scenarios are just scenarios, not proof or the truth.

rubbish, they were not made suspects on evidence of an abduction.

(*)

Pogacsa · **Joined:** Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:27 pm **Posts:** 142

Stella by Starlight wrote:

You can see from what Goncalo has been saying that not only was his hands tied, but he refused to go along with the farce. He mentions there were many others who also agreed with him, did they also get removed or were they forced to continue with a cover up??

Disgracefull, absolutely disgracefull.

(*)

So you are saying that Rebelo has come to a different conclusion: the non-involvement of the McCanns?

fcm · **Joined:** Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:52 am **Posts:** 61

BeoWulf wrote:

And remember also that the McCanns preparation to manipulate the public started before calling the police when they first called the Sky news in the night of May 3rd

Exactly......a structure was put in place to deal with whatever happened.......very rapidly....I dont think the McCanns are anywhere near smart enough to have been pulling the strings....

Beowulf - Do you personally believe that the Portuguese politicos have the b*lls to push the issue with the British ?I dont and thats what angers me.

Respectfully.....

templehedron · **Joined:** Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:45 pm **Posts:** 179

Stella by Starlight wrote:

templehedron wrote:

These are police theories:
"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"

and are not necessarily evidence based.

The police are expected to consider many different scenarios.

The fact that they considered this scenario makes it no more likely, than the fact that they considered abduction as a possibility makes that likely.

Police scenarios are important, but unless backed up by evidence to prove it in court, scenarios are just scenarios, not proof or the truth.

rubbish, they were not made suspects on evidence of an abduction.

(*)

And....?

The point is that if a group of investigating police make someone a suspect just because of their suspicion that a simulated crime and a hiding of a cadaver were the main theory of the case, does not affect any of the facts of the case. If the police have not been able to produce sufficient evidence that such a simulation and hiding took place, then all that is left is that a group of police followed up a theory and were not able to produce sufficient evidence to back up that theory.

Knowing why they were made suspects makes no difference if sufficient evidence was not found to back this up.

this we do not yet know.

Stella by Starlight · **Joined:** Sat May 24, 2008 3:33 pm **Posts:** 406

As Goncalo said, "This case was more political than a police case", this shows that despite what anyone within in PJ thinks and feels, it was destined to be prevented from progressing, it's as simple as that..

(*)

BeoWulf · **Joined:** Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:05 pm **Posts:** 311

templehedron wrote:

These are police theories:
"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"

and are not necessarily evidence based.

The police are expected to consider many different scenarios.

The fact that they considered this scenario makes it no more likely, than the fact that they considered abduction as a possibility makes that likely.

Police scenarios are important, but unless backed up by evidence to prove it in court, scenarios are just scenarios, not proof or the truth.

The PJ doesn't work on creating scenarios to deliver to court.
They collect evidences and witness statements and create a file...

bomaris · **Joined:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 am **Posts:** 2266

Stella by Starlight wrote:

There you are, Goncalo Amaral tells us exactly why they were made official suspects.

Why were the British never told about this on the day?

Did we stand by the Portuguese?

Why was the fund not immediately frozen and investigated?

Why is it still not being reported, even with this announcement?

The way this country has dealt with this case is absolutely disgracefull. The entire world will look upon this exactly the same way.

All of this support for one part time GP?, I don't think so, do you...

(*)

Yes. Shocking beyond belief.

templehedron · **Joined:** Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:45 pm **Posts:** 179

BeoWulf wrote:

templehedron wrote:

These are police theories:
"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"

and are not necessarily evidence based.

The police are expected to consider many different scenarios.

The fact that they considered this scenario makes it no more likely, than the fact that they considered abduction as a possibility makes that likely.

Police scenarios are important, but unless backed up by evidence to prove it in court, scenarios are just scenarios, not proof or the truth.

The PJ doesn't work on creating scenarios to deliver to court.
They collect evidences and witness statements and create a file...

All good police work involves considerably more than collection of evidence- otherwise the police would just be train spotters.

Good detective work world wide is to do with interpretation of known facts, theory building, testing, looking for further information pro or con, new theory buildig, and so on.

The Detective needs to build a coherent picture of possibilities, not a mere collation of facts.

The very fact that the title of this piece shows two of their theories beyond the facts proves this to be the case.

As is stated above, the Mccanns were made arguidos becasue of police suspicions (theories) that they werer involved in simulation and disposal of a cadaver.

Now it looks like their is insufficient evidence to prove this. But, no matter, the way this leak is framed is that police suspicions (theories0 not eviodence, led to their arguido status.

detectives are not dessicated fact collectors; they are skilled modellers of the possible truths.

BeoWulf · **Joined:** Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:05 pm **Posts:** 311

templehedron wrote:

And....?

The point is that if a group of investigating police make someone a suspect just because of their suspicion that a simulated crime and a hiding of a cadaver were the main theory of the case, does not affect any of the facts of the case. If the police have not been able to produce sufficient evidence that such a simulation and hiding took place, then all that is left is that a group of police followed up a theory and were not able to produce sufficient evidence to back up that theory.

