UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on February 06, 2016, 02:56:49 PM
-
Why was Gonçalo Amaral taken off the Madeleine McCann case?
This is a question which has intrigued for some time. Listed below are some of the answers including that by Gonçalo Amaral himself.
What do you think, was the signing of The Treaty of Lisbon dependent on Amaral's dismissal?
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/Untitled-2-485524.jpg)
Gonçalo Amaral - The Truth of the Lie
BAD RESPONSE TO A JOURNALIST
In the evening, while driving, I receive an unidentified phone call, the last straw...A journalist asks me if I want to comment on the subject of the email. Whether due to the difficult day, the raging storm or the fact of driving through rain...I lose my cool. I reply, irritably, without thinking, that the message is of no interest and that it would be better for the English police to occupy themselves with the Portuguese investigation. Even as I am hanging up, I realise that I have not only made a blunder, but I have been unfair towards the majority of the British police who have helped us throughout these difficult months. I drive on, certain that I have triggered a diplomatic incident with predictable consequences: as soon as these simple words are made public, I risk not being able to continue to direct the Portimão Department of Criminal Investigation.
It is shortly after 2pm, in the middle of lunch, that I receive the news. The National Director has sent a fax to the Portimão DIC: in it, he stipulates the end of my assignment and requests my return to Faro.
According to a British correspondent, the Prime Minister personally called Stuart Prior to ask for confirmation of my dismissal. Why would the head of the British government be interested in a lowly Portuguese official? We refuse to believe the rumours going around, according to which the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon was dependent on my dismissal.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/chapter-21-dismissal-of-head-of.html
Metro - 3rd October 2007
Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case following his comments that Kate and Gerry McCann had been calling the shots by identifying lines of inquiry for Leicestershire officers.
The family’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell told GMTV the claims were “ludicrous”. He added: “What they want now is whoever takes over to refocus the inquiry on to finding Madeleine.”
Mr Mitchell said the decision to remove Mr Amaral was “a decision for the Portuguese authorities.”
http://metro.co.uk/2007/10/03/mccanns-focus-on-finding-madeleine-213385/#ixzz3zOR410te
theGuardian - 3rd October 2007
The Portuguese detective heading the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was yesterday removed from the case and demoted from his post as chief of the police in the Algarve town of Portimão, following an outspoken attack on his British counterparts.
Inspector Gonçalo Amaral has been transferred to the nearby Algarve city of Faro after criticising the British police in a leading Portuguese newspaper.
Yesterday, in an interview with the respected Diário de Notícias, Mr Amaral accused British detectives of only investigating those leads that Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, wanted following up. "[The British police] have only investigated tips and information developed and worked on for the McCanns, forgetting that the couple are suspects in the death of their daughter Madeleine."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/03/ukcrime.uknews4
50
-
Has anyone ever come up with a *rational* explanation as to why the signing the Treaty of Lisbon could possibly be dependent on taking Amaral off the case of a missing child?
-
The constant leaks were possibly becoming an embarrassment, but he was caught red-handed in this instance in a rant that was undermining foreign police cooperation.
If you examine the police regulations, there are several that he could be considered to have infringed.
Here's just one of them:
g) Violação do segredo profissional e omissão do sigilo devido relativamente aos assuntos conhecidos em razão do cargo ou da função, sempre que dai resulte prejuízo para o desenvolvimento do trabalho policial ou para qualquer pessoa;
Googlish:
g) Violation of professional secrecy and omission of secrecy due respect to matters considered because of their rank or function whenever hence resulting in losses to the development of police work or for anyone;
-
I would need to see the Diário de Notícias article, the date the Lisbon Treaty was signed and the date of his removal to be on solid ground.
If this bit happened as it says, he was a goner.
"Yesterday, in an interview with the respected Diário de Notícias, Mr Amaral accused British detectives of only investigating those leads that Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, wanted following up. "[The British police] have only investigated tips and information developed and worked on for the McCanns, forgetting that the couple are suspects in the death of their daughter Madeleine."
-
I would need to see the Diário de Notícias article, the date the Lisbon Treaty was signed and the date of his removal to be on solid ground.
If this bit happened as it says, he was a goner.
"Yesterday, in an interview with the respected Diário de Notícias, Mr Amaral accused British detectives of only investigating those leads that Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, wanted following up. "[The British police] have only investigated tips and information developed and worked on for the McCanns, forgetting that the couple are suspects in the death of their daughter Madeleine."
Treaty of Lisbon was signed on 13 December 2007
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
Amaral got booted on his birthday: 2 October 2007
For "obvious reasons", according to Alípio Ribeiro:
"Fiz cessar a comissão de serviço de Gonçalo Amaral em Portimão. As razões pelas quais dei esse despacho parecem-me óbvias", disse aos jornalistas Alípio Ribeiro, numa aparente referência às polémicas declarações de Gonçalo Amaral citadas na edição de terça-feira do Diário de Notícias.
http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/pais/goncalo-amaral-afastado-por-razoes-obvias_n50579
PJ accuses English police of favouring the McCann couple
by Paula Martinheira and José Manuel Oliveira - 02Oct2007
"The British police has only been working on the issues that the McCann couple wants, and which are convenient to them." It was with an explosive and rebellious tone that the coordinator of the investigation into the Madeleine case, Gonçalo Amaral, commented in brief statements to DN the news that was published yesterday in several English newspapers. This news was about an anonymous email that was sent to Prince Charles' official site, which accuses an ex-employee of the Ocean Club of kidnapping the four-year-old girl, as an act of revenge against the resort's administration, after having been dismissed.
"That situation is completely set aside, and it has no credibility whatsoever to Portuguese police", the leader of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Portimao told DN, considering that his English colleagues "have been investigating leads and information that were created and worked by the McCanns, forgetting that the couple is suspected of the death of their daughter Madeleine".
"That story of a kidnapping for revenge is another fact that was worked by the McCanns", Gonçalo Amaral accused, stressing that the Ocean Club "is located in Praia da Luz and not in London, which means that everything that concerns the resort and its employees (present or former) was already or is being investigated by Policia Judiciaria".
"It's not an email, even less an anonymous one which is easy to track, that is going to distract our investigation line", he said.
Gonçalo Amaral, before entering the CID in Portimao, was at the PJ's Directory in Faro, having been mainly responsible for fighting drug traffic.
The opinion of the coordinator of CID in Portimao coincides with statements that were made to DN by the president of the Union of Criminal Investigation Employees (ASFIC), Carlos Anjos, who accuses Gerry and Kate McCann of "trying to distract and confuse the investigation by announcing a new fact on a daily basis". For him, as DN could report, "the McCanns have launched a campaign to discredit the Portuguese police when it presented the theory of the girl's death, substituting that of an abduction, which was very convenient to them". "As long as the theory of the disappearance because of a suspected abduction subsisted, the PJ was very pleasant company for the couple. When things changed and the death theory emerged, there was a radical change in the stance of the McCanns, who by the way never helped or facilitated, since the beginning, the investigation".
In late August, early September, a few days before Gerry and Kate were constituted arguidos, for suspicions of the negligent death of their daughter Madeleine, a top member of staff of Judiciaria commented the following: "After buying ourselves a war with the British media, we are now buying one with the English police."
Over the last few weeks, the Policia Judiciaria has been silent, which was helped by the fact that the spokesman of this force for that case, Olegario Sousa, has left that function, which he occupied since the child's disappearance.
source: Diário de Notícias, 02.10.2007
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic166.html
-
The Justice Minister even made a statement.
Algarve Resident
Justice minister says police relationship is still strong
Updated: 02-Oct-2007
UPDATED 16.15 HOURS ON 02.10.07
By CECILIA PIRES
PORTUGAL’S JUSTICE Minister has stepped in to assure all parties that the relationship between the Portuguese and British police forces working on the Madeleine McCann case is still strong and of “beneficial co-operation”.
Alberto Costa was responding today (Tuesday) to comments made by Gonçalo Amaral, the leading investigator in the Madeleine case, and published in today’s Portuguese daily Diário de Notícias (DN), in which he criticized British police action.
Alberto Costa said: “It is important that all teams are focused on the investigation work and not on the comments.” He refused to make any further comments on the PJ coordinator’s statements.
Gonçalo Amaral had accused British police of “only investigating information previously prepared by Gerry and Kate McCann”.
In the interview in DN, he is quoted as saying that “the British police have been working exclusively on the information wanted by the McCanns and that suits them better.”
The police investigator was commenting on reports in British media on Monday about an anonymous email sent to the official website of Prince Charles.
The email accused a former employee of the Ocean Club of being responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann in a revenge action to destroy the resort’s credibility.
The PJ investigator said this information “had no credibility for the Portuguese police” and therefore “it was completely excluded” from the investigation.
“An email, specially an anonymous one, is not going to distract us from the line of the investigation,” he said.
Gonçalo Amaral also claimed that by following the couple’s tips, the British investigators were continuously “forgetting the fact that they are prime suspects of their daughter’s death”.
He said that the kidnapping scenario now being explored was nothing more than “another fact worked by the McCanns”.
He added that as the Ocean Club is located in Praia da Luz and not in London, “all information related with the resort and its staff has been or is being investigated by the Polícia Judiciária”
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10366.html
-
Gonçalo Amaral also claimed that by following the couple’s tips, the British investigators were continuously “forgetting the fact that they are prime suspects of their daughter’s death”.
Quite aside from breaking the selectively sacrosanct judicial secrecy, he's accusing LP of corruption as well.
It doesn't get much more cringeworthy than that, IMO.
LP had already seen the forensic results and would have known that that was a blind alley. Amaral's team clearly didn't understand, or had decided to ignore them.
LP had no reason to stop passing on info as it came in.
