Goncalo Amaral.

[Brietta]

Being supportive isn't conspiring, particularly if it involves self interest.

I don't know if Madeleine is dead or, if she is, when and how she died. Suggesting that she died before 3rd means that the MW childcare staff weren't up to the job. The only question I would have about that is why, according to DC Marshall, David Payne said in his questionnaire;

he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Gaspar.htm

At 17H00 Madeleine was, according to the evidence, eating her tea in the Tapas complex under the care of the nannies.

Há fortes indícios da simulação de um crime de rapto.
There's strong evidence of a kidnapping crime.
We ask, and we keep asking, if it's said there's a real kidnapping why do you simulate a kidnapping? The way forward, not being them to speak, has to be through the reconstitution of the facts with everyone, which after 14 years is still plausible to do.
https://rr.sapo.pt/noticia/pais/2021/10/15/goncalo-amaral-o-medo-da-justica-portuguesa-e-as-mentiras-da-justica-alema-no-caso-maddie/256864/


Don't you think it might be more appropriate to keep on topic and up to date with the musings of Amaral who concedes that there is strong evidence that Madeleine was kidnapped.

The difficulty you and he seem to share is that you are unable to shake of the taint of the very obvious investigative mistakes of 2007 as you so aptly show in your post above.

Nobody of any importance to Madeleine's investigation is looking back there - where there never was a shred of evidence supporting Amaral's conclusions which you continue to promulgate.

There is evidence in Madeleine's case - it seems there always was.  The Portuguese didn't find it for the simple reason they weren't looking.
Time to move on folks - while keeping on the topic of the thread.

[barrier]

They asked a few questions. They had no background knowledge of the case and were simply fulfilling a request from the Met to speak to him. They weren't carrying out an investigation like the PJ were.

No background on the case but yet lots supposedly on CB, what can be said from all of this is, 3 forces have let the girl down.

[faithlilly]

It is odd that those pointing out that Amaral’s perjury conviction makes him less reliable as a witness are also the ones hanging their hopes on the witness statements of burglars, drug and people traffickers.

[The General]

It is odd that those pointing out that Amaral’s perjury conviction makes him less reliable as a witness are also the ones hanging their hopes on the witness statements of burglars, drug and people traffickers.

I'd wager that perjury  / misconduct in a public office is a constant spectre for most senior police officers, particularly given the seemingly global practice of closing ranks and protecting their own.
The lines between protecting and serving and saving the reputation of a constabulary will often be blurred.

[The General]

The PJ thought the dogs were infallible. Never been wrong in 200 cases. No false positives ever. If that was true then Maddie died in the apartment and the McCanns were involved... But it wasn't true... It was total BS. The PJ believed total BS

Once again, you assume that they're a collective; like the Borg. I doubt the entirety of the investigative resource assumed the dogs were infallible. There's about 3000 years of cumulative policing experience in there, are you seriously suggesting that they were all constantly, blindly swayed by evidence gathering techniques irrespective reliability, or perhaps not even considering it?
Did this include Leicestershire Police (Prior, et al), this malaise? Did they also simply assume that the dogs were never wrong?
Yes you can quote individuals, but your quoted statement refers to the PJ in its entirety.

[Mr Gray]

I'd wager that perjury  / misconduct in a public office is a constant spectre for most senior police officers, particularly given the seemingly global practice of closing ranks and protecting their own.
The lines between protecting and serving and saving the reputation of a constabulary will often be blurred.

then you would accept that beating CB and extracting a confession is acceptable..i dont

[faithlilly]

I'd wager that perjury  / misconduct in a public office is a constant spectre for most senior police officers, particularly given the seemingly global practice of closing ranks and protecting their own.
The lines between protecting and serving and saving the reputation of a constabulary will often be blurred.

Indeed.

[faithlilly]

then you would accept that beating CB and extracting a confession is acceptable..i dont

Don’t you find it odd that Cipriano’s lawyer, who was there at the time, denied that any violence had taken place towards her client?

[barrier]

I'd wager that perjury  / misconduct in a public office is a constant spectre for most senior police officers, particularly given the seemingly global practice of closing ranks and protecting their own.
The lines between protecting and serving and saving the reputation of a constabulary will often be blurred.

Indeed whilst there's no evidence any officers involved with Grange are any of the thing's described in official inquiries, they do belong to the organisation that as been described as being institutionally racist, corrupt etc.

[Mr Gray]

Once again, you assume that they're a collective; like the Borg. I doubt the entirety of the investigative resource assumed the dogs were infallible. There's about 3000 years of cumulative policing experience in there, are you seriously suggesting that they were all constantly, blindly swayed by evidence gathering techniques irrespective reliability, or perhaps not even considering it?
Did this include Leicestershire Police (Prior, et al), this malaise? Did they also simply assume that the dogs were never wrong?
Yes you can quote individuals, but your quoted statement refers to the PJ in its entirety.

Almeida said the main evidence against the mccanns  was the dog alerts...main evidence...cant you see how ridiculous a statement that is. Amaral claims his views were that of the whole investigation.....Im sure both SY and the Germans understand the alerts without supporting evidence have no evidential value or reliability

im 100% sure the PJ thought the dogs were infallible...never a false alert or being wrong in 200 cases...its in the files...amaral said the whole investigation believed his thoughts

[G-Unit]

It is odd that those pointing out that Amaral’s perjury conviction makes him less reliable as a witness are also the ones hanging their hopes on the witness statements of burglars, drug and people traffickers.

Amaral has always said things they don't want to hear. I've noticed that anyone who does that is attacked.

[Angelo222]

It is

I'd it had been witnessed open by an independent witness before Kate McCann went back to the apartment you could claim it as evidence but it wasn't. In fact only her fingerprint was found on it. Strange that?

[G-Unit]

For me... All the evidence supports the truthfulness of the McCanns. SY and the BKA both find them truthful

You're in good company then. The Met seems unable to spot wrong 'uns in it's own ranks and the BKA is happy to believe the words of convicted criminals.

[Angelo222]

Amaral has always said things they don't want to hear. I've noticed that anyone who does that is attacked.

Dogs don't lie...only humans do that.

[Venturi Swirl]

Being supportive isn't conspiring, particularly if it involves self interest.

I don't know if Madeleine is dead or, if she is, when and how she died. Suggesting that she died before 3rd means that the MW childcare staff weren't up to the job. The only question I would have about that is why, according to DC Marshall, David Payne said in his questionnaire;

he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Gaspar.htm

At 17H00 Madeleine was, according to the evidence, eating her tea in the Tapas complex under the care of the nannies.

You're just playing semantics.  Supporting someone to cover up a crime is consipiring. 
"to conspire: to make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act".
Once again you are picking on minor inconsistencies to "wonder" over.  It's been done to death - you don't accept any of the plausible and logical explanations proffered so what is the point in bringing it up yet again?