Saturday, December 6, 2008

WTF?

Maddie and Joana: Esotericism, plot, psychotic disturbance or a mere case of fooling the public?

by Paulo Sargento*

The lawyer who collaborated with investigators at Maddie's parents' service to ‘O Crime’: ‘McCann Detectives asked me to arrange for evidence against Gonçalo Amaral’


Today, the 4th of December, I read something that I never expected to read about the already intimately and publicly connected cases of Maddie and Joana. I fail to find the appropriate adjectives, beyond STUPEFIED, in order to qualify the state that I was left in after reading, in weekly newspaper “O Crime”, the interview that was given by Dr Marcos Aragão Correia, a most illustrious lawyer, who assists Leonor Cipriano in the media-exposed process that concerns alleged torture carried out by Polícia Judiciária agents.

I will try to be brief and to point out five reasons for said stupefaction.

Reason 1 – Dr Aragão Correia states, according to the aforementioned weekly: “the Spanish detectives asked me to arrange for evidence against Gonçalo Amaral”.

Allow me to underline the expression ARRANGE FOR. Apart from hardly being a juridical term, the expression contains a strange connotation that directs us towards a depreciative conception of what evidence actually is. Evidence is not ARRANGED FOR. Evidence is something that emerges within an investigation. If there are no ARRANGEMENTS here, then Dr Aragão Correia should, firstly, confirm whether or not he used this expression, and secondly, explain its meaning within the process that he is a patron of at the moment. We did, however, learn that the purpose of said ARRANGEMENT, so to speak, would be that of denigrating the image of Gonçalo Amaral, allegedly due to the fact that Método 3 considered him to be an inspector who “systematically incriminated the mothers of missing little girls without any evidence whatsoever”.

Reason 2 – Dr Aragão Correia assumes esoteric explanations in order to justify criminal investigation and juridical arguments.

In effect, it seems that esoteric dimensions have taken over a certain protagonism in both cases. While I hold absolutely nothing against any type of knowledge, I must however stress that scientific knowledge presents some advantages in relation to other forms and methodologies of knowledge. From my point of view, the most important of those advantages is the possibility of reducing potential biases or errors in our convictions, ideologies, impressions, sensations, illusions or even deliriums towards a given event. This happens because in science there are no illuminates. In science, there are men and women who submit their judgment concerning certain facts to empirical tests, sharing the used analysis paradigms and methodologies, thus rendering them accessible to everyone, and therefore acquiring the value of DEMONSTRATIONS.

Now, when any man or woman holds a piece of information through a route that nobody else can share or understand, three possibilities should be considered:

a) either the person obtained that information through a non conscious channel, and therefore is unable to understand how he or she reached that information;
b) or the person is delirious and therefore presents psychotic symptoms;
c) or the person is lying, and there is a purpose to it.

While respecting medium abilities as a particular form of knowledge, I must still assume my reservations concerning the effectiveness of Dr Aragão Correia’s capacities.

Why is that?

Because he stated that the Maddie case constituted his first “vision” and COINCIDENTALLY took place immediately after a spiritist session which he attended, as he was fully entitled to. Beginner’s luck, one might think. Although he considered that his “vision” was a relevant element for the investigation into the disappearance of little Madeleine McCann, the Polícia Judiciária apparently didn’t value that information. But Método 3, probably better fit to evaluate his abilities as a medium, submitted him “to a test in order to prove if (his) medium capacities and (his) stance were credible or not”. Despite not divulging what type of test was carried out, Dr Aragão Correia divulges the outcome: “positive”, obviously, we might add.

Reason 3 – Dr Marcos Aragão Correia assumes himself as a magnanimous individual who stripped himself of any material intentions.

The noble reasons that illuminate the action of so many people who practice esotericism are recognized in only very few cases, and in my view, they are only to be praised, like any other action of selfless solidarity.

Dr Aragão Correia wants to add to the short list of promethean philanthropists who live their lives to help others, due to no other motive than human solidarity and the contempt of material goods.