-
This cable (below) from the US Embassy in Portugal to the U.S., found and leaked by Wikileaks, shows that there were ongoing discussions between the Portuguese and U.K. governments about the Madeleine McCann case (see especially bits in red):
Friday, 28 September 2007, 15:36
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LISBON 002527
SIPDIS
STATE FOR XXXXXXXXXXXX
EO 12958 DECL: 09/25/2017
TAGS PGOV, PREL, OFDP, PO
SUBJECT: PORTUGAL: UK AMBASSADOR ON ENERGY SECURITY,
RUSSIA, EU-AFRICA SUMMIT, AND MCCANN CASE
Classified By: XXXXXXXXXXXX FOR REASONS 1.4 (B),(D)
SUMMARY
-------
1. (C) On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed Ambassador Hoffman that European concerns over Russia's aggressive energy policies and the need for market competition were the driving forces behind the third EU energy liberalization package. He suggested that Russia's position with its neighbors was guided by a self-proclaimed right to do "what it wants, when it wants" in its own neighborhood. Regarding Robert Mugabe's participation in the proposed EU-Africa Summit, Ellis said the UK would not discourage other member states from participating if PM Brown stayed away. He doubted, however, if the Dutch, Irish, or Swedish would attend in Brown's absence. Ellis also noted that it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents in the high-profile case that has captured international attention. He informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues. END SUMMARY
(...)
THE MADELEINE MCCANN CASE
-------------------------
5. (C) Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents. Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively. He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.
It is clear that by late September 2007 Goncalo Amaral had had what he felt were strong indications that British police officers, i.e. those from Leicestershire Police, were basically trying to defend the McCanns. One evening he poured out his frustrations to a journalist, but clearly didn't make sure that his comments were 'off the record'. When his comments were published, the Portuguese evidently decided there was no better time to move against Amaral.
The Lisbon summit was 17 & 18 October 2007 and it paved the way for the grand signing ceremony which I think someone up the thread said was on 13 December. It is on the record that the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates, now on trial for major corruption, and Gordon Brown specifically discussed Madeleine McCann when they met during the conference.
Already in late 2007 and early 2008 there was a corruption enquiry going on by the Portuguese authorities and the E.U. justice arm, EUROJUST, into a bribery scandal in connection with the major Freeport development on the Algarve, which broke all manner of E.U. environmental regulations. Specific information was received by the EUROJUST investigation that bribes were paid via British banks to Socrates and the then Agriculture Minister.
No doubt both governments had plenty of dark issues they wanted to keep well and truly under the carpet.
Or 'behind closed doors', as the U.S. Ambassador put it in his communique about Madeleine McCann.
-
Treaty of Lisbon was signed on 13 December 2007
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
Amaral got booted on his birthday: 2 October 2007
For "obvious reasons", according to Alípio Ribeiro:
"Fiz cessar a comissão de serviço de Gonçalo Amaral em Portimão. As razões pelas quais dei esse despacho parecem-me óbvias", disse aos jornalistas Alípio Ribeiro, numa aparente referência às polémicas declarações de Gonçalo Amaral citadas na edição de terça-feira do Diário de Notícias.
http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/pais/goncalo-amaral-afastado-por-razoes-obvias_n50579
PJ accuses English police of favouring the McCann couple
by Paula Martinheira and José Manuel Oliveira - 02Oct2007
"The British police has only been working on the issues that the McCann couple wants, and which are convenient to them." It was with an explosive and rebellious tone that the coordinator of the investigation into the Madeleine case, Gonçalo Amaral, commented in brief statements to DN the news that was published yesterday in several English newspapers. This news was about an anonymous email that was sent to Prince Charles' official site, which accuses an ex-employee of the Ocean Club of kidnapping the four-year-old girl, as an act of revenge against the resort's administration, after having been dismissed.
"That situation is completely set aside, and it has no credibility whatsoever to Portuguese police", the leader of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Portimao told DN, considering that his English colleagues "have been investigating leads and information that were created and worked by the McCanns, forgetting that the couple is suspected of the death of their daughter Madeleine".
"That story of a kidnapping for revenge is another fact that was worked by the McCanns", Gonçalo Amaral accused, stressing that the Ocean Club "is located in Praia da Luz and not in London, which means that everything that concerns the resort and its employees (present or former) was already or is being investigated by Policia Judiciaria".
"It's not an email, even less an anonymous one which is easy to track, that is going to distract our investigation line", he said.
Gonçalo Amaral, before entering the CID in Portimao, was at the PJ's Directory in Faro, having been mainly responsible for fighting drug traffic.
The opinion of the coordinator of CID in Portimao coincides with statements that were made to DN by the president of the Union of Criminal Investigation Employees (ASFIC), Carlos Anjos, who accuses Gerry and Kate McCann of "trying to distract and confuse the investigation by announcing a new fact on a daily basis". For him, as DN could report, "the McCanns have launched a campaign to discredit the Portuguese police when it presented the theory of the girl's death, substituting that of an abduction, which was very convenient to them". "As long as the theory of the disappearance because of a suspected abduction subsisted, the PJ was very pleasant company for the couple. When things changed and the death theory emerged, there was a radical change in the stance of the McCanns, who by the way never helped or facilitated, since the beginning, the investigation".
In late August, early September, a few days before Gerry and Kate were constituted arguidos, for suspicions of the negligent death of their daughter Madeleine, a top member of staff of Judiciaria commented the following: "After buying ourselves a war with the British media, we are now buying one with the English police."
Over the last few weeks, the Policia Judiciaria has been silent, which was helped by the fact that the spokesman of this force for that case, Olegario Sousa, has left that function, which he occupied since the child's disappearance.
source: Diário de Notícias, 02.10.2007
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic166.html
I am grateful for that. Thank you.
That sinks, IMO, any connection to the Treaty of Lisbon. That simply makes it clear, IMO, that when he should have been saying 'no comment' to the press, he appears to have broken judicial secrecy, and in a particularly stupid way. I think anyone in the UK pursuing a similar tack on a live case would get hauled off it sooner rather than later, and disciplined to boot. All of course IMO and depending upon the base story being true.
Since his book attempts to explain this error, it seems there was an incident, and he knew he was holed below the waterline.
-
This cable (below) from the US Embassy in Portugal to the U.S., found and leaked by Wikileaks, shows that there were ongoing discussions between the Portuguese and U.K. governments about the Madeleine McCann case (see especially bits in red):
Friday, 28 September 2007, 15:36
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LISBON 002527
SIPDIS
STATE FOR XXXXXXXXXXXX
EO 12958 DECL: 09/25/2017
TAGS PGOV, PREL, OFDP, PO
SUBJECT: PORTUGAL: UK AMBASSADOR ON ENERGY SECURITY,
RUSSIA, EU-AFRICA SUMMIT, AND MCCANN CASE
Classified By: XXXXXXXXXXXX FOR REASONS 1.4 (B),(D)
SUMMARY
-------
1. (C) On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed Ambassador Hoffman that European concerns over Russia's aggressive energy policies and the need for market competition were the driving forces behind the third EU energy liberalization package. He suggested that Russia's position with its neighbors was guided by a self-proclaimed right to do "what it wants, when it wants" in its own neighborhood. Regarding Robert Mugabe's participation in the proposed EU-Africa Summit, Ellis said the UK would not discourage other member states from participating if PM Brown stayed away. He doubted, however, if the Dutch, Irish, or Swedish would attend in Brown's absence. Ellis also noted that it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents in the high-profile case that has captured international attention. He informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues. END SUMMARY
(...)
THE MADELEINE MCCANN CASE
-------------------------
5. (C) Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents. Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively. He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.
It is clear that by late September 2007 Goncalo Amaral had had what he felt were strong indications that British police officers, i.e. those from Leicestershire Police, were basically trying to defend the McCanns. One evening he poured out his frustrations to a journalist, but clearly didn't make sure that his comments were 'off the record'. When his comments were published, the Portuguese evidently decided there was no better time to move against Amaral.
The Lisbon summit was 17 & 18 October 2007 and it paved the way for the grand signing ceremony which I think someone up the thread said was on 13 December. It is on the record that the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates, now on trial for major corruption, and Gordon Brown specifically discussed Madeleine McCann when they met during the conference.
Already in late 2007 and early 2008 there was a corruption enquiry going on by the Portuguese authorities and the E.U. justice arm, EUROJUST, into a bribery scandal in connection with the major Freeport development on the Algarve, which broke all manner of E.U. environmental regulations. Specific information was received by the EUROJUST investigation that bribes were paid via British banks to Socrates and the then Agriculture Minister.
No doubt both governments had plenty of dark issues they wanted to keep well and truly under the carpet.
Or 'behind closed doors', as the U.S. Ambassador put it in his communique about Madeleine McCann.
Fascinating to say the least.
So why did the UK police change tack ?
Dare I say political intervention ?
-
So, what dark issues that the government wants to keep hidden are two doctors from Rothley involved in, Mr Blonk? Any ideas?
-
This cable (below) from the US Embassy in Portugal to the U.S., found and leaked by Wikileaks, shows that there were ongoing discussions between the Portuguese and U.K. governments about the Madeleine McCann case (see especially bits in red):
Friday, 28 September 2007, 15:36
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LISBON 002527
SIPDIS
STATE FOR XXXXXXXXXXXX
EO 12958 DECL: 09/25/2017
TAGS PGOV, PREL, OFDP, PO
SUBJECT: PORTUGAL: UK AMBASSADOR ON ENERGY SECURITY,
RUSSIA, EU-AFRICA SUMMIT, AND MCCANN CASE
Classified By: XXXXXXXXXXXX FOR REASONS 1.4 (B),(D)
SUMMARY
-------
1. (C) On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed Ambassador Hoffman that European concerns over Russia's aggressive energy policies and the need for market competition were the driving forces behind the third EU energy liberalization package. He suggested that Russia's position with its neighbors was guided by a self-proclaimed right to do "what it wants, when it wants" in its own neighborhood. Regarding Robert Mugabe's participation in the proposed EU-Africa Summit, Ellis said the UK would not discourage other member states from participating if PM Brown stayed away. He doubted, however, if the Dutch, Irish, or Swedish would attend in Brown's absence. Ellis also noted that it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents in the high-profile case that has captured international attention. He informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues. END SUMMARY
(...)
THE MADELEINE MCCANN CASE
-------------------------
5. (C) Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents. Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively. He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.
