Amarals wife. Alexandra Sofia de Sousa Manjua Leal complaint to the police

[TTSOFAFM]

It was submitted as a court document apparently.

It is described in point 26.

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Portimão

1º Juízo Criminal

Processo nº 330/04.2JAPTM

8-Participação apresentada pela esposa de Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral, contra o próprio marido, ao Director de Faro da Polícia Judiciária no dia 23 de Dezembro de 2007, constituído por 1 (uma) página;

9-Relatório do Serviço de Piquete da Directoria de Faro da Polícia Judiciária do dia 23 de Dezembro de 2007, constituído por 2 (duas) páginas.

http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/juridica.html

unreliable source as its from the unreliable marcos

And the official .pt court one doesnt state sofia leal appeared in person does it? If so, i will give way here

The documents were accepted in the judgment and they were verified.

Reinforcing all original documentary evidence offered here, another crucial new evidence concerning the aforementioned complaint filed by the wife of the then Coordinator of the Judicial Police II against her husband, that only we learned this year. This document, corroborated by another Service Picket Judicial Police, of the utmost importance, since it proves the violent personality, criminal and inhuman the maximum charge on the ground by the police investigations "If BB", the then Coordinator II. Credible and reliable source linked to the very Judicial Police (who have requested anonymity), made ​​us and get a full copy exactly as the original of that complaint by the wife of II, against her own husband, the Director of the Judicial Police in Faro day December 23, 2007. In this letter we highlight serious charges against her husband's wife (then separate), namely "insults", "death threats", "driving police cars in visible state of intoxication" and "danger to the integrity of a their daughter 4 years old. " Confirming the authenticity of this document, we were sent by the same source another new document, which is a true copy, full and exactly as the original, the Report Service Directory Faro Picket of the Judicial Police, on 23 December 2007, where you can read on page 2:
"It was an open letter delivered this picket by Mrs. RR directed at Mr Deputy National Director, lic. SS.". And the document is the Service of Judicial Police Picket duly signed by the Coordinator in charge of Criminal Investigation, licensed EEA, the Inspector UU. And, as the document Picket Service of Judicial Police, it is an "open letter" Wife II logo is well founded argument that can not be argued in any way that knowledge of such a
letter might constitute "wanton privacy" or that such a letter has no relevance to the process, as constituting, as it constitutes a public complaint against the wife of her husband, the severity of reported crimes is clearly evident and relevant for the proof of personality extremely violent and criminal the then Coordinator of the Judicial Police II. Join it also attached to this pleading, both of these documents, which is attested here constitute faithful copies, integrals exactly conforming documents.

http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/67e9f860c06af1d9802576a9004e4a2c?OpenDocument

I think it is evident that those are the documents this judgment was referring to.

[Redblossom]

It was submitted as a court document apparently.

It is described in point 26.

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Portimão

1º Juízo Criminal

Processo nº 330/04.2JAPTM

8-Participação apresentada pela esposa de Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral, contra o próprio marido, ao Director de Faro da Polícia Judiciária no dia 23 de Dezembro de 2007, constituído por 1 (uma) página;

9-Relatório do Serviço de Piquete da Directoria de Faro da Polícia Judiciária do dia 23 de Dezembro de 2007, constituído por 2 (duas) páginas.

http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/juridica.html

unreliable source as its from the unreliable marcos

And the official .pt court one doesnt state sofia leal appeared in person does it? If so, i will give way here

The point was whether the letter was a forgery or not.

No, my point was did SL present herself to police/courts, if she did then fine, if not, its not hard to forge a document, especially by a lawyer witha confessed agenda, not sayng he did, but in the wider context of his mission to destroy Mr Amaral it makes sense. Even if it were true, it means SOD all in relation to the facts of the Mccann case, threatening your wife  and being in sbitty divorce stages does not automatically mean being guilty of x y z in your job

[TTSOFAFM]

Redblossom, please read the judgment.  It doesn't matter if she appeared at court or not.  Those documents were corroborated by a person in authority.

This document, corroborated by another Service Picket Judicial Police,

[gilet]

This is a very interesting thread. Not because it throws much light on the case of Madeleine or because it even throws much light on this letter.

There are two options regarding the letter.

Believe Sofia Leal when she says she didn't write it, submit it or do anything else about it even though there is clear official evidence that she did.

Or believe the official court documents which prove she did submit it.

But what is very interesting is the way that certain posters automatically believe Sofia Leal and reject the court documents even though there are perfectly obvious reasons (shame, co-ercion) why Sofia Leal might lie about the matter and the official record shows that she is in fact lying.

These same posters are the same posters who believe that the slightest discrepancy in what the McCanns say should automatically be taken as a lie even when the files do not back that up.

And these people claim to be seeking the truth.  The reality shown by this thread is that is simply not the case. They are biased and hypocritical.

[gilet]

It was submitted as a court document apparently.

It is described in point 26.

