AND MORE SERIOUSLY Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation translated from PJ file by BY ALBYM/PAMALAM (there is a bit more not reproduced here on Pamalam's page. )http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
This is damning against Kate and Gerry in failing to adequately protect their children and effectively blames the T7 for failing to allow the McCanns to clear themselves of any possible involvement by failing to attend the reconstruction. One can hazard a guess why the McCanns did not want them to do that!
It confirms there was overall a lack of evidence as to precisely what crime had been committed from a selection of possibilities to enable any accusations to be made against them, but concludes it is more likely Madeleine died. xx
I am sure that as educated and sensible people, the McCanns are simply heartbroken that they allowed themselves and numerous others to completely compromise, well I mean utterly trash, the crime scene preventing any forensic traces of Madeleine's, ahem, abduction being recovered from the scene. What a terrible thing to have to live with eh? And then they went and signed Madeleine's death warrant by advertising her eye defect against police advice. As Gerry said, it was a very good marketing ploy. I suppose one has to get one's priorities in order. Perfectly understandable behaviour.
I was watching an American crime programme earlier. Guilty parents apparently hold hands all the time to protect each other. Innocent parents who lost their child find the grief of that drives them apart. So it was good to see Kate still hanging on tightly to Gerry recently on Oprah. I am sure she must have caused Oprah to shed real tears at her obvious distress. Maybe Oprah will dip into her reported billions and top the Fund up for them? What do you think the chances are of that? Well Kate and Gerry will be rushing to tell us all about it, won't they?
========
From the items that comprise the case file this first conclusion stands out:When the GNR officers arrived at the place several people had already touched the window and entered the bedroom of Madeleine and her siblings and, later, when the PJ arrived at the apartment to recover trace evidence, the place was already laid open to the public and contaminated by the entrance of all those people and by the fact of all [everything] having been touched, consequently rendering impractical, due to this, the collection of items important to the investigation.
In the drama of the moment, no-one – parents, friends, management and staff of the resort – had the coldness [objectivity] and the lucidity [clear-mindedness] to preserve the crime scene, impeding through that laying open to the public and contamination of the trace evidence that was there, when it is common knowledge that any person should preserve the scenes of a crime – not least in terms of the law Article 171(2) of the CPP – thereby avoiding erasure or alteration of trace evidence, by which action [the impeding] the collected evidence would have already lost much of its evidential value. Given the scarcity of probative items recovered in that first phase, such as the unique fingerprints recovered with the necessary number of points to make a positive identification, which were found to be of the mother and a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), it was shown to have been impractical, due to that [failure to preserve], to recover items important to the investigation.
Only with the arrival of the PJ, about 00h10, in response to a request for them, did conditions suitable for the collection of trace evidence and preservation of the location commence.Resulta também dos autos que, não obstante o Infantário do Empreendimento "Ocean Club"
It follows also from the papers, notwithstanding the complementary “dining out service” provided by the Ocean Club nursery staff from 19h30 to 23h30 and, for additional cost, the babysitting service for a defined time[22], the group of friends with children, while dining, opted to check their own children by themselves; initially each couple alternated among themselves to check their own children and after some days they were asking one of the persons who stood up to listen for any noise at their apartment, as referred to by JT in her statement of 10-5-2007[23], with the exception of DP and FP who possessed a communications system to monitor their children LP and SP.[22] Inquiry paper pages 221 and 226[23] Inquiry paper pages 922/923
It is extracted [comes forth] from the papers that the McCanns and their friends made visits to see that all was well with their children, as occurred according to what was declared by the members of this group and derived also from the deposition of JTRS, a Tapas waiter[24], who stated “I understood, because it was clear, that some of the group members went regularly to the outside of the restaurant to do something, which little by little it became my understanding that it was <
Moreover, it also flowed [came] from the papers that this periodic vigilance, referred to above, not [??] in the papers, which leave [fail] to explain why, on that night the procedures had been altered in the sense that the times of the visits were shorter.
In effect, this group of friends enjoyed a short holiday, totally relaxed and, while dining and having live entertainment[25], there were, during that dinner period, few concerns about anything that could happen to their children.That such was so, it is Kate who says that in the morning of Thursday, 3 May, Madeleine questioned her about the reason she [Kate] had not gone to her [Madeleine's] bedroom when the twins had cried [26], the same [story] also being told by Gerald.[25] The witness NAJOUA CHEKAYA (page 798) refers that she was asked by the OC to host a quiz game twice a week (Tuesday and Sunday) at the Tapas restaurant.[26] Inquiry papers page 59
.Also Pamela Fenn, who lives on the 1st floor of the residential block, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, about 22h30, heard a child crying, that by the sound could have been Madeleine and that the crying went on for an hour and fifteen minutes, until the parents arrived, about 23h45.
