Goncalo Amaral.

[Eleanor]

I think he is quite possobly guilty and am waiting to see what happens. I think abduction is by far the most likely scenario based on the evidence

I admire your restraint, as ever.  Thank you at least for that.

[kizzy]

who is CC...no doubt someone portuguese...I'm afraid you are being influenced by a lot of rubbish imo. I see no raeson to beleive that CB is not a genuine suspect found by good police work.

again...i'll wait till we hear more from the Germans...th eportuguese are simply annoyed that others are progressing with  acase where they failed

who is CC...no doubt someone portuguese.



Carlos Carmo, former coordinator of the Judiciary Police, analyses new developments in the investigation.


RP - And of the vestiges.

CC – And of the vestiges (nods agreeing). But I want to stress the following; there is at least one hypothesis of the practice of a crime, of exposure to abandonment of that child. Note that, the parents were with other friends celebrating their holidays, eating, and drinking, near-by the apartments. The children were in the apartment. We cannot forget that the child in question was four years old!

RP - And her brother and sister were even younger.

CC – Well then, someone that is enthralled about having fun and pays little to no attention to children that they have in the apartment, what might happen then? What can happen is that that person is placing at risk the very life of the child, because the child can be abandoned, without protection. The parents had the duty of care, of watching over those children. That did not happen. Even if it was considered as eventual intent [dolo eventual], not thinking that there was an intention by the parents for something to happen purposefully to the children, - that for me is out of the question - but in reality, if the parents were distracted with diversion, going out several times to check upon the children, the risk of death or of harm to the physical integrity could still occur. That hypothesis was weighed on right at the start. But the truth is, the parents weren’t constituted as arguidos [formal suspects] for this crime, and this crime, in my opinion, is applicable. In my view, the actions of the parents embody that crime, that is foreseen in the Penal Code, in the 138 article and is a serious crime! Since the descendants, my apologies the ascendants, are responsible for the creation of situation of danger, the crime is punishable from two up to five years, and if the child dies, the sentence can go from three up to ten years, it’s a serious crime!

[Mr Gray]

who is CC...no doubt someone portuguese.



Carlos Carmo, former coordinator of the Judiciary Police, analyses new developments in the investigation.


RP - And of the vestiges.

CC – And of the vestiges (nods agreeing). But I want to stress the following; there is at least one hypothesis of the practice of a crime, of exposure to abandonment of that child. Note that, the parents were with other friends celebrating their holidays, eating, and drinking, near-by the apartments. The children were in the apartment. We cannot forget that the child in question was four years old!

RP - And her brother and sister were even younger.

CC – Well then, someone that is enthralled about having fun and pays little to no attention to children that they have in the apartment, what might happen then? What can happen is that that person is placing at risk the very life of the child, because the child can be abandoned, without protection. The parents had the duty of care, of watching over those children. That did not happen. Even if it was considered as eventual intent [dolo eventual], not thinking that there was an intention by the parents for something to happen purposefully to the children, - that for me is out of the question - but in reality, if the parents were distracted with diversion, going out several times to check upon the children, the risk of death or of harm to the physical integrity could still occur. That hypothesis was weighed on right at the start. But the truth is, the parents weren’t constituted as arguidos [formal suspects] for this crime, and this crime, in my opinion, is applicable. In my view, the actions of the parents embody that crime, that is foreseen in the Penal Code, in the 138 article and is a serious crime! Since the descendants, my apologies the ascendants, are responsible for the creation of situation of danger, the crime is punishable from two up to five years, and if the child dies, the sentence can go from three up to ten years, it’s a serious crime!

So hes making a fuss about neglect now...nothing about an accident in the apartmrnt and a false claim of abduction...looks like the truth is sinking in with the portuguese

[faithlilly]

Yes, and guess what?

That man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child CAME FORWARD eventually and it turned out it was HIM she saw carrying his daughter back from night crèche

What d’you think about that, eh?

What didn’t happen is that Tanner walked past a Gerry without being seen. I’ve walked up that pavement...seen who narrow it is....seen how quiet it is at that time of night...have seen sound travels. Like Wilkins I’d say it’s impossible that it happened as she said.

