McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Brietta]

I'm not sure whether the Royal tip-off was forwarded to the PJ or not. It was certainly leaked to the UK press on 1st October 2007.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/charles-gets-a-tip-off-daily-express-01-10-07-t15192.html#p210687

Not surprisingly, Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias asked Amaral to comment and he did.

None of that has anything to do with the Libel trial, of course.

It is a matter of record that Amaral flagrantly broke the law, and even worse was stupid and arrogant enough to be caught doing so!  One expresses no opinion on your toleration of that fact.  It is self explanatory.

[barrier]

Look at it this way:  is it a FACT that the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse?

No, look at it this way its what its all about, how did Amaral lie when he saw the dog alerts as evidence.
You can have as many debates about the dogs as you like, its Amaral's interpretation and subsequent theory outlined in his book, its not a lie that he saw the alerts as evidence.

[Brietta]

Those who rely on the tabloid press to form their opinions should maybe look at the actual evidence rather than sensationlist headines.

Perhaps it would be of some value to you to heed your own advice and accept what known evidence there is minus your own particular interpretation.

[G-Unit]

It is a matter of record that Amaral flagrantly broke the law, and even worse was stupid and arrogant enough to be caught doing so!  One expresses no opinion on your toleration of that fact.  It is self explanatory.

Was he breaking the law? Was whatever the UK police were doing covered by the secrecy of justice if they were acting on their own initiative?

[barrier]

Amaral was told the alerts were not evidence..the lie was to say the alert was to cadaver odour

Amaral was removed in October, at what time was he informed if at all.
Its not a lie to say the dogs alerted, its not been proven either way, his interpretation was they did, so that is not a lie.

[misty]

There was only one child/victim reported missing from 5a, what other victim could there have been, once again Amaral saw the dog alerts as evidence, how was this a lie.

It's not a proven fact there was a ever a cadaver in 5A, let alone Madeleine's. It was a fallacy akin to a lie to state thus.

[Brietta]

Amaral had the same right to speculate on the crime as the McCanns did, so long as he based his theory upon the contents of the investigation files.

Amaral had no right to speculate during the five months when he was senior investigating officer.  He certainly had no right to rant to a journalist about it breaking Portuguese secrecy law in the process.

[barrier]

It's not a proven fact there was a ever a cadaver in 5A, let alone Madeleine's. It was a fallacy akin to a lie to state thus.

Did Amaral lie when he saw the alerts as evidence of a cadaver in 5a, simple yes or no.

[Wonderfulspam]

Amaral had no right to speculate during the five months when he was senior investigating officer.  He certainly had no right to rant to a journalist about it breaking Portuguese secrecy law in the process.

Well, it appears he did, because he hasn't been charged with anything & so must remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, isn't it just.

[Wonderfulspam]

Did Amaral lie when he saw the alerts as evidence of a cadaver in 5a, simple yes or no.

It was foolish of him to believe he knew better than Harrison & Grime. Or was it? Maybe the alerts really were to Madeleine's body odour? Who knows? I guess we'll just have to wait for Wolters to prove Amarar wrong.

[Brietta]

It's far cheaper and easier for the State to throw Amaral to the wolves than be accountable for the systemic failures/corruption within their own justice system which have allowed the likes of Brueckner to commit crimes in Portugal with impunity imo.

I think the time for such a reckoning might be fast approaching. 

[Wonderfulspam]

I think the time for such a reckoning might be fast approaching.

Yes, it shouldn't be much longer now.

[barrier]

Well, it appears he did, because he hasn't been charged with anything & so must remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, isn't it just.

Well yes, seeing as if this thread is supposed to be about the ECHR, which delivered its verdict in Sept last year its all mute.
Was it ever brought to attention on here, must have a look.

[misty]

Did Amaral lie when he saw the alerts as evidence of a cadaver in 5a, simple yes or no.

Yes, he lied because the alerts weren't evidence of what he claimed. Had he read Harrison's & Grime's reports properly he should have understood that.

[Brietta]

No, look at it this way its what its all about, how did Amaral lie when he saw the dog alerts as evidence.
You can have as many debates about the dogs as you like, its Amaral's interpretation and subsequent theory outlined in his book, its not a lie that he saw the alerts as evidence.

Amaral or his publishers chose the title of his book so either he is a liar or he formed his opinion based entirely on total lack of knowledge of what the forensic said and is therefore an ignoramus.