Now before anything else, Dr Aragão Correia, do allow me the following question: should we only help others if they are under the media spotlight, or should that quality be no motivation for such action? Why did you rush to help these parents in distress, and not any other equally “distressed” ones?

If, as you state yourself, you lead a financially sound life in Madeira and even started out by paying for the diving in the Arade Dam, why do you stress the fact that you received financial support from spiritist organizations?

To which organization do you intend to offer the profits from the sales of your book “The Little Girls that Came from the Stars”, which will be launched during the opportune and commercial Christmas season? You certainly don’t wish to add to the list of those that stand accused of making money from other people’s misery.

Reason 4 – Dr Marcos Aragão Correia believes, in association with other characters, that there is an intervention from the English secret services and from secret societies (not of a spiritist nature, I’m sure), namely “Skull and Bones”, which he says President George W. Bush belongs to, whose purpose it is to create a climate of insecurity in order to promote the implanting of chips in children.

Dr Marcos Aragão Correia,

What you state needs to be proved, or we may be confronting a phenomenon close to the Truman syndrome, a psychopathological condition that was masterly divulged by the film “The Truman Show”, with the notable interpretation by actor Jim Carrey.

The conspiracy theories that are based on secret societies constitute a very ancient argument and occur in two situations: in order to dissimulate important or compromising aspects in some situations, or in situations of mental disturbance (namely delirious and hallucinatory psychotic disturbances, and paranoid schizophrenia).

You should remember that you only identified one association that you belong to: the respectable Lawyers’ Order. Are the other associations that you belong to of a secret nature, and therefore you only mentioned the title “spiritist”?

Reason 5 – Dr Marcos Aragão Correia divides to conquer, publicly, in the Joana case.

Dr Aragão Correia,

You have absolutely no right whatsoever to induce people to the innocence of Leonor Cipriano by insinuating the culpability of her brother, João Cipriano, through the usage of judgments of value, by extrapolating forensic documents that are anterior to the case over which he was condemned, and even less, through esoteric justifications like the one that you refer to when you say you had a(nother) “vision” where “streams of blood” ran down the face of said individual.

You have responsibilities in the case, responsibilities that exceed those of the common citizen! There are boundaries that must not be overstepped!

These are the five reasons for my stupefaction.

Now I ask:

What does the Layers’ Order have to say about this?

What does the Public Ministry have to say about this?

What does the Silence of the McCanns mean?

Are we now closer to the day when the forensic tests that are mentioned under article 159 of the Penal Process Code will be applied to other actors within the administration of Justice?

This is all for today, but I promise to continue with this reflection, in memory of and as a token of respect towards two (unfortunate) stars that once were little girls.


source: Câmara de Comuns, 05.12.2008


* Dr Paulo Sargento is a forensic psychiatrist, university professor and author

Translation by astro (Thank you, Astro!)

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/12/maddie-and-joana-esotericism-plot.html

http://camaradecomuns.blogs.sapo.pt/711032.html

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would like to read the original in "O Crime". Any chance of getting hold of a copy?

Cláudia said...

Anon, do you read Portuguese?

Anonymous said...

(oui, il s’agissait plus de conversations que de véritables interrogatoires) ont été enregistrées en vidéo et les transcriptions seront disponibles pour download, uniquement en anglais, à la fin de chaque article. Les vidéos seront opportunément divulguées.

http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/

Cláudia said...

Anon, merci.

viv said...

Hi Claudia, have I understood this correctly.. the same lawyer who is seeking to spring Leonor is also the one who made these claims (below), and now he claims Metodo 3 asked him to discredit Goncalo Amaral, talk about bringing his profession into disrepute! Surely I have misunderstood somehow, have I???? He works for the McCanns and he works for Leonor??

Viv x:

THE SUN: “’Paedo dumped Maddie in lake’”

“MADELEINE McCann was raped and killed within 48 hours of being snatched then thrown in a reservoir, a Portuguese lawyer claimed yesterday. Human rights solicitor Marcos Aragao Correia said underworld sources tipped him off on May 6, three days after the tot vanished in Praia da Luz”

May 6?