It is clear that by late September 2007 Goncalo Amaral had had what he felt were strong indications that British police officers, i.e. those from Leicestershire Police, were basically trying to defend the McCanns. One evening he poured out his frustrations to a journalist, but clearly didn't make sure that his comments were 'off the record'. When his comments were published, the Portuguese evidently decided there was no better time to move against Amaral.
The Lisbon summit was 17 & 18 October 2007 and it paved the way for the grand signing ceremony which I think someone up the thread said was on 13 December. It is on the record that the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates, now on trial for major corruption, and Gordon Brown specifically discussed Madeleine McCann when they met during the conference.
Already in late 2007 and early 2008 there was a corruption enquiry going on by the Portuguese authorities and the E.U. justice arm, EUROJUST, into a bribery scandal in connection with the major Freeport development on the Algarve, which broke all manner of E.U. environmental regulations. Specific information was received by the EUROJUST investigation that bribes were paid via British banks to Socrates and the then Agriculture Minister.
No doubt both governments had plenty of dark issues they wanted to keep well and truly under the carpet.
Or 'behind closed doors', as the U.S. Ambassador put it in his communique about Madeleine McCann.
Please do not allow the irrelevant parts of this Comment to lead you Off Topic.
-
According to a British correspondent, the Prime Minister personally called Stuart Prior to ask for confirmation of my dismissal.
Which British correspondent would that be?
-
This cable (below) from the US Embassy in Portugal to the U.S., found and leaked by Wikileaks, shows that there were ongoing discussions between the Portuguese and U.K. governments about the Madeleine McCann case (see especially bits in red):
Friday, 28 September 2007, 15:36
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LISBON 002527
SIPDIS
STATE FOR XXXXXXXXXXXX
EO 12958 DECL: 09/25/2017
TAGS PGOV, PREL, OFDP, PO
SUBJECT: PORTUGAL: UK AMBASSADOR ON ENERGY SECURITY,
RUSSIA, EU-AFRICA SUMMIT, AND MCCANN CASE
Classified By: XXXXXXXXXXXX FOR REASONS 1.4 (B),(D)
SUMMARY
-------
1. (C) On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed Ambassador Hoffman that European concerns over Russia's aggressive energy policies and the need for market competition were the driving forces behind the third EU energy liberalization package. He suggested that Russia's position with its neighbors was guided by a self-proclaimed right to do "what it wants, when it wants" in its own neighborhood. Regarding Robert Mugabe's participation in the proposed EU-Africa Summit, Ellis said the UK would not discourage other member states from participating if PM Brown stayed away. He doubted, however, if the Dutch, Irish, or Swedish would attend in Brown's absence. Ellis also noted that it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents in the high-profile case that has captured international attention. He informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues. END SUMMARY
(...)
THE MADELEINE MCCANN CASE
-------------------------
5. (C) Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents. Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively. He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.
It is clear that by late September 2007 Goncalo Amaral had had what he felt were strong indications that British police officers, i.e. those from Leicestershire Police, were basically trying to defend the McCanns. One evening he poured out his frustrations to a journalist, but clearly didn't make sure that his comments were 'off the record'. When his comments were published, the Portuguese evidently decided there was no better time to move against Amaral.
The Lisbon summit was 17 & 18 October 2007 and it paved the way for the grand signing ceremony which I think someone up the thread said was on 13 December. It is on the record that the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates, now on trial for major corruption, and Gordon Brown specifically discussed Madeleine McCann when they met during the conference.
Already in late 2007 and early 2008 there was a corruption enquiry going on by the Portuguese authorities and the E.U. justice arm, EUROJUST, into a bribery scandal in connection with the major Freeport development on the Algarve, which broke all manner of E.U. environmental regulations. Specific information was received by the EUROJUST investigation that bribes were paid via British banks to Socrates and the then Agriculture Minister.
No doubt both governments had plenty of dark issues they wanted to keep well and truly under the carpet.
Or 'behind closed doors', as the U.S. Ambassador put it in his communique about Madeleine McCann.
I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting...
What "evidence" was "developed"?
- UK dogs alerted (for reasons as yet unknown).
- Samples were sent to the UK for analysis which amounted to a hill of beans.
-
Please do not allow the irrelevant parts of this Comment to lead you Off Topic.
There is a sense in which the parts you underline in red are true.
The case against the McCanns rested on Portuguese misinterpretation of the forensic results (with the honourable exception of PJ Inspector Dias) and we know what gave rise to those forensic results, or, more specifically, how they came about ....
-
Pinning down the reasons why Amaral was removed can only be a matter of conjecture, because (so far as I'm aware) there's nothing in the files that tells us, or even makes reference to Amaral's removal.
-
It's a no brainer why he was removed - he cocked up the Madeleine investigation and he was an arguido in another missing child case. Aren't those grounds enough for removal?
-
It's a no brainer why he was removed - he cocked up the Madeleine investigation and he was an arguido in another missing child case. Aren't those grounds enough for removal?
The paradox is that what you cite ought to have been the reasons why he was never appointed in the first place.
Yet he was.
And despite his removal, the McCanns were made arguidos.
I believe the prosecutors said the decision (to make them arguidos) was justified.
Am I wrong about that?
-
Pinning down the reasons why Amaral was removed can only be a matter of conjecture, because (so far as I'm aware) there's nothing in the files that tells us, or even makes reference to Amaral's removal.
The national PJ director said it was for "obvious reasons".
He had infringed PJ regulations. He had also done so in a rather spectacular way by creating an embarrassing diplomatic incident.
-
It's a no brainer why he was removed - he cocked up the Madeleine investigation and he was an arguido in another missing child case. Aren't those grounds enough for removal?
Whatever he did, it's a great pity they didn't remove him sooner.
-
The national PJ director said it was for "obvious reasons".
He had infringed PJ regulations. He had also done so in a rather spectacular way by creating an embarrassing diplomatic incident.
I suspect the fact that the UK media picked up on the fact that he was an arguido himself was a source of some embarrassment for the PT authorities, hence they got rid of him as soon as he provided enough rope with which to be hanged.
-
It's a no brainer why he was removed - he cocked up the Madeleine investigation and he was an arguido in another missing child case. Aren't those grounds enough for removal?
Fascinating.
He was the case coordinator, and not alone in his belief of parental involvement.
If a foreign government or police force interfered in a UK investigation, I would tend to suggest the head of the investigation in the UK would be more than just a bit miffed.
-
It's a no brainer why he was removed - he cocked up the Madeleine investigation and he was an arguido in another missing child case. Aren't those grounds enough for removal?
I'm not sure that it was about his bizarre theories as it's not clear how much was actually known further up the PJ / judicial chain, beyond Encarnação and the regional Public Ministry.
The half-baked PJ leaks can't have been making relations easy, but no one further up seems to have done much about it until his infamous outburst.
-
Fascinating.
He was the case coordinator, and not alone in his belief of parental involvement.
If a foreign government or police force interfered in a UK investigation, I would tend to suggest the head of the investigation in the UK would be more than just a bit miffed.
In what way did the UK law enforcement agencies "interfere"?
They were attempting to provide assistance to an under-resourced local police force. It may have better for the PJ to just have one LE agency as an interlocutor instead of many, but I don't see how they "interfered".
-
In what way did the UK law enforcement agencies "interfere"?
They were attempting to provide assistance to an under-resourced local police force. It may have better for the PJ to just have one LE agency as an interlocutor instead of many, but I don't see how they "interfered".
Not just interfering but hampering;
Secret Madeleine McCann report finds competing British forces hampered inquiry
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11068928/Secret-Madeleine-McCann-report-finds-competing-British-forces-hampered-inquiry.html
-
Not just interfering but hampering;
Secret Madeleine McCann report finds competing British forces hampered inquiry
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11068928/Secret-Madeleine-McCann-report-finds-competing-British-forces-hampered-inquiry.html
an article in the DM is proof of nothing
-
an article in the DM is proof of nothing
its a telegraph article not a DM one and it quotes parts of a govt commissioned report....so yes, proof of more than "nothing"
TUT
Lol
-
its a telegraph article not a DM one and it quotes parts of a govt commissioned report....so yes, proof of more than "nothing"
TUT
Lol
Nice touch. @)(++(*
-
Fascinating.
He was the case coordinator, and not alone in his belief of parental involvement.
If a foreign government or police force interfered in a UK investigation, I would tend to suggest the head of the investigation in the UK would be more than just a bit miffed.
The PJ welcomed the British police assistance.
Amaral was coordinator of the case and came up with his theory of what happened to Madeleine after that ever other points of investigation was stopped, even though he misunderstood the DNA results.
I think if a head of investigation in the UK misunderstood the DNA results and then decided his/her theory was correct and no other theory of what happened to a child was considered, then I would hope that that person would be removed from the investigation, especially as police were telling this person he was wrong.
-
The PJ welcomed the British police assistance.
Amaral was coordinator of the case and came up with his theory of what happened to Madeleine after that ever other points of investigation was stopped, even though he misunderstood the DNA results.
I think if a head of investigation in the UK misunderstood the DNA results and then decided his/her theory was correct and no other theory of what happened to a child was considered, then I would hope that that person would be removed from the investigation, especially as police were telling this person he was wrong.
The possibility of death in the apartment has not been disproved.
Amaral's removal from the investigation smacks of political intervention.
-
The possibility of death in the apartment has not been disproved.
Amaral's removal from the investigation smacks of political intervention.
It smacks of incompetence to me. But then I watched it unfold.
-
It smacks of incompetence to me. But then I watched it unfold.
Of course you would say that, for obvious reasons.
-
The possibility of death in the apartment has not been disproved.
Amaral's removal from the investigation smacks of political intervention.
That is the excuse Amaral give.
Strange isn't it, when SY opened the investigation into what happened to Madeleine, and wanted the help of the PJ every request had to be in a written letter which they took an age to reply to, everything they wanted to do regarding anything to do with Portugal had to be with consent from the PJ. The PJ said if any of SY spoke to a journalist about the case then all correspondence would cease between SY and the PJ.
Yet Amaral said the British interfered with his investigation, hmmm.
-
It smacks of incompetence to me. But then I watched it unfold.
I would say removing Amaral was one of the more competent features of the investigation; appointing him, the questionable decision.
The fiasco of how (certain elements of) the PJ (mis)interpreted the forensic results was unquestionably incompetent, especially considering that there were plenty around them who actually understood those results, including the Portuguese forensic laboratory. Court-Real would have been delighted to set Amaral and co. straight, if only he'd been asked.
Actually, he was asked (or at least the laboratory was) and they did attempt to put Amaral straight on a few points.
Shortly afterwards, Gerry not Madeleine's father broke.
Not remotely the fault of the Portuguese laboratory ....
-
That is the excuse Amaral give.
Strange isn't it, when SY opened the investigation into what happened to Madeleine, and wanted the help of the PJ every request had to be in a written letter which they took an age to reply to, everything they wanted to do regarding anything to do with Portugal had to be with consent from the PJ. The PJ said if any of SY spoke to a journalist about the case then all correspondence would cease between SY and the PJ.
Yet Amaral said the British interfered with his investigation, hmmm.
You can hmmm all you want to.
There has been clear and undoubted direct politician intervention in this case.
-
Of course you would say that, for obvious reasons.
Would you expect a PJ Inspector to understand Forensics and DNA?
-
Would you expect a PJ Inspector to understand Forensics and DNA?
No.
Unless they had a background in that field.
Do you ?
-
No.
Unless they had a background in that field.
Do you ?
Yes, I do, having had it explained to me. It isn't difficult.
-
No.
Unless they had a background in that field.
Do you ?
If he didn't understand it, why didn't he call Corte-Real to explain it to him? Corte-Real came to the same conclusion as Lowe on Amaral's "documentary".
For some reason that tends to get glossed over...
-
The PT side of the situation seems a little awkward.
The PJ disciplinary unit had conducted an investigation into the slippery-stair saga in 2005
This mostly concerns Cristóvão, but Amaral was also at the Faro PJ station that night.
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/paulo-pereira-cristovao/ministra-nega-recurso-a-pereira-cristovao-de-pena-aplicada-pela-pj
Amaral had been a PJ coordinator under Encarnação in Faro. Then at the beginning of 2006, he got appointed as PJ coordinator for Portimão.
http://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-maddie/noticias/interior/director-da-pj-so-falou-com-o-ministro-apos-demitir-o-inspector-978454.html
it's not clear if that was a "sideways" promotion or a real one (leading his own team on a particular turf).
Just a year and a bit later, Madeleine disappears and he's in charge.
Although he was made arguido on 4 May (and only charged sometime in June ish in the Cipriano case), removing him so soon after having been "promoted" might have been a bit awkward.
On the other hand, as the torture trial hadn't yet come to court, let alone the end of the legal road of appeals, he was afforded the presumption of innocence like anyone else, in theory.
Also, while the PJ regulations do include various categories of suspension, they appear to be sanctions for misconduct, and not preventive "gardening leave" pending judicial outcome.
Packing him off to somewhere else yet again would have required a vacancy, which may not have been available, plus perhaps the human aspect of not wanting to uproot his family.
What options did his superiors have at the time: send him back to Faro again? Was anyone else available to head Portimão at short notice?
One issue that I don't quite understand is why the PJ leaks to the media were allowed to go on for so long with no inquiry from above. Was it considered an acceptable alternative form of the slippery-stair treatment? Was the PJ too under-resourced to investigate it?
What does appear clear to me is that the national PJ director eventually did hit the roof in no uncertain terms...
-
The PT side of the situation seems a little awkward.
The PJ disciplinary unit had conducted an investigation into the slippery-stair saga in 2005
This mostly concerns Cristóvão, but Amaral was also at the Faro PJ station that night.
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/paulo-pereira-cristovao/ministra-nega-recurso-a-pereira-cristovao-de-pena-aplicada-pela-pj
Amaral had been a PJ coordinator under Encarnação in Faro. Then at the beginning of 2006, he got appointed as PJ coordinator for Portimão.
http://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-maddie/noticias/interior/director-da-pj-so-falou-com-o-ministro-apos-demitir-o-inspector-978454.html
it's not clear if that was a "sideways" promotion or a real one (leading his own team on a particular turf).
Just a year and a bit later, Madeleine disappears and he's in charge.
Although he was made arguido on 4 May (and only charged sometime in June ish in the Cipriano case), removing him so soon after having been "promoted" might have been a bit awkward.
On the other hand, as the torture trial hadn't yet come to court, let alone the end of the legal road of appeals, he was afforded the presumption of innocence like anyone else, in theory.
Also, while the PJ regulations do include various categories of suspension, they appear to be sanctions for misconduct, and not preventive "gardening leave" pending judicial outcome.
Packing him off to somewhere else yet again would have required a vacancy, which may not have been available, plus perhaps the human aspect of not wanting to uproot his family.
What options did his superiors have at the time: send him back to Faro again? Was anyone else available to head Portimão at short notice?
One issue that I don't quite understand is why the PJ leaks to the media were allowed to go on for so long with no inquiry from above. Was it considered an acceptable alternative form of the slippery-stair treatment? Was the PJ too under-resourced to investigate it?
What does appear clear to me is that the national PJ director eventually did hit the roof in no uncertain terms...
Interesting stuff, thank you.
When Amaral was taken off the case, was he actually removed from the position he had in Portimão, and if so, who got it? I'm thinking of what they could have done earlier.
-
Yes, I do, having had it explained to me. It isn't difficult.
How long was the explanation ?
-
I suspect the fact that the UK media picked up on the fact that he was an arguido himself was a source of some embarrassment for the PT authorities, hence they got rid of him as soon as he provided enough rope with which to be hanged.
Amaral made it clear to his superiors at the outset of the Maddie investigation that he was prepared to stand aside from the case due to the furore over the Ciprianos. He was told that wasn't necessary and to carry on.
-
You can hmmm all you want to.
There has been clear and undoubted direct politician intervention in this case.
there is in many international cases
-
Amaral made it clear to his superiors at the outset of the Maddie investigation that he was prepared to stand aside from the case due to the furore over the Ciprianos. He was told that wasn't necessary and to carry on.
cite.....as per forum rules
-
cite.....as per forum rules
Goncalo Amaral
“We did our job, the best we knew and we were the target of a lot critics and insults, from the British newspapers”, the former PJ inspector said. When the case of Joana Cipriano was first raised by the British Media, Mr. Amaral contacted the PJ director and called the attention for the risks, because those news about his alleged involvement in the “torture” of the mother of Joana Ciprianio would be, soon, a large campaign against him, and talked about the convenience of taking him out of investigation. “What they told me, later, was that I had all the support and should continue the work.”
www.gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/gonalo-amaral-and-madeleines-case-there.html?m=1
-
Interesting stuff, thank you.
When Amaral was taken off the case, was he actually removed from the position he had in Portimão, and if so, who got it? I'm thinking of what they could have done earlier.
Rebelo was put on a fast train down to Portimão and Amaral got "promoted" back to Faro.
-
It's not clear to me whether Amaral was actually ever active again as a police officer once he'd been taken off the case.
-
Goncalo Amaral
“We did our job, the best we knew and we were the target of a lot critics and insults, from the British newspapers”, the former PJ inspector said. When the case of Joana Cipriano was first raised by the British Media, Mr. Amaral contacted the PJ director and called the attention for the risks, because those news about his alleged involvement in the “torture” of the mother of Joana Ciprianio would be, soon, a large campaign against him, and talked about the convenience of taking him out of investigation. “What they told me, later, was that I had all the support and should continue the work.”
www.gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/gonalo-amaral-and-madeleines-case-there.html?m=1
I believe it is customary for "sceptics" not to believe a word written by Kate McCann in her book "Madeleine" and so one might say that supporters can legitimately treat every word written by Amaral with equal disdain.
-
I believe it is customary for "sceptics" not to believe a word written by Kate McCann in her book "Madeleine" and so one might say that supporters can legitimately treat every word written by Amaral with equal disdain.
I find it plausible that there may have been a discussion between Amaral and Encarnação.
However, even if that's the case, Encarnação - even by virtue of his age - may well have been more in tune with the "old school" and thought that the child would soon be found and that it would all blow over.
However, that turned out not to be the case and he got stomach cancer which, understandably, would have limited how far he would have been able to have effectively carried out his job as the head of the PJ for the whole of the Faro PJ jurisdiction.
-
The possibility of death in the apartment has not been disproved.
Amaral's removal from the investigation smacks of political intervention.
Does anyone think that the pressures put on Amaral combined with what was going on behind the scenes in the Cipriano case combined with his enforced absence from his wife and daughters had a destructive effect on him which his superiors had begun to notice. Was his outburst to the journalist not simply the final nail?
-
Does anyone think that the pressures put on Amaral combined with what was going on behind the scenes in the Cipriano case combined with his enforced absence from his wife and daughters had a destructive effect on him which his superiors had begun to notice. Was his outburst to the journalist not simply the final nail?
He had pressures to bear.
Which maybe strengthens the argument that he ought, never, to have been appointed to coordinate the Madeleine investigation ....
-
He had pressures to bear.
Which maybe strengthens the argument that he ought, never, to have been appointed to coordinate the Madeleine investigation ....
I have some sympathy with that view but like many of these cases it isn't realised at the outset what a tortuous road the investigation might take. Everything considered, I wonder if Gonçalo would decline to take the case if he could go back to the 3rd May 2007? He has already talked of regrets including his regret that the parents weren't investigated immediately.
-
I have some sympathy with that view but like many of these cases it isn't realised at the outset what a tortuous road the investigation might take. Everything considered, I wonder if Gonçalo would decline to take the case if he could go back to the 3rd May 2007? He has already talked of regrets including his regret that the parents weren't investigated immediately.
I read somewhere, from his wife I think, that he gave up his holiday to take on the investigation. I don't think he had to do it.
-
Does anyone think that the pressures put on Amaral combined with what was going on behind the scenes in the Cipriano case combined with his enforced absence from his wife and daughters had a destructive effect on him which his superiors had begun to notice. Was his outburst to the journalist not simply the final nail?
