Goncalo Amaral.

[G-Unit]

What an extraordinary post.

Quite obviously things happened behind the scenes … that is how police investigations work ... they only publicise what they need to.

I don’t understand why you think no-one had access to evidence and went into this blind.

Do you think that because Leceistershire Police were not invited to join into either the Scoping exercise or the review leading on from it, would not be obliged to pass on any relevant information they may have had?

Do you think the McCanns did not hand over the evidence collected by their Private Investigators? they were after all desperate to have a case opened on Madeleine.

Do you think they didn’t bother to read the available PJ files in their entirety?

They may have read Cristovao's book or even Amaral's book for all you may know.

I don't think any of that was examined until after the review was begun around 12 May 2011.

On 14 December 2011, it is revealed that Scotland Yard detectives had visited the Barcelona HQ of Metodo 3 - the detective agency employed by the McCanns in 2007 - the previous day. It is reported that they took away 30 boxes of documents compiled by the private detectives.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id391.htm

5th February 2012 The Express
A Yard spokesman declined to say who would be interviewed and when. “We are not going into that level of details,” he said. “We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork.”

As to the McCanns eagerness to hand evidence over, OG had a hiccup there when they approached Henri Exton asking for Oakley's report;

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm

[Brietta]

There is more than a whiff of groundhog day which has circulated around Madeleine's case for many years.  I don't think Madeleine's case is any more mysterious than any other stranger abduction.
It has only been made so by Amaral ... who has a vested interest in continuing the delusions he has promoted since day one.

Amaral continues the performance even in the full knowledge that the present German investigation which he criticises is based on information available to him in 2007 which he was obviously incapable of acting upon.

Snip
Importance of mobile phones and witnesses in the investigation
Regarding the case of mobile phones and associated mobile phone numbers during the investigation at the time of the disappearance, Gonçalo Amaral has doubts about the origin of, recently associated with the German suspect Christian Brueckner: "Is anyone sure that this Is that your phone number? ", he asked, stressing that" small details like this prove it ".

The former PJ believes that if the German police knew that the phone number belonged to Brueckner, "he didn't need to be looking."
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/ate-agora-nada-foi-provado-goncalo-amaral-analisa-pistas-alemas-do-caso-maddie-veja-agora-na-cmtv?sid=952836

[G-Unit]

There is more than a whiff of groundhog day which has circulated around Madeleine's case for many years.  I don't think Madeleine's case is any more mysterious than any other stranger abduction.
It has only been made so by Amaral ... who has a vested interest in continuing the delusions he has promoted since day one.

Amaral continues the performance even in the full knowledge that the present German investigation which he criticises is based on information available to him in 2007 which he was obviously incapable of acting upon.

Snip
Importance of mobile phones and witnesses in the investigation
Regarding the case of mobile phones and associated mobile phone numbers during the investigation at the time of the disappearance, Gonçalo Amaral has doubts about the origin of, recently associated with the German suspect Christian Brueckner: "Is anyone sure that this Is that your phone number? ", he asked, stressing that" small details like this prove it ".

The former PJ believes that if the German police knew that the phone number belonged to Brueckner, "he didn't need to be looking."
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/ate-agora-nada-foi-provado-goncalo-amaral-analisa-pistas-alemas-do-caso-maddie-veja-agora-na-cmtv?sid=952836

Back on topic now, it seems, with no more attempts to explain how OG knew Madeleine had been abducted without access to the evidence gathered by the PJ. It certainly wasn't true that the PJ reached that conclusion before they archived the case.

It could be that the Germans appealed in order to find confirmation that it was indeed Brueckner's phone which was called on 3rd May 2007 in PdL. Otherwise they can't place him in the vicinity.

Amaral's team couldn't prove that the child died or that her parents were involved, but equally no other police force has proved that Madeleine was abducted or by whom.

[Venturi Swirl]

Back on topic now, it seems, with no more attempts to explain how OG knew Madeleine had been abducted without access to the evidence gathered by the PJ. It certainly wasn't true that the PJ reached that conclusion before they archived the case.

It could be that the Germans appealed in order to find confirmation that it was indeed Brueckner's phone which was called on 3rd May 2007 in PdL. Otherwise they can't place him in the vicinity.