[kizzy]

Why did kmcc when she knew straight away that Maddie had been abducted let in 20 odd people.

That is when the crime scene was wrecked. what was the delay in calling the police? 40 mins is a long time.

They had the competence to do a timeline, yet no one had the sence it could be a crime scene.

Same as when kmcc ran out of the apartment leaving the twins ~ who could have gone when they got back.
Hmmm Hmmm



José Alberto Carvalho: Let me ask you this question Gonçalo Amaral, could Christian Brueckner be the author of… whatever happened to Madeleine McCann or not?

Gonçalo Amaral: To answer that question, it needs first to be demonstrated that there was an abduction. And what I can demonstrate is that all those people who were there lied, there was never any scheme to… monitor the children who were at home, sleeping in the apartments… they went to the apartments to use the WC, this is written in statements they made, they told the receptionist that they were going to the apartment to see their children, they didn’t say they were going to the bathroom because the bathroom by the pool didn’t have great conditions to go there, they simulated a situation of abduction with the window, with the opening of it all... saying that the window was open, it was closed, a big mess...

JAC: First it was closed, then it was open...

GA: Where, where there is only one fingerprint...

JAC: Hmmm, hmmm

GA: …that is from the child's mother… there are no signs of burglary in that apartment, so, there are only 2 ways to get in, one with a false key, which was investigated and we did not reach conclusions that said it could have been used, so in principle it was not and the other entrance through the entrance of the sliding doors where everyone entered, alone. They led us… so, they lied, there were many lies, they led the PJ to… to waste a lot of time and to follow a path that… for example, took us to Robert Murat.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

What didn’t happen is that Tanner walked past a Gerry without being seen. I’ve walked up that pavement...seen who narrow it is....seen how quiet it is at that time of night...have seen sound travels. Like Wilkins I’d say it’s impossible that it happened as she said.

Think she nipped up the back passage Faith as one of her girls was unwell.

[Lace]

Ok for argument sake he hasn't retracted it either - he is probably waiting for the right time.

Like when this CB nonsense is over. and it proves he is not the abductor.

Waiting for the right time?   Give over will you he's scrabbling to get them believe why he messed up.

[Lace]

Why did kmcc when she knew straight away that Maddie had been abducted let in 20 odd people.

That is when the crime scene was wrecked. what was the delay in calling the police? 40 mins is a long time.

They had the competence to do a timeline, yet no one had the sence it could be a crime scene.

Same as when kmcc ran out of the apartment leaving the twins ~ who could have gone when they got back.
Hmmm Hmmm



José Alberto Carvalho: Let me ask you this question Gonçalo Amaral, could Christian Brueckner be the author of… whatever happened to Madeleine McCann or not?

Gonçalo Amaral: To answer that question, it needs first to be demonstrated that there was an abduction. And what I can demonstrate is that all those people who were there lied, there was never any scheme to… monitor the children who were at home, sleeping in the apartments… they went to the apartments to use the WC, this is written in statements they made, they told the receptionist that they were going to the apartment to see their children, they didn’t say they were going to the bathroom because the bathroom by the pool didn’t have great conditions to go there, they simulated a situation of abduction with the window, with the opening of it all... saying that the window was open, it was closed, a big mess...

JAC: First it was closed, then it was open...

GA: Where, where there is only one fingerprint...

JAC: Hmmm, hmmm

GA: …that is from the child's mother… there are no signs of burglary in that apartment, so, there are only 2 ways to get in, one with a false key, which was investigated and we did not reach conclusions that said it could have been used, so in principle it was not and the other entrance through the entrance of the sliding doors where everyone entered, alone. They led us… so, they lied, there were many lies, they led the PJ to… to waste a lot of time and to follow a path that… for example, took us to Robert Murat.

 

Crime scene,  so you would jump to the conclusion it was a crime when you found your child missing?   You wouldn't search the apartment?    If anyone ruined the crime scene it was the Police,  cigarette ash everywhere, tramping through with dogs.

The journalist took him to Robert Murat not the McCann's.   He makes it up as he goes along.  Why doesn't he just admit he was wrong.