How does that compare to the disappearance of your eldest child through a wanton act of repeated stupidity ?
-
Does anyone think that the pressures put on Amaral combined with what was going on behind the scenes in the Cipriano case combined with his enforced absence from his wife and daughters had a destructive effect on him which his superiors had begun to notice. Was his outburst to the journalist not simply the final nail?
Didn't his absence from his wife and daughters go with the turf of the kind of job he was in?
It was something he either should have been capable of handling or he should have stood aside before he was made to.
There must have been someone who was capable of balancing personal life and work. Someone with experience to know that if not solved within the first few hours he/she could be in it for a long haul
I think the destructive effect was that his inexperience in handling a missing child case was showing through and he was wallowing. So the frustration had to show somewhere ~ and the outburst was it.
-
Didn't his absence from his wife and daughters go with the turf of the kind of job he was in?
It was something he either should have been capable of handling or he should have stood aside before he was made to.
There must have been someone who was capable of balancing personal life and work. Someone with experience to know that if not solved within the first few hours he/she could be in it for a long haul
I think the destructive effect was that his inexperience in handling a missing child case was showing through and he was wallowing. So the frustration had to show somewhere ~ and the outburst was it.
IYO and hardly surprising.
-
I have some sympathy with that view but like many of these cases it isn't realised at the outset what a tortuous road the investigation might take. Everything considered, I wonder if Gonçalo would decline to take the case if he could go back to the 3rd May 2007? He has already talked of regrets including his regret that the parents weren't investigated immediately.
I'm not sure where I read it (his book?), but wasn't one of his first acts as coordinator of Madeleine's case to send requests to the UK for background information on the Drs McCann and their companions?
If it wasn't ~ it should have been.
-
I read somewhere, from his wife I think, that he gave up his holiday to take on the investigation. I don't think he had to do it.
I honestly believe he was of the opinion that he had done a good job in 'solving' the Cipriano case and as a result was of the opinion that 'solving' another missing child case would be easy-peasy.
-
I see tonight it is the old ploy of attacking Amaral on a personal level.
Well, I assume the mccanns are fair game on that as well.
-
I honestly believe he was of the opinion that he had done a good job in 'solving' the Cipriano case and as a result was of the opinion that 'solving' another missing child case would be easy-peasy.
I am of the honest opinion that he was scared rigid in case there was an abductor on the loose, so he had to scotch that idea.
-
I am of the honest opinion that he was scared rigid in case there was an abductor on the loose, so he had to scotch that idea.
'I am of the honest opinion'
Is that the latest catchphrase ?
Well, I am of the honest opinion that Amaral tried to do his job before being removed.Mistakes were made, and that is hardly unique to police investigations over here either.
-
I'm not sure where I read it (his book?), but wasn't one of his first acts as coordinator of Madeleine's case to send requests to the UK for background information on the Drs McCann and their companions?
If it wasn't ~ it should have been.
So he said... to someone who wasn't involved in this investigation. Even if this chap passed on the request, how could the UK authorities have responded to a vague request for private "background information" without an official and detailed request?
Were any ILORs sent during Amaral's tenure?
-
About Madeleine's parents being named as formal suspects, Amaral spoke about “strong evidence” as the base for the decision and referred that “there was a common understanding”, between Portuguese and British police officers involved in the investigation, about the fact that Madeleine was dead.
so amaral thought there was strong evidence against the parents...he really hadn't got a clue
-
About Madeleine's parents being named as formal suspects, Amaral spoke about “strong evidence” as the base for the decision and referred that “there was a common understanding”, between Portuguese and British police officers involved in the investigation, about the fact that Madeleine was dead.
so amaral thought there was strong evidence against the parents...he really hadn't got a clue
Discussing the investigation Mr Gamble said that the initial Portuguese police response to Madeleine’s disappearance was "haphazard".
“There was chaos, and as it went on it was haphazard which was alien to the more structured police you would expect here in the UK. There was not a sense of order.
“In the first instance the parents should be your Number One suspects. In most cases in the first few golden hours as you collect evidence you can then rule them in or out.
“And that was one of the huge flaws in this, that people didn't focus on clearing the ground beneath their feet in those chaotic first few hours that led into the haphazard first few weeks.
“When I carried out the scoping review there was no evidence that some of the critical information and the analysis of which could have led to intelligence and to leads had been followed up.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11068928/Secret-Madeleine-McCann-report-finds-competing-British-forces-hampered-inquiry.html
-
im going to ask a honest question to mcann supporters if the police officer in charge of the case had NOT been GA would you still hate him as much as you do GA? even if he had the same views as GA?
-
im going to ask a honest question to mcann supporters if the police officer in charge of the case had NOT been GA would you still hate him as much as you do GA? even if he had the same views as GA?
Bad cops = suspecting/making the parents arguidos
Good cops = follow only abduction theory/sightings/unending list of "suspects" however ridiculous
Your name or position wouldn't matter one iota! You'd be trashed with all means available as has anyone who has raised an eyebrow or two on any part of the story
-
Bad cops = suspecting/making the parents arguidos
Good cops = follow only abduction theory/sightings/unending list of "suspects" however ridiculous
Your name or position wouldn't matter one iota
Absolutely nothing wrong with initially making parents suspects
-
Bad cops = suspecting/making the parents arguidos
Good cops = follow only abduction theory/sightings/unending list of "suspects" however ridiculous
Your name or position wouldn't matter one iota! You'd be trashed with all means available as has anyone who has raised an eyebrow or two on any part of the story
whats hypocritical is if they needed the police they would call them right away
-
whats hypocritical is if they needed the police they would call them right away
Thats true
-
whats hypocritical is if they needed the police they would call them right away
most police are very good and honest...
I would have no problem calling them
-
Didn't his absence from his wife and daughters go with the turf of the kind of job he was in?
It was something he either should have been capable of handling or he should have stood aside before he was made to.
There must have been someone who was capable of balancing personal life and work. Someone with experience to know that if not solved within the first few hours he/she could be in it for a long haul
I think the destructive effect was that his inexperience in handling a missing child case was showing through and he was wallowing. So the frustration had to show somewhere ~ and the outburst was it.
I don't know how he ended up on both the Cipriano and the McCann cases given his expertise lay in catchng drug smugglers.
-
I'm not sure where I read it (his book?), but wasn't one of his first acts as coordinator of Madeleine's case to send requests to the UK for background information on the Drs McCann and their companions?
If it wasn't ~ it should have been.
That's correct but not all the information requested was provided. In addition, he later found out that the English police had held back various sighting reports and other material for some reason.
-
I don't know how he ended up on both the Cipriano and the McCann cases given his expertise lay in catchng drug smugglers.
Was Redwood an expert in cases of disappearances ?
Nicola Wall apparently is an expert in murder cases.
-
I don't know how he ended up on both the Cipriano and the McCann cases given his expertise lay in catchng drug smugglers.
Wasn't Amaral the genius who decided that drug smugglers were bringing in contraband into small coves?
Well done, that man.
The Cornish had been doing this for centuries. So he was a bit behind the times. Not awfully good, in fact.
-
Wasn't Amaral the genius who decided that drug smugglers were bringing in contraband into small coves?
Well done, that man.
The Cornish had been doing this for centuries. So he was a bit behind the times. Not awfully good, in fact.
and what has Redwood achieved in the mccann case ?
-
and what has Redwood achieved in the mccann case ?
Or Ms Wall, for that matter ?
-
Or Ms Wall, for that matter ?
Well she has been keeping things quiet.
Amaral had 3 months.
Redwood, more than a few months, the rest of his team , and the boundless talents of G4S at his disposal. &%+((£
-
and what has Redwood achieved in the McCann case ?
Quite a lot, actually, viz., an audience of 7 million people on BBC Crimewatch, 14.10.2013, which featured:
A. A reconstruction which was not an accurate portrayal of the day's events
B. Two e-fits of different-looking men said to have been drawn up a whole year after members of an Irish family saw a bloke in the dark, for a few seconds at most, whose face was partly hidden anyway, and whom they all declared they would never be able recognise if they saw him again, and
C. A bloke who hadn't come forward for 6 years to volunteer that he might be 'Tannerman', who just happened to be carrying his child clad only in pyjamas on a cold night, had no buggy, didn't have the child's mother with him, and miraculously happened to be wearing very similar clothes to Nuno Lourenco's kidnapper (= Wojchiech Krokowski), Tannerman and Smithman
-
Quite a lot, actually, viz., an audience of 7 million people on BBC Crimewatch, 14.10.2013, which featured:
A. A reconstruction which was not an accurate portrayal of the day's events
B. Two e-fits of different-looking men said to have been drawn up a whole year after members of an Irish family saw a bloke in the dark, for a few seconds at most, whose face was partly hidden anyway, and whom they all declared they would never be able recognise if they saw him again, and
C. A bloke who hadn't come forward for 6 years to volunteer that he might be 'Tannerman', who just happened to be carrying his child clad only in pyjamas on a cold night, had no buggy, didn't have the child's mother with him, and miraculously happened to be wearing very similar clothes to Nuno Lourenco's kidnapper (= Wojchiech Krokowski), Tannerman and Smithman
So, case solved then.....
-
If only
-
If only
Yep
-
Quite a lot, actually, viz., an audience of 7 million people on BBC Crimewatch, 14.10.2013, ...
And what was the audience of the BBC's portuguese language version of Crimewatch Blonk?
0, zero, none.
Shame they didn't think of that.
-
Thu 27th Sept
The Policia Judiciaria speak by international phonecall with witness M.Smith.
The witness states his full availability to travel to Portugal, make statements there, and assist in any necessary diligences.
Tue 2nd Oct
Mr Amaral was removed from the Mccann case, thus preventing Mr Amaral from bringing the witness M.Smith back to Portugal.
-
We know why Amaral wanted Mr. Smith to go to Portugal again. So why did no one else?
-
We know why Amaral wanted Mr. Smith to go to Portugal again. So why did no one else?
They didn't want to go back because they couldn't see any likeness to Gerry.