It is noted that the parents were not persistently worried about the children in that they did not make their check as they later declared, before they neglected, although not reckless[ly] nor grossly, the duty to protect those same children.
If such duty to protect had been observed, in the hypothesis of it having been an abduction, as insistently referred to and continues to be referred to and it is possible that it had happened, its occurrence could have been possibly impracticable [infeasible].
It adds further that, when Kate, after having found that the window and the external blinds were open and Madeleine had disappeared, made her way to the Tapas restaurant to ask for help, giving to understand that it had been an abduction, it is incomprehensible or only comprehensible due to a state of panic, that she had newly abandoned, this time only the twins, whilst the Tapas was sufficiently close [for her] to scream for help – MO places weight on it being so when referring [27] that from the restaurant table there was enough visibility, though tenuous considering the distance to the apartments and that the vision was prejudiced by a transparent tarpaulin that covered the area in which the table was located.[27] Inquiry papers page 914
Finally, without plausible explanation there remains the fact that, notwithstanding all the confusion and all the noise, the twins had continued to sleep, as referred to by the GNR officer, JMBR, member of the patrol that first arrived at the apartment “the children never woke up, lying on their stomachs, not having moved during the search and after it”[28]. However, a team from the LPC, on 4-5-2007, failed to trace the existence of any substance that could have been administered to the disappeared [child] to put her into a state of unconsciousness and [or] the presence of traces of blood.[28] Inquiry papers page
It follows also, conversely, that none of the parents were in the apartment when Madeleine disappeared and that their behaviour up to the moment of the disappearance was perfectly normal, not having manifested [displayed] any type of concern or other similar sentiment, contrary to what happened after that moment in that it [their behaviour] was well known to have turned into panic.
. If is an incontrovertible fact that Madeleine disappeared from apartment 5A of the Ocean Club, it is not the same with [the same cannot be said for] the manner or the circumstances in which it occurred – notwithstanding the large volume of work done to that purpose – the fan [spread/array] of crimes indicated and referred to throughout the Inquiry keeping themselves [remaining] untouchable.
It appears evident to us and because the official papers have sufficient items for such, from this fan the crime of exposure and abandonment, as per Article 138 of the Penal Code, can be eliminated.
This legal type of crime only occurs when filled with intent, it having to include the creation of danger to the life of the victim, as well as the absence of capacity to defend oneself on the part of the victim. Now, in the case of the [these] papers and in the face of the items recovered it is manifest [clear] that neither of the arguidos GM or KH acted with [such] intent. The parents could not foresee that in the village [resort] in which they had chosen to spend their holidays they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was such [foresight] expected of them: it [the holiday] was in a peaceful place, where the majority of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality [as the parents] and without any known history of criminality of this kind.
The parents did not come [close] even to describe [show] the realisation of the fact [how it was done], they confirmed that everything had gone well, as had already happened on previous nights, not setting out, nor was this expected of them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children in bed in their respective apartments.
To reinforce what was said it is still the fact of [that] although they left the girl alone with her siblings in the apartment for more or less dilated [extended] periods, it is certain that in every case they [the various parents] checked them [their children]. Without any pretension or compensatory effect [counterbalance/extenuation], we should also recognise that the parents are already paying a heavy penalty – the disappearance of Madeleine – due to the carelessness [negligence] in the vigilance and protection of the children.
The above paragraph does not make complete sense to me, so – until a Portuguese speaker can translate it correctly - I will give an interpretation of what I think it is saying, i.e. that the other identified crimes cannot apply or carry legal weight and, while there is a high probability of there having been a homicide that charge cannot be supported by the sparse evidence contained in the case file.
The non-involvement of the arguido parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant activity appears to result from the objective circumstances of them not having been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their behaviour having been normal [both] before this disappearance and afterwards, as amply shown in the witness statements, phone communication analyses and also the work of the experts, principally from the FSS and INML reports.
To this is added that, in reality, none of the indications used to make them arguidos were later strengthened or confirmed. But, we see: the information in the early press alert, in disregard of the police, was not proven, the laboratory ratification of the traces indicated by the dogs was not confirmed and the initial indications of the above [FSS] e-mail, better clarified afterwards, came to reveal themselves as [proved] innocuous.
Although, by hypothesis, it is admitted that GM and KH could have been responsible for the death of the child, it always remains to be explained how, where, when, by what means, with whose help and where did they liberate [get rid of] the body in the short space of time they had at their disposal. It adds that their daily routine up to 3 May confined itself to the strict limits of the Ocean Club resort and to the beach adjacent to it, not knowing the surrounding area and, outside of the English friends with whom they 'summered' [spent the summer with] there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal
