Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[Mr Gray]

Criminal action (or none) is a separate matter.

The McCanns brought a civil libel action against Amaral and won.

I think Amaral's rantings in the wake of that victory (for the McCanns) that Madeleine disappeared because the McCanns left the children is highly significant.

It suggests he has abandoned theMcCannsdunsomethingtoMadeleineandcovereditup, as does the plea of one of his (sacked) lawyers that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.

All strongly suggestive that Amaral admitted libel, and has only the size of the award (in favour of the McCanns) to dispute ...

I agree...it is only the size of the award that is in question...amaral denied the McCanns their human right......enshrined in European law...to be presumed innocent.... the Portuguese justice system then tried to further deprive them further of their rights...their right to silence and non incrimination....and amaral talks about his rights

[pathfinder73]

Gonçalo Amaral is interviewed by Porto Canal - 14.03.2014

Q: Do you regret anything?

“I would do exactly the same [today that I did then], with a small difference: I would not leave the Polícia Judiciária. It could be a problem for the Polícia Judiciária. I did think about it then, shall I leave or not, if I stay with the police I’m a problem for the police, or if I leave, I have all of the other problems.”

“I don’t regret what I did, I did it with conviction, I did it to defend the investigation model, what a criminal investigation is supposed to be. Earlier, you spoke about the politically correct, the politically correct policeman. It is my understanding that criminal investigations cannot be politically correct, because they can’t be concerned with politics. And what happened, and continues to happen, is that we have to be politically correct, subordinate to the English power. That happens, it happened on the 2nd of October [of 2007] at the Lisbon Treaty, there were discussions between José Sócrates, then prime minister, and Gordon Brown, the English prime minister, who told the newspapers that he had asked the Portuguese prime minister about the [Maddie] case. So even before that it was already a political case. And when politics intrude into a criminal investigation, nothing will end well, whether the criminal investigation relates to a homicide, a burglary, a disappearance, or corruption.”

“Going back to the beginning of the question, I don’t have any regrets. I don’t have regrets because although principles and values don’t fill the fridge, I feel rich in another way.”

Q: Were you removed from your post and sidelined until you left the Judiciary Police because you were too close to finding the truth?

“No, no. I left the investigation, I was removed from the investigation because the case had to be dominated politically. Just that. Because I opposed the archiving. I told directors in the Police directly that I did not agree with the archiving. They suggested to me, they told me that there are processes, there are investigations that do not end, that have no result. And that I shouldn’t do a lot. That I should consider the case had ended. I always opposed that. That is why I left the investigation, not because I was close to anything. I don’t see my leaving as being the result of someone fearing anything. The question was that the case is political. Only politics. It’s politics that is driving this matter. When politics enters the investigations, when investigations are politically correct, we get nowhere.”

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic21993.html

THE DISMISSAL: END OF A CAMPAIGN OF DEFAMATION AND INSULTS.

At the Forum, where we attend the ceremony presided over by the government representative for the province of Huelva, I meet some friends and acquintances. It is shortly after 2pm, in the middle of lunch, that I receive the news. The National Director has sent a fax to the Portimão DIC: in it, he stipulates the end of my assignment and requests my return to Faro. Today, October 2nd, is my 48th birthday; this is not the present I wanted, but one that I was expecting. Basically, this brings to an end a campaign of defamation and insults that I have been the target of since the start of the case, the whole thing orchestrated and amplified by the British media. The strategy is simple: call into question the investigation and those who lead it and, at the same time, present Portugal as a Third-World country with a legal system and police force worthy of the Middle Ages.

According to a British correspondent, the Prime Minister personally called Stuart Prior to ask for confirmation of my dismissal. Why would the head of the British government be interested in a lowly Portuguese official? We refuse to believe the rumours going around, according to which the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon was dependent on my dismissal. Rumours, of course, nothing more. I cannot help but think that for the first time in its history, the judiciary police has dismissed a simple official from his post because of external pressure. Those wise words addressed by the Marquis of Pombal to his English ally in the year of Our Lord 1759 seem far removed: “I will never accord to you any more than I owe you.”

[John]

I agree...it is only the size of the award that is in question...amaral denied the McCanns their human right......enshrined in European law...to be presumed innocent.... the Portuguese justice system then tried to further deprive them further of their rights...their right to silence and non incrimination....and amaral talks about his rights

Do you not think the parents of a missing infant have a moral obligation to assist police regardless of the consequences to themselves or where that cooperation might lead?  Do the rights of a parent supercede that of a missing child?

Just curious to know?

[Mr Gray]

Do you not think the parents of a missing infant have a moral obligation to assist police regardless of the consequences to themselves or where that cooperation might lead?  Do the rights of a parent supercede that of a missing child?

Just curious to know?

In a perfect world yes...but if you look at what the PJ did to cipriano ....when you realise that all the PJ wanted to do was pin the crime on the McCanns...then what the mccanns did was absolutely right

[Benice]

Do you not think the parents of a missing infant have a moral obligation to assist police regardless of the consequences to themselves or where that cooperation might lead?  Do the rights of a parent supercede that of a missing child?