Do you think that Mr Smiths words were added to and the meaning enlarged by Amaral ?
Did he just contact Amaral to say that the method of carrying the little girl was just like the method that Smithman used .. and nothing more? Was he just trying to add to info already given?
Because from later statements by him we know that he didn't think that Smithman was Gerry.
I thinkj that he was just trying to fill out his statement about the method of carrying.
.... Nothing else intended ... but that Amaral "made the best" of it". Only my opinion and I know that I could be wrong.
-
They didn't want to go back because they couldn't see any likeness to Gerry.
Do you think that Mr Smiths words were added to and the meaning enlarged by Amaral ?
Did he just contact Amaral to say that the method of carrying the little girl was just like the method that Smithman used .. and nothing more? Was he just trying to add to info already given?
Because from later statements by him we know that he didn't think that Smithman was Gerry.
I thinkj that he was just trying to fill out his statement about the method of carrying.
.... Nothing else intended ... but that Amaral "made the best" of it". Only my opinion and I know that I could be wrong.
No, Sadie, I meant why did no one else in The PJ want Mr. Smith to go back after Amaral was sacked.
-
They didn't want to go back because they couldn't see any likeness to Gerry.
Do you think that Mr Smiths words were added to and the meaning enlarged by Amaral ?
Did he just contact Amaral to say that the method of carrying the little girl was just like the method that Smithman used .. and nothing more? Was he just trying to add to info already given?
Because from later statements by him we know that he didn't think that Smithman was Gerry.
I thinkj that he was just trying to fill out his statement about the method of carrying.
.... Nothing else intended ... but that Amaral "made the best" of it". Only my opinion and I know that I could be wrong.
Can you provide cites for any of that?
-
We know why Amaral wanted Mr. Smith to go to Portugal again. So why did no one else?
Because the others didn't fit his theory?
-
Because the others didn't fit his theory?
I think you might be right about that.
-
I think you might be right about that.
It doesn't put the quest for the material truth in a very good light, does it?
I don't recall a single interview in which he admitted that the other family members didn't agree (bar Martin's wife who didn't appear convinced enough to make a corroborating statement).
-
They didn't want to go back because they couldn't see any likeness to Gerry.
Do you think that Mr Smiths words were added to and the meaning enlarged by Amaral ?
Did he just contact Amaral to say that the method of carrying the little girl was just like the method that Smithman used .. and nothing more? Was he just trying to add to info already given?
Because from later statements by him we know that he didn't think that Smithman was Gerry.
I thinkj that he was just trying to fill out his statement about the method of carrying.
.... Nothing else intended ... but that Amaral "made the best" of it". Only my opinion and I know that I could be wrong.
20th September Smith contacted Leicester Police saying the man he saw on 3rd May was Gerald McCann. LP passed it on to the PJ.
27th September Paiva spoke to Smith by phone and Smith said he was willing to return to Portugal to make another statement.
Amaral taken off the case.
10th October Paiva visited Kelly's to check if the Smiths had been there on 3rd. The staff couldn't remember, but gave copies of till receipts.
8th November Questions by PJ sent to Ireland for Smith to answer.
30th January 2008 Smith gives a new statement. He is basing his opinion on mannerisms, rather than the face; the way GM carried the child and the way he moved his head had triggered his memory. He is 60-80% certain. He has, meanwhile, been contacted by Brian Kennedy to do an e-fit. He refused.
I can't find any later statements where he decides it's not Gerry he saw.
If Amaral had not been taken off the case would he have brought Smith back to Portugal to make a statement? Would that have made a difference? We'll never know because Smith's evidence took four months to collect after that. I think the problem was that they couldn't verify the time the Smiths left Kelly's. Had they checked with Kelly's in May they may have been able to do that. They also assumed that Gerry was at the Tapas at 10pm. That fact is not proved imo.
-
...
I think the problem was that they couldn't verify the time the Smiths left Kelly's.
...
One step at a time. Is it possible to verify when the Smiths left Kelly's?
-
It doesn't put the quest for the material truth in a very good light, does it?
I don't recall a single interview in which he admitted that the other family members didn't agree (bar Martin's wife who didn't appear convinced enough to make a corroborating statement).
I can't begin to imagine how Amaral could have justified the expense to The PJ. Although this does not mean that I think Mr. Smith was not to be trusted. But in a Trial situation the rest of The Smith Family would have been called, which would have put paid to the entire Theory. But then The Prosecutor would have seen that. And no doubt Rebelo did as well.
The whole thing was a non starter, so I don't know what Amaral hoped to achieve. But he certainly proved just how narrow minded he was.
-
I can't begin to imagine how Amaral could have justified the expense to The PJ. Although this does not mean that I think Mr. Smith was not to be trusted. But in a Trial situation the rest of The Smith Family would have been called, which would have put paid to the entire Theory. But then The Prosecutor would have seen that. And no doubt Rebelo did as well.
The whole thing was a non starter, so I don't know what Amaral hoped to achieve. But he certainly proved just how narrow minded he was.
If the McCanns had been poor Portuguese peasants with inadequate defence, there would have been no other statements to refute it and whatever an interpreter read out to him prior to signing the Portuguese summary on the dotted line would therefore have been accepted as fact.
As it happens, Rebelo got it checked out without dragging anyone over to PT again.
-
If the McCanns had been poor Portuguese peasants with inadequate defence, there would have been no other statements to refute it and whatever an interpreter read out to him prior to signing the Portuguese summary on the dotted line would therefore have been accepted as fact.
As it happens, Rebelo got it checked out without dragging anyone over to PT again.
This is the scary bit because it's almost certainly true. But at that stage Amaral seemed to be entirely unaware of how real Justice works. Still is as far as I can see. So I don't think his bloomer to The Press had much to do with him being taken off the case.
I would like to say that Amaral was just out of his depth, but I don't think that is true. He knew exactly where he was going. It worked before and was going to work again, in his mind. In my not so humble opinion, of course.
-
One step at a time. Is it possible to verify when the Smiths left Kelly's?
The staff didn't remember if they had been there or not. I haven't looked at the receipts, but even if one matched their purchases that probably only tells us when they bought the drinks, not when they left the bar.
-
This is the scary bit because it's almost certainly true. But at that stage Amaral seemed to be entirely unaware of how real Justice works. Still is as far as I can see. So I don't think his bloomer to The Press had much to do with him being taken off the case.
I would like to say that Amaral was just out of his depth, but I don't think that is true. He knew exactly where he was going. It worked before and was going to work again, in his mind. In my not so humble opinion, of course.
IMO, it was an increasingly embarrassing situation, quite probably with numerous internal issues to consider which may have made the situation complicated to handle.
The bloomer to the press was an undisputed professional fault handed on a platter.
-
The staff didn't remember if they had been there or not. I haven't looked at the receipts, but even if one matched their purchases that probably only tells us when they bought the drinks, not when they left the bar.
That's why I said one step at a time.
The single staff member interviewed has a statement to the effect that she did not remember the Smiths. I believe the statement was made in Sep 2007, so lots of chance to forget. Plus, she appears to have been asked about the Smiths, a name that for me only triggers the notion of crisps. She was not asked "It was quiet that night. Do you remember a large party, of 4 adults and 5 children?" She got asked about a surname, not exactly a stand-out situation.
Your point about when drinks were bought and when they left is well made, and well taken.
I'm still on one step at a time. It is normal in Kelly's to have two members of staff on duty. We have one member of staff giving a statement. How should we proceed?
-
IMO, it was an increasingly embarrassing situation, quite probably with numerous internal issues to consider which may have made the situation complicated to handle.
The bloomer to the press was an undisputed professional fault handed on a platter.
Yes, it must have been complicated, putting their fingers on any one issue of incompetence because there were rather a lot and possibly minor in isolation. So by then The PJ Hierarchy were probably looking for an excuse and didn't actually want to highlight five months of an increasing disaster, while we all sat gobsmacked by what was going on.
But I don't think Amaral or his supporters are ever going to get it. Not that it matters anymore. The PJ has moved on, thanks to Madeleine. Small comfort, I know.
-
This is a Thread about why Amaral was taken off the case.
There is another Thread about The Smith's Sighting. Thank You.
-
Yes, it must have been complicated, putting their fingers on any one issue of incompetence because there were rather a lot and possibly minor in isolation. So by then The PJ Hierarchy were probably looking for an excuse and didn't actually want to highlight five months of an increasing disaster, while we all sat gobsmacked by what was going on.
But I don't think Amaral or his supporters are ever going to get it. Not that it matters anymore. The PJ has moved on, thanks to Madeleine. Small comfort, I know.
Amaral seems to have been Encarnação's protégé. It's not clear how much information on the details of the case was being passed up.
If Encarnação had assured his own superiors that Amaral was doing an excellent job, there was probably not much that could be done.
Sidestepping the head of Faro may not have been an option for a variety of reasons.
-
Yes, it must have been complicated, putting their fingers on any one issue of incompetence because there were rather a lot and possibly minor in isolation. So by then The PJ Hierarchy were probably looking for an excuse and didn't actually want to highlight five months of an increasing disaster, while we all sat gobsmacked by what was going on.
But I don't think Amaral or his supporters are ever going to get it. Not that it matters anymore. The PJ has moved on, thanks to Madeleine. Small comfort, I know.
The revelation that a dream had caused the whole direction of the case to be changed - must have raised a few eyebrows amongst the PJ hierarchy.
-
That's why I said one step at a time.
The single staff member interviewed has a statement to the effect that she did not remember the Smiths. I believe the statement was made in Sep 2007, so lots of chance to forget. Plus, she appears to have been asked about the Smiths, a name that for me only triggers the notion of crisps. She was not asked "It was quiet that night. Do you remember a large party, of 4 adults and 5 children?" She got asked about a surname, not exactly a stand-out situation.
Your point about when drinks were bought and when they left is well made, and well taken.
I'm still on one step at a time. It is normal in Kelly's to have two members of staff on duty. We have one member of staff giving a statement. How should we proceed?