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Portimão

1º Juízo Criminal

Processo nº 330/04.2JAPTM

8-Participação apresentada pela esposa de Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral, contra o próprio marido, ao Director de Faro da Polícia Judiciária no dia 23 de Dezembro de 2007, constituído por 1 (uma) página;

9-Relatório do Serviço de Piquete da Directoria de Faro da Polícia Judiciária do dia 23 de Dezembro de 2007, constituído por 2 (duas) páginas.

http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/juridica.html

unreliable source as its from the unreliable marcos

And the official .pt court one doesnt state sofia leal appeared in person does it? If so, i will give way here

The point was whether the letter was a forgery or not.

No, my point was did SL present herself to police/courts, if she did then fine, if not, its not hard to forge a document, especially by a lawyer witha confessed agenda, not sayng he did, but in the wider context of his mission to destroy Mr Amaral it makes sense. Even if it were true, it means SOD all in relation to the facts of the Mccann case, threatening your wife  and being in sbitty divorce stages does not automatically mean being guilty of x y z in your job

Maybe not in Portugal where the standards are clearly far lower than here. No cop being investigated for collusion in torture in another case would have been working (he would have been suspended) and would certainly not have been given another missing child case as Amaral was.

And I think you might find that someone being taken to court as Amaral was regarding threats to his wife might well have found himself suspended over here too.

And as for not being important, it suggests to me that the man is a thug and not a person who should even be a police officer, but my standards clearly differ from yours as you seem to think none of his vile behaviour matters at all.

[DCI]

Redblossom, please read the judgment.  It doesn't matter if she appeared at court or not.  Those documents were corroborated by a person in authority.

This document, corroborated by another Service Picket Judicial Police,

Thank you TTSOFAFM, for proving me right.

I'll wait for the apologies, for calling me a liar, and posting forgeries.

[Redblossom]

Redblossom, please read the judgment.  It doesn't matter if she appeared at court or not.  Those documents were corroborated by a person in authority.

This document, corroborated by another Service Picket Judicial Police,

Thank you TTSOFAFM, for proving me right.

I'll wait for the apologies, for calling me a liar, and posting forgeries.

Gwt over your ego dear, no one accused YOU lol

[Redblossom]

Redblossom, please read the judgment.  It doesn't matter if she appeared at court or not.  Those documents were corroborated by a person in authority.

This document, corroborated by another Service Picket Judicial Police,

So? How does that make the documents authentic?

[gilet]

Redblossom, please read the judgment.  It doesn't matter if she appeared at court or not.  Those documents were corroborated by a person in authority.

This document, corroborated by another Service Picket Judicial Police,

So? How does that make the documents authentic?

If you read it you might actually understand.

[Redblossom]

So? How does that make the documents authentic?

AND the POINT is even if they are, bears no relation whatsoever to MADIIE VANISHING does it?

[gilet]

So? How does that make the documents authentic?

AND the POINT is even if they are, bears no relation whatsoever to MADIIE VANISHING does it?

Not to the specifics of the disappearance but it could well have a very significant relationship to the way in which the man at the centre of the allegations of disgraceful behaviour conducted himself as co-ordinator of the search for the child.

[Redblossom]

So? How does that make the documents authentic?

AND the POINT is even if they are, bears no relation whatsoever to MADIIE VANISHING does it?

Some if you have to realise there was a paid agenda to dig out dirt on Mr Amaral, it has been admitted to as well, now I wonder whythat was, prettymuch the same as trying to trash the dogs shameful at best

[Redblossom]

So? How does that make the documents authentic?

AND the POINT is even if they are, bears no relation whatsoever to MADIIE VANISHING does it?

Not to the specifics of the disappearance but it could well have a very significant relationship to the way in which the man at the centre of the allegations of disgraceful behaviour conducted himself as co-ordinator of the search for the child.

Whatever dream on

[gilet]

So? How does that make the documents authentic?

AND the POINT is even if they are, bears no relation whatsoever to MADIIE VANISHING does it?

Some if you have to realise there was a paid agenda to dig out dirt on Mr Amaral, it has been admitted to as well, now I wonder whythat was, prettymuch the same as trying to trash the dogs shameful at best

A "paid agenda"? I am in hysterics here.

Why is such a "paid agenda" needed.

The man is a criminal, convicted of lying over collusion in a torture case!

The man has been chased by his own brother for defaulting on debts.

The man chucked his daughter's pet in a bin instead of showing sympathy and dealing with it properly.

The man is a friend to Cristovao who is in trouble for all sorts of alleged criminal behaviour.

The man is accused by his own wife of all kinds of abuse.

Why would anyone need to be paid to expose what everyone knows about him?

[gilet]

So? How does that make the documents authentic?

AND the POINT is even if they are, bears no relation whatsoever to MADIIE VANISHING does it?

Not to the specifics of the disappearance but it could well have a very significant relationship to the way in which the man at the centre of the allegations of disgraceful behaviour conducted himself as co-ordinator of the search for the child.

Whatever dream on

No dreaming involved at all.

Simple statement of the fact that this behaviour outlined in a letter to his superior by his wife could well have a significant bearing on the way in which he conducted the search for missing Madeleine.

Your point is quite bemusing. Is your comment "Whatever"? a begrudging agreement with what I claim or can you in some way dispute what I believe?