Goncalo Amaral.

[Venturi Swirl]

Do you see the parent's opinion on stranger abduction as a theory? I think they presented it very much as a fact. It was very quickly being reported as a fact by the media too. Pointing out that there was no evidence to support this 'fact' was a natural response imo.

Why should how the parents “presented the evidence” have anything to do with how the case was invesigated?  The parents of Cleo Smith presented their child’s disappearance at the hands of a stranger as a fact too, so what?  Should they have not done so?  I don’t understand what you are trying to say and I suspect you don’t know either.

[Venturi Swirl]

Personally I believe the Portuguese investigation was largely led by online nonsense they read on the Mirror Forum.
It was uncanny how often daft theories would appear on there, only to surface shortly thereafter in media reports concerning the direction of the PJ investigation, some of which were later collaborated as the actual direction of travel by Amaral’s book.

[Venturi Swirl]

Do you see the parent's opinion on stranger abduction as a theory? I think they presented it very much as a fact. It was very quickly being reported as a fact by the media too. Pointing out that there was no evidence to support this 'fact' was a natural response imo.

PS: I’m looking forward to the day that you start abiding by the IMO rules.  It is only your opinion that there was no evidence of abduction, when are you going to accept that?

[G-Unit]

Why should how the parents “presented the evidence” have anything to do with how the case was invesigated?  The parents of Cleo Smith presented their child’s disappearance at the hands of a stranger as a fact too, so what?  Should they have not done so?  I don’t understand what you are trying to say and I suspect you don’t know either.

It didn't. The PJ stood firm and ran the investigation how they saw fit. Amaral was explaining why they didn't follow the parent's theory.

[Brietta]

Perhaps Amaral was responding to the suggestion by Madeleine's parents that an abductor chose to ignore the unlocked door and decided to raise some shutters on the off chance that the window behind it was also unlocked? It was also achieved without leaving any evidence behind; except that seen by the two of them.

I think you and Amaral appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet. 

I can understand why Amaral is punting the notion that everyone is out of step except for our wee Goncalo as he clings to his outmoded theories rejected by the evidence and everyone since 2008 - in particular, the Judicial Police - as he punts untruths in support of his patsy allegations regarding Brueckner.

Madeleine's parents are witnesses and victims of a crime for which investigators have evidence sufficient to make Brueckner - convicted rapist and paedophile - the prime suspect.

Think about it and study the mental image of the direct line from Brueckner's home to the villa where he carried out an horrific rape to the holiday apartment from which Madeleine vanished.
Then wonder at the investigation which ignored crimes against females and the defence of the proven perpetrator of one of these crimes being mounted by the lead detective who claims to have investigated and cleared Brueckner in 2007.

Nobody made that claim for him.  Amaral has been quite up front about it all which I think is worth pondering about.

[Venturi Swirl]

It didn't. The PJ stood firm and ran the investigation how they saw fit. Amaral was explaining why they didn't follow the parent's theory.

That's not what you were talking about though was it?  You were making some spurious point about the McCanns "presenting abduction as fact".  What's your problem with that?  If Amaral didn't follow the parents' theory simply because he didn't like them "presenting it as fact" well, that's not very professional is it?  Reminds me of the doctor who refused to agree with my self-diagnosis (incorrectly as it happens) because he didn't like the idea that I might know my own body better than he did.

[Brietta]

Evidence may lead to a change of direction, but not without those in charge knowing and agreeing. Can you imagine the mess if they thought their team was investigating a missing person case when the team had actually decided to investigate a murder but didn't bother telling their superiors?

I think you tend to forget that Amaral was sacked from Madeleine's investigation the minute he publicly advertised his incompetence.  My opinion is it was a long time coming.

[Ms Para glider]

Do you see the parent's opinion on stranger abduction as a theory? I think they presented it very much as a fact. It was very quickly being reported as a fact by the media too. Pointing out that there was no evidence to support this 'fact' was a natural response imo.

Based on what the parents are said to have found upon entering the apartment (with the window and shutters being open), to them, an abduction would seem the only plausible option if they knew that they weren't involved. The only other really plausible option is that Madeleine left of her own accord. And since they knew her better than anyone, they would know whether this seemed a reasonable prospect or not. Aside from the question of "why" she would leave the apartment, is the other question of how she would have managed to raise the heavy shutters and then open the window without leaving any fingerprints. Unlike an intruder who would almost certainly be wearing gloves, she would not. So no, if they are telling the truth about finding the window open, I see nothing unusual about them asserting so vehemently that Madeleine must have been taken.

I have no issue with Amaral questioning their account though. In fairness, it would be remiss of him to not consider the parents involvement. Unfortunately, in the case of missing children, it is most often someone known to the child who is responsible. But he went well beyond just "pointing out" there were no obvious signs of an intruder. My issue is with logic of his theory and the reasoning he uses to reach his conclusions. Such as:

"The window wasn't open as Kate claimed because it was closed when the police got there."

Or

"Nobody else could have opened the window because we found no other fingerprints and even though an intruder could have worn gloves, he might not have."

A child could see through this paper thin logic and he is supposed to be a credible detective?