We have been told this is off topic, although it has been suggested that Amaral was removed because he was preparing to investigate the Smith sighting further in light of Mr Smith's declaration that the man he saw was Gerry McCann. Coincidentally he was removed at that moment, although it can't be shown that the two things are connected.
-
We have been told this is off topic, although it has been suggested that Amaral was removed because he was preparing to investigate the Smith sighting further in light of Mr Smith's declaration that the man he saw was Gerry McCann. Coincidentally he was removed at that moment, although it can't be shown that the two things are connected.
Why would Amaral have been taken off the case because he was negotiating for one member of a family to go back to Portugal?
Amaral managed to "forget" in his memoirs and interviews that Rebelo checked it out. Amaral could have asked for clarification, which he didn't.
-
Amaral seems to have been Encarnação's protégé. It's not clear how much information on the details of the case was being passed up.
If Encarnação had assured his own superiors that Amaral was doing an excellent job, there was probably not much that could be done.
Sidestepping the head of Faro may not have been an option for a variety of reasons.
Wasn't Encarnacao not frightfully well? Although they might not have known that.
-
The revelation that a dream had caused the whole direction of the case to be changed - must have raised a few eyebrows amongst the PJ hierarchy.
Who knows? Was that passed up? And there was so much rubbish in The Press that no one knew what was true and what wasn't in the end. Or even who was doing the leaking.
Rebelo more or less put a stop to that, although Amaral should have done that. Another big fail.
-
We have been told this is off topic, although it has been suggested that Amaral was removed because he was preparing to investigate the Smith sighting further in light of Mr Smith's declaration that the man he saw was Gerry McCann. Coincidentally he was removed at that moment, although it can't be shown that the two things are connected.
I haven't seen any statement by Mr Smith saying that Smithman was Gerry.
Is there such a statement or are you perpetrating a myth?
-
I haven't seen any statement by Mr Smith saying that Smithman was Gerry.
Is there such a statement or are you perpetrating a myth?
I don't deal in myths Sadie, I read the files. You said that Mr Smith later said it wasn't Gerry. Could I have your cite for that please?
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
I asked first
Your cite first. To remind you
"Mr Smiths declaration that the man he saw was Gerry McCann." I asked for Mr Smiths statement saying this, please.
-
I asked first
Your cite first. To remind you
"Mr Smiths declaration that the man he saw was Gerry McCann." I asked for Mr Smiths statement saying this, please.
What is your objection to the quote I gave?
-
What is your objection to the quote I gave?
I would like to see MR Smiths statement and not some third parties words. Chinese whispers.
-
I asked first
Your cite first. To remind you
"Mr Smiths declaration that the man he saw was Gerry McCann." I asked for Mr Smiths statement saying this, please.
See post 87.
-
I would like to see MR Smiths statement and not some third parties words. Chinese whispers.
The statement attributed to Mr Smith is not a freely given statement. if you read it you can see he has been asked questions to which he has provided the answers,,,his answers have been written down in statement form
-
I would like to see MR Smiths statement and not some third parties words. Chinese whispers.
If you wish to pick and chose what you believe fair enough. Nevertheless I gave my source, so please provide yours so I can evaluate the evidence upon which your post was based. Thank you.
-
The statement attributed to Mr Smith is not a freely given statement. if you read it you can see he has been asked questions to which he has provided the answers,,,his answers have been written down in statement form
I feel quite sorry for those who support the McCanns sometimes. You have to cast doubt upon some witnesses, the Portuguese Police, the Irish police, the efficiency of cadaver dogs, the efficiency of cadaver dog handlers. the skills of English-Portuguese translators, the intelligence of those who don't agree with you......quite a list!
-
I feel quite sorry for those who support the McCanns sometimes. You have to cast doubt upon some witnesses, the Portuguese Police, the Irish police, the efficiency of cadaver dogs, the efficiency of cadaver dog handlers. the skills of English-Portuguese translators, the intelligence of those who don't agree with you......quite a list!
LOL, such unself-conscious irony in this post that you seem to have missed, I almost feel quite sorry for you.
"Assume nothing, Believe no one, Check everything" 8((()*/
-
LOL, such unself-conscious irony in this post that you seem to have missed, I almost feel quite sorry for you.
"Assume nothing, Believe no one, Check everything" 8((()*/
Yet you never doubt the mccanns and their claim of abduction. 8)-)))
-
Yet you never doubt the mccanns and their claim of abduction. 8)-)))
The claims, having been examined and cross-checked, are found verified ....
-
The claims, having been examined and cross-checked, are found verified ....
No they haven't.
The mccanns and co., kept changing their accounts of events.
There is no proof of abduction. not even forensic back-up.
and SY have found ZIP.
-
I feel quite sorry for those who support the McCanns sometimes. You have to cast doubt upon some witnesses, the Portuguese Police, the Irish police, the efficiency of cadaver dogs, the efficiency of cadaver dog handlers. the skills of English-Portuguese translators, the intelligence of those who don't agree with you......quite a list!
With regard to the dogs - it's not the handler - its the misinformation spread about them by those sceptics who persist in spouting the myth that because Eddie barked - someone MUST have died in 5a which I find objectional - because according to the handler himself - that isn't true.
The problems encountered by translators have been commented on by the translators themselves - who have included notes explaining the difficulties involved and why they were not able to make precise translations on occasions.
When I read comments from sceptics (mainly elsewhere thank goodness) who seriously believe that photos show that Madeleine may have had a prosthetic arm and that she wore wigs in many of the photos - and read questions like 'what happened to the bloody footprint found outside the bedroom door? and a long thread claiming that Madeleine died way before the 3rd and was replaced by a trained clone of her for the rest of the week - then yes I freely admit to questioning the intelligence of some sceptics. And those examples are just a tiny percentage of the claims some sceptics actually believe - in order to convince themselves that it was the McCanns wot dunnit.
As for the efficiency of some (but not all ) of the PJ Officers involved in this case - then IMO the following comment by a member of the Portuguese judicial system says it all.
Quote
ANTONIO MARINHO PINTO: (translated) I’m convinced the McCann case will feature in Portuguese judicial history as a bad example. What a criminal investigation should not be.
Unquote
-
I feel quite sorry for those who support the McCanns sometimes. You have to cast doubt upon some witnesses, the Portuguese Police, the Irish police, the efficiency of cadaver dogs, the efficiency of cadaver dog handlers. the skills of English-Portuguese translators, the intelligence of those who don't agree with you......quite a list!
you need to start taking notice of your own signature and start questioning everything....not just those related to the mccanns.....it is giving you a very skewed idea of what is and isn't true
-
what is the inconvenient truth for the sceptics is that SY and it seems the present PJ investigation believe the McCanns...the remit was drawn up by those who believed the McCanns.......and until someone comes up with something that causes me to believe they have taken part in one of the biggest lies of this century...then based on everything I have read re this case...... I believe them too
-
See post 87.
It would seem that Sadie is unable to provide cites for her posts, although she asks others to provide them for theirs.
-
I don't deal in myths Sadie, I read the files. You said that Mr Smith later said it wasn't Gerry. Could I have your cite for that please?
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
This is a quote from the Times article (re- the efits) which resulted in the Times apologising to the McCann.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote
This has previously been discussed at length. I'm surprised you don't remember it G.
IMO it should be noted that Martin Smith was always quick to threaten legal action against those who misrepresented him in the Press. What the Times claimed above is a massive turnaround - and I do not believe that Martin Smith would have allowed it to stand if it was untrue.
No retraction or apology was issued by the Times re their claim - which common sense alone dictates is because Martin Smith did not consider he had been misrepresented on that occasion and so made no complaints.
-
It would seem that Sadie is unable to provide cites for her posts, although she asks others to provide them for theirs.
Indeed, she has made a lot of claims, with no cites.
-
Indeed, she has made a lot of claims, with no cites.
With respect to Sadie, her refusal to accept that the two little girls photographed walking along a country road in Morocco are not Madeleine McCann and Joana Cipriano does little for her credibility.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_04/mccannlength2509_468x361.jpg)
-
With respect to Sadie, her refusal to accept that the two little girls photographed walking along a country road in Morocco are not Madeleine McCann and Joana Cipriano does little for her credibility.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_04/mccannlength2509_468x361.jpg)
To single out one poster is very wrong IMO when it comes to the credibility stakes.
Claiming that anyone would decide to walk through the streets of Luz openly carrying an uncovered, undisguised dead body - at a time of night when pubs/clubs and restaurants were still open - and so they could have no way of knowing beforehand who - or how many people they might bump into or who would see them - doesn't do much for the credibility of those who actually believe that to be part of a cunning plan IMO.
But then they are entitled to their opinion - just as the rest of us are - including Sadie.
-
With respect to Sadie, her refusal to accept that the two little girls photographed walking along a country road in Morocco are not Madeleine McCann and Joana Cipriano does little for her credibility.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_04/mccannlength2509_468x361.jpg)
Likewise her references to the Illuminati, Knight Templar's, etc., etc. etc.
-
Likewise her references to the Illuminati, Knight Templar's, etc., etc. etc.
have the illuminati been ruled out...according to you the answers no
-
To single out one poster is very wrong IMO when it comes to the credibility stakes.
Claiming that anyone would decide to walk through the streets of Luz openly carrying an uncovered, undisguised dead body - at a time of night when pubs/clubs and restaurants were still open - and so they could have no way of knowing beforehand who - or how many people they might bump into or who would see them - doesn't do much for the credibility of those who actually believe that to be part of a cunning plan IMO.
But then they are entitled to their opinion - just as the rest of us are - including Sadie.
My post included "with due respect to Sadie". Offering opinion is all very well but in this case Sadie is totally wrong. Do any supporters agree with her by the way??
-
My post included "with due respect to Sadie". Offering opinion is all very well but in this case Sadie is totally wrong. Do any supporters agree with her by the way??
Good question.
-
My post included "with due respect to Sadie". Offering opinion is all very well but in this case Sadie is totally wrong. Do any supporters agree with her by the way??
Your post was in reality devoid of any respect for Sadie IMO.
I don't agree with any of your opinions. I think some of them are truly ridiculous. Does that mean I can claim you have no credibility on this forum?