Knowing why they were made suspects makes no difference if sufficient evidence was not found to back this up.

this we do not yet know.

Hooo... and did you see the files already to know that there were no facts to make them suspects??
Did you forget what "Arguidos" mean?
And the PJ don't name them Arguidos (Oficial suspects), once again they collect evidences and if they find something that they might see as relevant, that communicate to a judge that is the one with powers to make somebody arguidos.
I think you are seeing to many police movies, but none based on the portuguese legal system...

Stella by Starlight · **Joined:** Sat May 24, 2008 3:33 pm **Posts:** 406

Temple, do not confuse lack of some evidence with lack of any evidence.

They knew that the DNA found in the apartment was from a dead Madeleine, they knew that with their checking timelines it was 100% impossible for a third party to be involved here. No third party would scrub a place clean and dispose of everything in UNDER 30 minutes. The PJ know this. If they cannot piece together the hiding place, it does not mean they do not have enough evidence in other matters.

(*)

bomaris · **Joined:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 am **Posts:** 2266

templehedron wrote:

These are police theories:
"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"

and are not necessarily evidence based.

The police are expected to consider many different scenarios.

The fact that they considered this scenario makes it no more likely, than the fact that they considered abduction as a possibility makes that likely.

Police scenarios are important, but unless backed up by evidence to prove it in court, scenarios are just scenarios, not proof or the truth.

You're making it sound like there are lots of choices here. There aren't.

These are the choices (leaving aside the neglect issue):

1. Abduction by stranger.

2. Murder and corpse removal by stranger.

3. Set up by parents.

4. Parental (or Tapas 9) involvement either through assault causing death and/or corpse concealment.

5. Accidental wandering off leading to death or abduction.

What the Police appear to be saying (I say appear because we haven't seen the evidence first hand) is that there is no evidence for 1, 2, 3, and 5 but there is plenty of evidence for 4.

This is not a parlour game.

templehedron · **Joined:** Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:45 pm **Posts:** 179

bomaris wrote:

templehedron wrote:

These are police theories:
"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"

and are not necessarily evidence based.

The police are expected to consider many different scenarios.

The fact that they considered this scenario makes it no more likely, than the fact that they considered abduction as a possibility makes that likely.

Police scenarios are important, but unless backed up by evidence to prove it in court, scenarios are just scenarios, not proof or the truth.

You're making it sound like there are lots of choices here. There aren't.

These are the choices (leaving aside the neglect issue):

1. Abduction by stranger.

2. Murder and corpse removal by stranger.

3. Set up by parents.

4. Parental (or Tapas 9) involvement either through assault causing death and/or corpse concealment.

5. Accidental wandering off leading to death or abduction.

What the Police appear to be saying (I say appear because we haven't seen the evidence first hand) is that there is no evidence for 1, 2, 3, and 5 but there is plenty of evidence for 4.

This is not a parlour game.

But apparently not enough evidence to convince the Prosecutor.

I do still see this as defensive spin by th PJ who know from their discussions with the Prosecutor that their case is not going to get to court.

If they were certain that the case would proceed, then there would be no reason for them to spin this information now.

Stella by Starlight · **Joined:** Sat May 24, 2008 3:33 pm **Posts:** 406

bomaris wrote:

templehedron wrote:

These are police theories:
"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"

and are not necessarily evidence based.

The police are expected to consider many different scenarios.

The fact that they considered this scenario makes it no more likely, than the fact that they considered abduction as a possibility makes that likely.

Police scenarios are important, but unless backed up by evidence to prove it in court, scenarios are just scenarios, not proof or the truth.

You're making it sound like there are lots of choices here. There aren't.

These are the choices (leaving aside the neglect issue):

1. Abduction by stranger.

2. Murder and corpse removal by stranger.

3. Set up by parents.

4. Parental (or Tapas 9) involvement either through assault causing death and/or corpse concealment.

5. Accidental wandering off leading to death or abduction.

What the Police appear to be saying (I say appear because we haven't seen the evidence first hand) is that there is no evidence for 1, 2, 3, and 5 but there is plenty of evidence for 4.

This is not a parlour game.

Well said Bomaris, wish I could have put it so concisely...

bravo, bravo

(*)

newperson · **Joined:** Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:47 pm **Posts:** 5516

1 2 3 and 5 discounted also because of the cadaver scent - you can't put an abductor in the scenario at all if she died in the apartment - its logically impossible

but of course we know the dog alerting is not enough unless backed up by firm tangible evidence

stella, i had never read the dna in the apartment was from a dead maddie - where is this written?

Title: 'SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver'
MadeleineMcCann > ARCHIVED FORUMS & INFO > The Very Best of the Old 3A's	Go to subcategory：

The 3 Arguidos Web Forum

"SIMULATING a crime, HIDING a cadaver"