[Lace]

Gonçalo Amaral recalled that an investigation is confined to facts and, based on them, conclusions are advanced or not. According to the former PJ, in the September 2007 interim report on the case of the disappearance of the English child, the hypothesis was that a corpse was concealed. However, Gonçalo Amaral reminds that there was no accusation, in an allusion to the most recent investigations by the German and English police.

No accusation!!   He said at the end of his book that the DNA and Dog alerts proved Madeleine was dead!!   Talk about back pedalling.

[Lace]

who is CC...no doubt someone portuguese.



Carlos Carmo, former coordinator of the Judiciary Police, analyses new developments in the investigation.


RP - And of the vestiges.

CC – And of the vestiges (nods agreeing). But I want to stress the following; there is at least one hypothesis of the practice of a crime, of exposure to abandonment of that child. Note that, the parents were with other friends celebrating their holidays, eating, and drinking, near-by the apartments. The children were in the apartment. We cannot forget that the child in question was four years old!

RP - And her brother and sister were even younger.

CC – Well then, someone that is enthralled about having fun and pays little to no attention to children that they have in the apartment, what might happen then? What can happen is that that person is placing at risk the very life of the child, because the child can be abandoned, without protection. The parents had the duty of care, of watching over those children. That did not happen. Even if it was considered as eventual intent [dolo eventual], not thinking that there was an intention by the parents for something to happen purposefully to the children, - that for me is out of the question - but in reality, if the parents were distracted with diversion, going out several times to check upon the children, the risk of death or of harm to the physical integrity could still occur. That hypothesis was weighed on right at the start. But the truth is, the parents weren’t constituted as arguidos [formal suspects] for this crime, and this crime, in my opinion, is applicable. In my view, the actions of the parents embody that crime, that is foreseen in the Penal Code, in the 138 article and is a serious crime! Since the descendants, my apologies the ascendants, are responsible for the creation of situation of danger, the crime is punishable from two up to five years, and if the child dies, the sentence can go from three up to ten years, it’s a serious crime!

Ah here we go,  it was the McCann's fault we messed up.

[Eleanor]

Crime scene,  so you would jump to the conclusion it was a crime when you found your child missing?   You wouldn't search the apartment?    If anyone ruined the crime scene it was the Police,  cigarette ash everywhere, tramping through with dogs.

The journalist took him to Robert Murat not the McCann's.   He makes it up as he goes along.  Why doesn't he just admit he was wrong.

Goncalo Amaral is never going to admit that.  He only went after Robert Murat because he knew that The McCanns couldn't have done it alone.

He also knew that he was going to be made Arguido in The Cipriano Affair on the very next day, although we didn't know about that for some time.

He will go on trying to prove his "Theory" until the bitter end.

[kizzy]

Crime scene,  so you would jump to the conclusion it was a crime when you found your child missing?   You wouldn't search the apartment?    If anyone ruined the crime scene it was the Police,  cigarette ash everywhere, tramping through with dogs.

The journalist took him to Robert Murat not the McCann's.   He makes it up as he goes along.  Why doesn't he just admit he was wrong.

Well, kmcc should have jumped to it if she knew straight away Maddie had been abducted.

What else would it have been then if not a crime scene?

why did non of these so-called intelligent people realize this?

Why do you think the timeline was more important

[kizzy]

Waiting for the right time?   Give over will you he's scrabbling to get them believe why he messed up.

How do you know he did mess up.

Has the abduction ever been proved apart from the mccs say so?

[kizzy]

Ah here we go,  it was the McCann's fault we messed up.

I think they messed up the minute they walked out that door leaving Maddie to her fate L

[kizzy]

Crime scene,  so you would jump to the conclusion it was a crime when you found your child missing?   You wouldn't search the apartment?    If anyone ruined the crime scene it was the Police,  cigarette ash everywhere, tramping through with dogs.

The journalist took him to Robert Murat not the McCann's.   He makes it up as he goes along.  Why doesn't he just admit he was wrong.

Not just LC ...JT as well. so don't you be making it up as you go along.