Amaral's team couldn't prove that the child died or that her parents were involved, but equally no other police force has proved that Madeleine was abducted or by whom.

For such a fan of facts you must find Amaral’s book a real shocker.  Am I right?

[G-Unit]

For such a fan of facts you must find Amaral’s book a real shocker.  Am I right?

Why? His cite was the files documenting the investigation, which the courts confirmed;

  (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts
       that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

[Mr Gray]

Why? His cite was the files documenting the investigation, which the courts confirmed;

  (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts
       that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

That really is a most ridiculous s ateement imo...by the court...."mostly facts". It doesnt matter if a document is mostly true and just alittle bit libellous. ...then its libellous. tony bennet was told as I recall that if just one sentence in his book was libellous then he would lose his case...that seems to be the proper interpretaion of the law.......we will see what the ECHR say

[Mr Gray]

Things may well have happened behind the scenes but as no-one had access to the evidence gathered by the PJ, the PI's and, possibly, LP naming the crime when OG did was so premature imo.

I think that you reach that conclusion due to your misjudgement of the evidence.

[Mr Gray]

I don't think any of that was examined until after the review was begun around 12 May 2011.

On 14 December 2011, it is revealed that Scotland Yard detectives had visited the Barcelona HQ of Metodo 3 - the detective agency employed by the McCanns in 2007 - the previous day. It is reported that they took away 30 boxes of documents compiled by the private detectives.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id391.htm

5th February 2012 The Express
A Yard spokesman declined to say who would be interviewed and when. “We are not going into that level of details,” he said. “We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork.”

As to the McCanns eagerness to hand evidence over, OG had a hiccup there when they approached Henri Exton asking for Oakley's report;

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm

All innuendo and the times settled. It would be quite normal to have  a confidentiality clause meaning Oakley would need permission to hand over the documents...nothing sinister in that. I find it very questionable to take anything from oakley at face value after the Halligan affair. You seem happy to acceot the press as 100% accurate here becaused its suits your argument.

[G-Unit]

That really is a most ridiculous s ateement imo...by the court...."mostly facts". It doesnt matter if a document is mostly true and just alittle bit libellous. ...then its libellous. tony bennet was told as I recall that if just one sentence in his book was libellous then he would lose his case...that seems to be the proper interpretaion of the law.......we will see what the ECHR say

I was asked about facts in Amaral's book and I responded. The accusation of libel was dismissed by the courts.

[Mr Gray]

I was asked about facts in Amaral's book and I responded. The accusation of libel was dismissed by the courts.

Libel wasn't dismissed the court ruled amarals freedom of speech was more important

[Venturi Swirl]

Why? His cite was the files documenting the investigation, which the courts confirmed;

  (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts
       that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

So you’re satisfied with “mostly facts” are you?

[G-Unit]

So you’re satisfied with “mostly facts” are you?

I think you're mixing me up with someone who cares what Amaral wrote in his book. My interest lies more in the reaction to it, to be honest. The McCanns really didn't like it, even though it was largely the true story of the first investigation.

[Mr Gray]

I think you're mixing me up with someone who cares what Amaral wrote in his book. My interest lies more in the reaction to it, to be honest. The McCanns really didn't like it, even though it was largely the true story of the first investigation.

Would anyone like being accused as they were... the archiving report on the first investigation didn't match the book which was based on a poor understanding of the evidence

[Venturi Swirl]

I think you're mixing me up with someone who cares what Amaral wrote in his book. My interest lies more in the reaction to it, to be honest. The McCanns really didn't like it, even though it was largely the true story of the first investigation.

But you care about facts and “the truth”, or you purport to, that’s why I asked.  “Largely true” though presenting unproven conclusions as facts and you’re not bothered, yet you do get extremely aereated on here if anyone writes something that doesn’t meet your stringent standards of fact and truth.  How very odd IMO.

[G-Unit]

Would anyone like being accused as they were... the archiving report on the first investigation didn't match the book which was based on a poor understanding of the evidence

Anyone who thinks Amaral's book covered the archiving report has a poor understanding of the timescale. The book was published on 24th July 2008. The archiving report was written on 21st July 2008 and released to the public on 4th August. Obviously the book didn't address the archiving report; it ceased where Amaral's involvement in the investigation ceased.