Correia says he told the police. He then told Metodo 3, the McCanns’ private detectives. Correia says Madeleine’s body was in a reservoir with a small beach and showers for campers, late identified as the Barragem do Arade reservoir

Cláudia said...

Hi, querida Viv! :-)
No, you didn't get that wrong. Although Mr Marcos Aragão Correia never said he worked for the McCanns (he's quite stupid, but not that stupid) he admitted he had close connections with M3 which alledgely asked him to discredit Mr Amaral. Apparently that's why he became Leonor Cipriano's lawyer. Let's not forget that her previous lawyer was dismissed without explanation (and caught carrying drugs into a prison).
Just a little something, Mr Correia first said that it was someone from the underworld who told him what had happened to Madeleine but he now confessed he had a vision... No more comments from me...
Have a great day, Viv.

helmylin2 said...

Hi Cláudia,

I did a really long comment on this yesterday. Clicked pré-VISULIZAR and whoosh cluck it was gone.I can't remember what I said.

It is a true WTF moment for me. This whole thing smacks of collusion. I just can't believe two doctors who are not very high up on the totem pole can cause so much havoc.

On a lighter note I got my car out yesterday. Most of the snow is gone but there still is 3" of ice on the pavements. This is real winter. I really love it. xxx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Helmy.
I totally agree. This is a real WTF moment! The question I ask myself most often is 'Who are these people?'.
Mr Marcos aragão is not exactly bright...
Here it is rainy but not that cold. Take care and enjoy your real winter. :-)
xxxx

Anonymous said...

Será que um destes dias algo não se descose? Será que o tal pequeno milagre, o detalhe, o ponto, o alinhavo, não rebenta?

Cláudia krida,será que a tal verdade não vai vir acima e que vamos um dia ter uma bomba tal, aqui nestas terras, onde o julgamento da Matthews poderá parecer uma gota de água comparada com o enrolo dos indignos pais e indignos amigos...

Muitos beijinhos da lili que conta os dias para o Natal por Terras Lusas

Cláudia said...

Olá, minha linda!!!!
Espero que sim, Lili. Espero que sim. Ainda não perdi a esperança. E sei que há quem continue a trabalhar com afinco.
Beijinhos, linda. Está quase!

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Hi Claudia

I have posted this also on Viv's Blog but bring it to your attention as some of your readers may have an opinion on how Portuguese Law would look at this.

An interesting thread started on 3A this morning.

"Maddie would have had to be ALIVE for PJ to charge NEGLECT?

by HiDeHo on Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:07 am

Can someone put me straight on this.....Apologies for bring this up again but its been niggling at me when I keep reading of the 'alternative' conviction of neglect that they should have been charged with......

I have always been under the impression that the PJ could not charge the Mc's with 'neglect' for the night of May 3 if they KNEW that Maddie was not alive.

What grounds for neglect would they have?

If that night was 'used' to create the abduction scenario then we don't know if the twins were actually left alone...there could have been someone with them throughout that hour.

I am constantly seeing the issue of neglect being the 'catchall'...the 'alternative' possibility of conviction...and that may be so for other nights of their holiday...but for the 3rd May, how would it be possible to convict them of neglect?

Maybe I have missed something....but I do not see it as a possibility for that hour they were away from the apartment on May 3.

For those that believe Maddie was dead..how could there be neglect?

I have always felt that the Mc's are happy to know everyone is still making the neglect issue important (for that night anyway) I can't help thinking that to constantly 'use' neglect it fulfills their goal of deflecting from what was really happening that night...

Something far more sinister....

If I am wrong, please enlighten me as to why...

I find it troubling to see the constant acknowledgment of 'Well at least they should have been convicted of neglect'...when it would mean the PJ would have to agree to Madeleine being alive to support that charge.....Wouldn't they?"