Just curious to know?

IMO the parents had a moral obligation to their daughter to ensure that everything possible was being done to find her and that the perpetrator was put behind bars - and had no obligation - moral or otherwise - to assist the police to pin the crime on an innocent person thus abandoning Madeleine and leaving the real criminal out there free to do the same again.

In this case the police were trying to pin the crime on the McCanns who knew that they were not the perpetrators - so why on earth would they do anything to assist Amaral and co to allow the real criminal to keep his freedom and bring the search for Madeleine to a premature end.

Therefore IMO by exercising her right - Kate was also exercising Madeleine's right to be searched for by removing the risk of having her case wrongly closed.

I notice that although sceptics are keen to persecute Kate McCann  for exercising her rights over the 48 questions - they rarely mention the questions themselves.    Could it be that like me they wonder how refusing to answer questions like ....Q16.  'What does  ''we let her down' mean'' - could possibly hamper the investigation?

Maybe we should have a thread and discuss the 48 questions individually  - which IMO were designed purely to get answers from Kate which they could then choose to interpret as evidence of a motive - whether they were or not.

[ferryman]

IMO the parents had a moral obligation to their daughter to ensure that everything possible was being done to find her and that the perpetrator was put behind bars - and had no obligation - moral or otherwise - to assist the police to pin the crime on an innocent person thus abandoning Madeleine and leaving the real criminal out there free to do the same again.

In this case the police were trying to pin the crime on the McCanns who knew that they were not the perpetrators - so why on earth would they do anything to assist Amaral and co to allow the real criminal to keep his freedom and bring the search for Madeleine to a premature end.

Therefore IMO by exercising her right - Kate was also exercising Madeleine's right to be searched for by removing the risk of having her case wrongly closed.

I notice that although sceptics are keen to persecute Kate McCann  for exercising her rights over the 48 questions - they rarely mention the questions themselves.    Could it be that like me they wonder how refusing to answer questions like ....Q16.  'What does  ''we let her down' mean'' - could possibly hamper the investigation?

Maybe we should have a thread and discuss the 48 questions individually  - which IMO were designed purely to get answers from Kate which they could then choose to interpret as evidence of a motive - whether they were or not.

Personally, I would omit 9 letters from that (otherwise) exemplary post: IMO (repeated twice).

[stephen25000]

Personally, I would omit 9 letters from that (otherwise) exemplary post: IMO (repeated twice).

Exemplary post ?

 


Well that's a matter of opinion.

As a reminder to both of you.

Crime unknown and certainly no evidence has been found of an abductor, let alone proof.

As to abandoning Madeleine, that is what her parents did with her and her siblings for 5 nights. Socializing came first, not childcare.

[ferryman]

The title of the thread is, in a sense, correct.

It is the size of damages awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) that Amaral is appealing.

Nothing else.

There's nothing else he can appeal.

[stephen25000]

The title of the thread is, in a sense, correct.

It is the size of damages awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) that Amaral is appealing.

Nothing else.

There's nothing else he can appeal.

I suggest you wait for the appeals court's decision.

[G-Unit]

IMO the parents had a moral obligation to their daughter to ensure that everything possible was being done to find her and that the perpetrator was put behind bars - and had no obligation - moral or otherwise - to assist the police to pin the crime on an innocent person thus abandoning Madeleine and leaving the real criminal out there free to do the same again.

In this case the police were trying to pin the crime on the McCanns who knew that they were not the perpetrators - so why on earth would they do anything to assist Amaral and co to allow the real criminal to keep his freedom and bring the search for Madeleine to a premature end.

Therefore IMO by exercising her right - Kate was also exercising Madeleine's right to be searched for by removing the risk of having her case wrongly closed.

I notice that although sceptics are keen to persecute Kate McCann  for exercising her rights over the 48 questions - they rarely mention the questions themselves.    Could it be that like me they wonder how refusing to answer questions like ....Q16.  'What does  ''we let her down' mean'' - could possibly hamper the investigation?

Maybe we should have a thread and discuss the 48 questions individually  - which IMO were designed purely to get answers from Kate which they could then choose to interpret as evidence of a motive - whether they were or not.

The parents made some judgements immediately.

1. Their daughter had been abducted.

Despite the above conviction, neither of them took responsibility for informing the Ocean Club or the Police. Instead they left that to others and concentrated on telephoning numerous people in the UK to tell them about it.

2. The Portuguese authorities weren't responding correctly.

Again, this was communicated to friends and relatives in the UK. As the parents stayed mostly in their apartment I have no idea how they knew exactly what the Portuguese authorities were or were not doing.

The parents may have been correct about the abduction, but there was no obvious evidence to support that scenario. If the child was abducted it is often the case that they are abandoned nearby shortly afterwards; dead or alive. Given the equal possibility of woke and wandered due to the open patio door the PJ did the correct thing imo. They asked the GNR to concentrate on searching for the child locally. At the same time the Pj began to interview as many people as possible who might have seen something or who might know something.