You might think it's a "natural" response to assume there was perhaps no abduction due to lack of traces but do you honestly think the theory he proposes here is any way "natural"?

The implied MMO behind his scenario is just preposterous.

[Brietta]

It didn't. The PJ stood firm and ran the investigation how they saw fit. Amaral was explaining why they didn't follow the parent's theory.

             I think you are contradicting yourself again.

[Venturi Swirl]

Based on what the parents are said to have found upon entering the apartment (with the window and shutters being open), to them, an abduction would seem the only plausible option if they knew that they weren't involved. The only other really plausible option is that Madeleine left of her own accord. And since they knew her better than anyone, they would know whether this seemed a reasonable prospect or not. Aside from the question of "why" she would leave the apartment, is the other question of how she would have managed to raise the heavy shutters and then open the window without leaving any fingerprints. Unlike an intruder who would almost certainly be wearing gloves, she would not. So no, if they are telling the truth about finding the window open, I see nothing unusual about them asserting so vehemently that Madeleine must have been taken.

I have no issue with Amaral questioning their account though. In fairness, it would be remiss of him to not consider the parents involvement. Unfortunately, in the case of missing children, it is most often someone known to the child who is responsible. But he went well beyond just "pointing out" there were no obvious signs of an intruder. My issue is with logic of his theory and the reasoning he uses to reach his conclusions. Such as:

"The window wasn't open as Kate claimed because it was closed when the police got there."

Or

"Nobody else could have opened the window because we found no other fingerprints and even though an intruder could have worn gloves, he might not have."

A child could see through this paper thin logic and he is supposed to be a credible detective?

You might think it's a "natural" response to assume there was perhaps no abduction due to lack of traces but do you honestly think the theory he proposes here is any way "natural"?

The implied MMO behind his scenario is just preposterous.

The problem with sceptics (even the most self-proclaimed open-minded of them who claim they don't know what happened to Madeleine and that the parents may not be involved), is that they simply can't imagine the possibility that the McCanns might actually be giving an honest account of that night, and how they found the room and the window.   If they were actually able to come to terms with this possibility then they might not make spurious arguments such as "Because the McCanns presented abduction as fact that's why the investigation took the direction it did".

[The General]

Not necessarily. You can never underestimate the power of sheer dumb luck. Ultimately, if CB went in there initially with the intent to burgle (before something else happened and changed the course of events), he would likely have been suitably prepped to avoid leaving traces anyway. Gloves, hat etc. How many burglaries did he get caught for in Portugal? And there's no reason to believe he would have needed to disturb anything.

I wouldn't discount that he could have planned it out properly either though. Look at the rape of the 72 year old. How did he enter her home? An unlocked patio door. Already all dressed up in kit intended to avoid identification or leave forensics traces. That was pretty well planned out, he evaded capture for 14 years, even though PJ HAD found a forensic trace he left behind. And I know it's probably a bit premature to cite him as being responsible for the Hazel B attack, but that too showed an element of pre-planning. Again entering through an unlocked sliding door. She states the intruder knew her name and says that someone had already been in her apartment a few days beforehand as money was missing and things moved around. If reports that his fingerprint has been found there are true, you really do have to start questioning how competent the PJ really are. It might be less a case of CB executing the "perfect crime", and more a case of PJ executing another poor investigation.

The last sentence - as I've mentioned before, I don't really buy the 'inept investigation' schtick, not entirely, and not any more or less than any other police force. The scrutiny was immense from the get go and Leicestershire Police were entwined in the investigation very early on. Additionally, several outside agents also participated, so they were equally inept.
Did Amaral, et al (nice rhyming couplet there to add to my limerick database) go off on one, or were they following the evidence under intense global scrutiny? - Let's never forget the Murat whack-a-mole episode.

[G-Unit]

That's not what you were talking about though was it?  You were making some spurious point about the McCanns "presenting abduction as fact".  What's your problem with that?  If Amaral didn't follow the parents' theory simply because he didn't like them "presenting it as fact" well, that's not very professional is it?  Reminds me of the doctor who refused to agree with my self-diagnosis (incorrectly as it happens) because he didn't like the idea that I might know my own body better than he did.

Ben Needham's mum was convinced he'd been abducted, but neither the Greek or UK police were convinced. Why, then, were the PJ expected to investigate the McCann's theory?

[Venturi Swirl]

Ben Needham's mum was convinced he'd been abducted, but neither the Greek or UK police were convinced. Why, then, were the PJ expected to investigate the McCann's theory?

The PJ were expected to have a completely open mind about what happened to Madeleine, why would you expect them NOT to investigate abduction, pray tell?

[G-Unit]

The PJ were expected to have a completely open mind about what happened to Madeleine, why would you expect them NOT to investigate abduction, pray tell?

I wouldn't expect any police force to investigate something for which there was no evidence. The Greek police didn't.

[Venturi Swirl]

I wouldn't expect any police force to investigate something for which there was no evidence. The Greek police didn't.

Sigh.  Of course there was evidence of abduction in the McCann case, and please supply a cite for the Greek police not considering abduction in the Needham case.