I'm no lawyer so cannot comment on whether HiDeHo has a valid point.

Cláudia said...

Hi, ICTOAN!
Very interesting, thank you.
Unfortunately I know very little about law and I also can't comment on the validity.
Have a good Sunday. Always good to read you.

J J said...

I Can't Think of a Name

Who do you think was with the twins?

If they were alone, that in itself was neglect.

Cláudia said...

JJ, ICTOAN copy pasted a post by someone on the 3 Arguidos. It doesn't mean ICTOAN supports its content. I found it interesting although I don't know its validity in terms of the law.

J J said...

Oops!

Cláudia said...

:-)

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Claudia

Thank you for the defence.

IMHO Madeleine is legally a "Missing Person". Until there is proof of her fate, notwithstanding that everyone has their own view on what that may have been, it may be difficult to successfully prosecute on the basis of neglect. But as I said before I am not a lawyer.

Cláudia said...

Hi, ICTOAN.
Nothing to thank me for.
I completely agre.. Athough personally I have no doubt that those children were neglected (what else can it be when 3 under 4 year olds are left alone in a resort hotel in a foreign country while their parents have dinner), legally it may not be as clear. Especially if there are other circumstances to investigate.
xxxx

Anonymous said...

I see a mod on the 3as has just claimed that you, Claudia, used to work with Goncalo Amaral. So are you ex-PJ then Claudia? Only the question is rather relevant, in the circumstances....

Cláudia said...

I'm a teacher, you moron.

helmylin2 said...

Oh Cláudia, I just loved your answer to Anon!

I just hope this case is being worked on behind the scenes. I realise that the PJ don't have unlimitted funds but it would be nice to know if anything is happening.

Mild, rainy and miserable here. Hope it gets cold again soon. Enjoy your weekend. xxx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Helmy!

These pathetic hard core pros and child neglect defenders come by once in a while to say Hi. This one got lucky. I was in a good mood and published its post.

I hope so too, Helmy!
Mild, rainy and miserable here too. I bit of snow would be nice! :-)

Have a good weekend.

viv said...

Hiya all

ICTOAN I was just reading this and sorry I missed your post on my blog. There is certainly no requirement for the child to be alive for a parent to be charged with neglect. Parents are sometimes charged with manslaughter by neglect, e.g. in the case of a mother who fails to protect her child from a violent partner who is the actual killer.

If you want to look at this more closely here is a legal judgment concerning this ( but it is a bit heavy and technical, not to mention very sad) ..brief extract:

It was the prosecution's case that P had been subjected to sustained, sometimes sadistic, violence at his home address at the hands of a single assailant. The Crown's case was that that person was the appellant. Their case against M was that she was guilty of manslaughter by neglect of her dying child.
It was the medical evidence that the injuries, and in particular the injury which led to the boy's death, had probably been caused on the previous Thursday.
There was ample evidence against M, consisting, inter alia, of her answers in interview, that she knew that P was being subjected to violence by the appellant and that in early October he was, as a result of that violence, ill, but that she had not sought medical help for him. There was ample evidence that in early December 1997 P had again been the subject of violence by the appellant to her knowledge and again she had not, despite the child being in great pain and obviously ill, sought medical assistance. Moreover, there was medical evidence that the damage to the duodenum had probably been caused on Thursday 4th December and that the child would, within half an hour of the injury, have exhibited obvious signs of pain and illness. Had M taken action shortly after the injuries were caused, the doctors' view was that the child would have survived and made a full recovery. Indeed, had she taken action, even up to two hours before the child died, there was a good chance that the child would have survived and fully recovered.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1999/1474.html&query=child+and+cruelty+and+neglect+and+manslaughter+and+murder&method=boolean

Hummm, mums who fail to do anything about violent partners often do find themselves in real big trouble. They have a duty of care for their own child, just as Kate did for Madeleine. I have copied this to my own blog as well x

Cláudia said...

Hi, amiga!
Thank you for making that clear.
What a sad case. :-(
Great to read you here!
xxxx