-
Your post was in reality devoid of any respect for Sadie IMO.
I don't agree with any of your opinions. I think some of them are truly ridiculous. Does that mean I can claim you have no credibility on this forum?
As it is obvious you don't agree with Angelo, how about answering the question.
Do you believe in Sadie's theories ?
-
As it is obvious you don't agree with Angelo, how about answering the question.
Do you believe in Sadie's theories ?
.
Some of Sadie's theories are not without merit. And at least she has done some on the ground research.
-
The topic is: "Why was Gonçalo Amaral taken off the Madeleine McCann case?"
-
The topic is: "Why was Gonçalo Amaral taken off the Madeleine McCann case?"
because he was getting to the truth of what happened to maddie
the evidence was there ....
political pressure took over ...
G.A....was sacked..
the rest is history..
-
.
Some of Sadie's theories are not without merit. And at least she has done some on the ground research.
Which ones ?
-
As it is obvious you don't agree with Angelo, how about answering the question.
Do you believe in Sadie's theories ?
I've always been very impressed with Sadies meticulous research. At least she doesn't confine her time to just sitting repeating ''they left their kids!! ' over and over again like a brain-dead parrot.
I think Sadie makes some excellent points, but no - I don't agree with all of her conclusions. I don't suppose for a minute that Sadie will take offence at that - as she often posts that people don't have to agree with her.
-
because he was getting to the truth of what happened to maddie
the evidence was there ....
political pressure took over ...
G.A....was sacked..
the rest is history..
There was NO EVIDENCE.
Amaral misunderstood (at best, giving him the benefit of the doubt) things, especially the so called Dog alerts.
He got it all wrong. He was making a right B***s up, no wonder they sacked him. IMO of course 8**8:/:
As for Political pressure ... nothing that I have seen so far has convinced me on that. Bet you cant cos there is no evidence. Zilch nada
-
Indeed, she has made a lot of claims, with no cites.
Pots and kettles? 8(0(*
-
There was NO EVIDENCE.
Amaral misunderstood (at best, giving him the benefit of the doubt) things, especially the so called Dog alerts.
He got it all wrong. He was making a right B***s up, no wonder they sacked him. IMO of course 8**8:/:
As for Political pressure ... nothing that I have seen so far has convinced me on that. Bet you cant cos there is no evidence. Zilch nada
yes of course in your opinion ...there was no evidence ...
but in my opinion there was sweetie
G.A was took of the case ....but there was a reason...and it wasn't the crude explanation you gave babes
its because he was too near the truth
-
because he was getting to the truth of what happened to maddie
the evidence was there ....
political pressure took over ...
G.A....was sacked..
the rest is history..
Perhaps you'd like to contribute to the tumbleweed thread "What did Amaral & co get right?"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6692.0
-
Pots and kettles? 8(0(*
Do you believe in fairy tales jp ? %£5&%
-
Perhaps you'd like to contribute to the tumbleweed thread "What did Amaral & co get right?"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6692.0
no ...i will leave that to you obviously you have a interest in it ...
you ask ...what G A c/o....got right meaning the British police....they were on the right track ....the evidence was there
strange how G Brown ...wanted to know if G A...had been took off the case ...why would he need to know that ...why did he get involved ...unless there was an ulterior motive.
what proof do you have he was wrong
-
This is a quote from the Times article (re- the efits) which resulted in the Times apologising to the McCann.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote
This has previously been discussed at length. I'm surprised you don't remember it G.
IMO it should be noted that Martin Smith was always quick to threaten legal action against those who misrepresented him in the Press. What the Times claimed above is a massive turnaround - and I do not believe that Martin Smith would have allowed it to stand if it was untrue.
No retraction or apology was issued by the Times re their claim - which common sense alone dictates is because Martin Smith did not consider he had been misrepresented on that occasion and so made no complaints.
It's very kind of you to provide Sadie's cites for her benice. Of course there is still no cite, just a copy and paste from somewhere. The newspaper article doesn't provide a direct quote from Mr smith either.
There is always the possibility that Smith thought about it and realised that if he complained he would be assumed to be denying that he changed his mind. Perhaps he preferred not to show his hand.
-
I've always been very impressed with Sadies meticulous research. At least she doesn't confine her time to just sitting repeating ''they left their kids!! ' over and over again like a brain-dead parrot.
I think Sadie makes some excellent points, but no - I don't agree with all of her conclusions. I don't suppose for a minute that Sadie will take offence at that - as she often posts that people don't have to agree with her.
Thank you Benice
And you are right, I dont expect everyone to agree with everythuing I say.
Some things sound so bizarre, but believe you me [or not @)(++(*] the traffickers of today are massive globally and mightily organised and they did not develop their expertise overnight. They developed their knowledge of global sea routes,hidden caves, tiny willing ports, tribes (people) that were willing to make a fast buck illicitly over centuries.
OK lets return to The Phoecians, the Barbary pirates (many also phoenicisn influenced), The Templars, The Vikings, .... all of whom were exceptional Sea going warriers and/or theives (pirates). As I say global smuggling and trafficking did NOT develop overnight.
Try reading Frederick Forsyths book "The Cobra"
He researched traficking very thoroughly,, even hiding himself in the dangerous bandit controlled Guineau Bissau to watch what went on. He had to depart very suddenly when things got too hot.
See what he says on page 25 ( my paperback copies anyway) in the paragraph beginning
"He could not know that four containers up, two layers down .........
Do please make the effort and read it. You might be very surprised.
-
It's very kind of you to provide Sadie's cites for her benice. Of course there is still no cite, just a copy and paste from somewhere. The newspaper article doesn't provide a direct quote from Mr smith either.
There is always the possibility that Smith thought about it and realised that if he complained he would be assumed to be denying that he changed his mind. Perhaps he preferred not to show his hand.
The cite was from the Sunday Times article which mentioned the Efits. I don't have the complete article anymore but someone else may have it. It was discussed on here at great length.
Martin Smith had no qualms whatsoever about taking to task newpapers which misrepresented him via his lawyers. The idea that such a HUGE LIE (if that's what it was) would be allowed by him to remain in the Sunday Times without his contacting the paper and demanding a retraction may be something you can talk yourself into G. But it doesn't work for me - because it makes no sense for him to allow such a massive lie about himself to remain in the public domain - when it would be such a simple matter to get a retraction.
IMO
-
The cite was from the Sunday Times article which mentioned the Efits. I don't have the complete article anymore but someone else may have it. It was discussed on here at great length.
Martin Smith had no qualms whatsoever about taking to task newpapers which misrepresented him via his lawyers. The idea that such a HUGE LIE (if that's what it was) would be allowed by him to remain in the Sunday Times without his contacting the paper and demanding a retraction may be something you can talk yourself into G. But it doesn't work for me - because it makes no sense for him to allow such a massive lie about himself to remain in the public domain - when it would be such a simple matter to get a retraction.
IMO
... and thank you again Benice. 8((()*/
So we have confirmation from a very rekliable newspaper, The Times, that Martin Smith did NOT think that Smithman was Gerry
I knew that the Martin Smith had stressed that Smithman was NOT Gerry, but since my eyesight has deteriorated I doubt that I could have found the cite.
OK so let's put it on the record
-
Can we stick to The Topic, Please. I don't actually enjoy deleting posts.
-
no ...i will leave that to you obviously you have a interest in it ...
you ask ...what G A c/o....got right meaning the British police....they were on the right track ....the evidence was there
strange how G Brown ...wanted to know if G A...had been took off the case ...why would he need to know that ...why did he get involved ...unless there was an ulterior motive.
what proof do you have he was wrong
When you choose to substantiate what he got right (for which there is a thread), then perhaps there could be a serious discussion on the matter.
-
... and thank you again Benice. 8((()*/
So we have confirmation from a very rekliable newspaper, The Times, that Martin Smith did NOT think that Smithman was Gerry
I knew that the Martin Smith had stressed that Smithman was NOT Gerry, but since my eyesight has deteriorated I doubt that I could have found the cite.
OK so let's put it on the record
There's the watch on the 4th May. Shame he can't tell the time - 10:03 where did you get time from Mr McCann 8)--))
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4May2007/gerry-mccann-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann-in-portugal-ZfHyz3.jpg)
-
There's the watch on the 4th May. Shame he can't tell the time - 10:03 where did you get time from Mr McCann 8)--))
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4May2007/gerry-mccann-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann-in-portugal-ZfHyz3.jpg)
I have no idea what you are insinuating.
-
When asked about the time he went to check the children on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, he states remembering that he did it, according to his watch, around 21:04.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
9:15 on the first timeline named Gerald. How has the time now changed exactly to the time of 9:04 Mr McCann?
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/timeline040507.jpg)
-
There's the watch on the 4th May. Shame he can't tell the time - 10:03 where did you get time from Mr McCann 8)--))
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4May2007/gerry-mccann-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann-in-portugal-ZfHyz3.jpg)
Is whichever bespectacled person carrying a baguette in a plastic bag talking to Gerry significant, do you think?
-
Is whichever bespectacled person carrying a baguette in a plastic bag talking to Gerry significant, do you think?
He was recently questioned by SY. Go ask them.
-
Wandering Off Topic again. This is a warning.
-
He was recently questioned by SY. Go ask them.
you are not casting aspersions again are you pfinder?
-
Here's why - two reasons.
Thu 27th Sept: PJ phone Irish witness M.Smith and he agrees to fly to Portugal.
Fri 28th Sept: Mr Amaral receives from the DCCB a large report containing several items of new information.
Mon 1st Oct: Someone powerful ensures that Mr A is removed from the case
Tue 2nd Oct: Mr A is forcibly removed from the case.
Result: The plan to fly witness M.Smith to Portugal is scuppered, and the new information the DCCB found is not investigated any further.
-
There's the watch on the 4th May. Shame he can't tell the time - 10:03 where did you get time from Mr McCann 8)--))
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4May2007/gerry-mccann-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann-in-portugal-ZfHyz3.jpg)
That photo is not the 4th Pathfinder, it is morning 5th May.