Goncalo Amaral.

[Venturi Swirl]

from your quote...



Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them. When you started your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under caution, ever consider them as suspects?

MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start, all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress forward.

It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all the same enquiries again that is not constructive.

Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new investigation.

MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work your way through the case.

Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?



theres mark rowley saying they looked at all the evidence against the McCanns...and ruled them out

well that settles that particular Sceptic argument.

[The General]

There are explanations and the main one is a medicine called Calpol. We found out that the medicine existed in that apartment as a medicine that the family brought and we also found that this medicine is widely used in the United Kingdom, because it will have some sedative effects, to put the children to sleep soundly. This may have happened. In fact, the children's grandfather even said on an English channel that kids were given this medicine ...

I can't believe Amaral is still saying that!   To mention Madeleine's Grandfather too,  whose words were taken out of context.  All Madeleine's Grandfather said was that Calpol was the only thing he had ever seen Kate and Gerry give Madeleine and of course he would have,  it is a medicine that is used widely in the UK for when a child has a  temperature not to help children sleep.

It was true, that's why he said it. All facts.

[G-Unit]

from your quote...



Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them. When you started your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under caution, ever consider them as suspects?

MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start, all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress forward.

It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all the same enquiries again that is not constructive.

Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new investigation.

MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work your way through the case.

Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?



theres mark rowley saying they looked at all the evidence against the McCanns...and ruled them out

He also said;

the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/115/MET_25_04_2017s.htm

A lot of others have looked at the evidence gathered by the original investigation and can't see what OG saw. Even those who looked at it in Portugal couldn't see what Rowley claims OG could see. In my opinion that's because the original investigation did not rule out parental involvement.

[Brietta]

Mark Rowley May 2017.

MR: So, you’ll understand from your experience, the way murder investigations work, detectives will start off with various hypotheses, about what’s happened in a murder, what has happened in a missing person’s investigation, whether someone has been abducted. All those different possibilities will be worked through. This case is no different from that but the evidence is limited at the moment to be cast iron as to which one of those hypotheses we should follow
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/115/MET_25_04_2017s.htm

Do you know what a hypothesis is ???

Investigators go though a process of checking various possibilities out;  assessing what is useful evidence to carry forward and discarding the rubbish.
I have never heard of a credible investigator who forms his opinion first and sticks to it come hell or high water without a shred of supporting evidence but plenty of evidence to the contrary.

In my opinion that is stupidity personified and that is exactly what Amaral did.



But are you convinced she died in that room?

AMARAL STATES

We have no doubt that he died in that apartment because there was a body odor and traces of blood, material that was sent to the English laboratory.
https://jornaldocentro.pt/online/regiao/goncalo-amaral-investigador-do-caso-maddie-diz-que-teoria-do-rapto-e-mais-fragil

 

All arrant nonsense of course.  But in my opinion this is what happens when an ignoramus is set loose to interpret scientific documents he has no chance of understanding and is far too arrogant to seek and take advice from those who do.

[Brietta]

Amaral is, wrong when he says you first have to prove abduction.

No, he isn't Maddie was either stolen or she wasn't.

Amaral didn't have to prove anything ... that wasn't his job.  All he had to do was collate evidence as it came in and his immediate task in a missing person inquiry was to look for the missing person who is Madeleine.

It was not incumbent upon him to immediately start leaking to the press about "A Badly Told Story" before the ink was dry on his arguido papers.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral is, wrong when he says you first have to prove abduction.

No, he isn't Maddie was either stolen or she wasn't.

hes wrong when he says you have to prove abduction first before looking for an abductor

[Mr Gray]

He also said;

the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/115/MET_25_04_2017s.htm

A lot of others have looked at the evidence gathered by the original investigation and can't see what OG saw. Even those who looked at it in Portugal couldn't see what Rowley claims OG could see. In my opinion that's because the original investigation did not rule out parental involvement.

A lot of others......who in particular...ethel from the chip shop. It doesnt matter what Ethel thinks.

the origonal investigation didnt understand the evidence...SY have ruled them out...Rowley has confirmed this.

[G-Unit]

Do you know what a hypothesis is ???

Investigators go though a process of checking various possibilities out;  assessing what is useful evidence to carry forward and discarding the rubbish.
I have never heard of a credible investigator who forms his opinion first and sticks to it come hell or high water without a shred of supporting evidence but plenty of evidence to the contrary.

In my opinion that is stupidity personified and that is exactly what Amaral did.



But are you convinced she died in that room?

AMARAL STATES

We have no doubt that he died in that apartment because there was a body odor and traces of blood, material that was sent to the English laboratory.
https://jornaldocentro.pt/online/regiao/goncalo-amaral-investigador-do-caso-maddie-diz-que-teoria-do-rapto-e-mais-fragil

 

All arrant nonsense of course.  But in my opinion this is what happens when an ignoramus is set loose to interpret scientific documents he has no chance of understanding and is far too arrogant to seek and take advice from those who do.

You may deny it, but OG declared in January 2012 what crime had been committed and have stuck to it come hell or high water since.

[Mr Gray]

You may deny it, but OG declared in January 2012 what crime had been committed and have stuck to it come hell or high water since.

I certainly deny it because I dont think its true. abduction was a working hypothesis as the most likely scenario based on the evidence. Nothing has surfaced since to change their mind....but im sure if it did they would

[G-Unit]

I certainly deny it because I dont think its true. abduction was a working hypothesis as the most likely scenario based on the evidence. Nothing has surfaced since to change their mind....but im sure if it did they would

You can deny it all you like, without evidence you are merely offering your opinions.

[Mr Gray]

You can deny it all you like, without evidence you are merely offering your opinions.

As is your post......just your opinion

[Lace]

It was true, that's why he said it. All facts.

No it isn't.   Now you say 'it is'  and I'll say 'no it isn't'   is this how this is going?

[kizzy]

Amaral didn't have to prove anything ... that wasn't his job.  All he had to do was collate evidence as it came in and his immediate task in a missing person inquiry was to look for the missing person who is Madeleine.

It was not incumbent upon him to immediately start leaking to the press about "A Badly Told Story" before the ink was dry on his arguido papers.

He was got rid of on what seems a minor technicality... first excuse. ...

You will never know how his theory would have turned out.

Taking about jobs all the mccs had to do was look after their children properly and keep them safe.

[Lace]

He was got rid of on what seems a minor technicality... first excuse. ...

You will never know how his theory would have turned out.

Taking about jobs all the mccs had to do was look after their children properly and keep them safe.

Change the record.

[kizzy]

As is your post......just your opinion

So is everything you post.