Had the parents allowed the police to do their job without interference they could have claimed the moral high ground when the investigation failed to pinpoint the crime or the perpetrator. By seriously interfering with the investigation from the beginning they may themselves have prevented the investigation from succeeding.

[Benice]

The title of the thread is, in a sense, correct.

It is the size of damages awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) that Amaral is appealing.

Nothing else.

There's nothing else he can appeal.

I tend to agree with you Ferryman - although while Leonora Cipriano remains incarcerated without even a hint of at least a retrial - then nothing would suprise me when it comes to the workings of the Portuguese legal system.

[Benice]

The parents made some judgements immediately.

1. Their daughter had been abducted.

Despite the above conviction, neither of them took responsibility for informing the Ocean Club or the Police. Instead they left that to others and concentrated on telephoning numerous people in the UK to tell them about it.

2. The Portuguese authorities weren't responding correctly.

Again, this was communicated to friends and relatives in the UK. As the parents stayed mostly in their apartment I have no idea how they knew exactly what the Portuguese authorities were or were not doing.

The parents may have been correct about the abduction, but there was no obvious evidence to support that scenario. If the child was abducted it is often the case that they are abandoned nearby shortly afterwards; dead or alive. Given the equal possibility of woke and wandered due to the open patio door the PJ did the correct thing imo. They asked the GNR to concentrate on searching for the child locally. At the same time the Pj began to interview as many people as possible who might have seen something or who might know something.

Had the parents allowed the police to do their job without interference they could have claimed the moral high ground when the investigation failed to pinpoint the crime or the perpetrator. By seriously interfering with the investigation from the beginning they may themselves have prevented the investigation from succeeding.

As far as the McCanns were concerned the open shutters and window could only mean one thing and that is that someone had entered their apartment and taken Madeleine.   They would have been abnormal NOT to have had  that as their first thought.

As far as they knew the police had been called and they were anxiously waiting for them to arrive - and then wondering why they hadn't.     They were not to know that the reception staff decided to wait for instructions from their Manager - I presume in accordance with the Missing children protocol.

The PJ left - saying they would return at 9.00 the following day.  That would never happen in the UK - and would obviously worry them to death.      Their main complaint after that was that they were being told nothing.  To be kept in the dark at such a time would be excrutiating for them.

The McCanns had no power to stop the PJ from doing anything.   To claim that they interfered is simply not true IMO.  They did what they thought was best whilst in a shocked and traumatised state -  and would not know that advertising a missing child was forbidden in Portugal  - as that is the complete opposite of what would happen in the UK.  AS it happens a description of Madeleine - including her eye defect was made public at the request of Amaral on the 5th May.

If the worst thing  imaginable had happened to my family when I was abroad - I would be desperate to talk to my family back home. 

It's so easy to be wise after the event especially when you were not the people who had just been plunged into every parent's worst nightmare and unlike yourself  - did not have the 20/20 vision of hindsight.


   

[Angelo222]

The title of the thread is, in a sense, correct.

It is the size of damages awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) that Amaral is appealing.

Nothing else.

There's nothing else he can appeal.

In your dreams ferryman. In my opinion the judge was wrong to accept non professional utterings and semantics as to the McCanns suffering.  The entire thing was a circus and proved nothing.  Let's hope the Appeal Court see sense.

[G-Unit]

As far as the McCanns were concerned the open shutters and window could only mean one thing and that is that someone had entered their apartment and taken Madeleine.   They would have been abnormal NOT to have had  that as their first thought.

As far as they knew the police had been called and they were anxiously waiting for them to arrive - and then wondering why they hadn't.     They were not to know that the reception staff decided to wait for instructions from their Manager - I presume in accordance with the Missing children protocol.

The PJ left - saying they would return at 9.00 the following day.  That would never happen in the UK - and would obviously worry them to death.      Their main complaint after that was that they were being told nothing.  To be kept in the dark at such a time would be excrutiating for them.

The McCanns had no power to stop the PJ from doing anything.   To claim that they interfered is simply not true IMO.  They did what they thought was best whilst in a shocked and traumatised state -  and would not know that advertising a missing child was forbidden in Portugal  - as that is the complete opposite of what would happen in the UK.  AS it happens a description of Madeleine - including her eye defect was made public at the request of Amaral on the 5th May.

If the worst thing  imaginable had happened to my family when I was abroad - I would be desperate to talk to my family back home. 

It's so easy to be wise after the event especially when you were not the people who had just been plunged into every parent's worst nightmare and unlike yourself  - did not have the 20/20 vision of hindsight. 

There are two possibilities in this case. Either the parents told the truth or they didn't. For some their story and behaviour was so strange that it wasn't believable. Others spend their time arguing that their story and behaviour wasn't strange at all.

So who is more likely to have got it right? The grandmother couldn't believe it when she was told that her grandchildren had been left  alone in an unlocked apartment every night. Those who wrote supportive articles in the press expressed surprise that children were left in an unlocked apartment that was clearly vulnerable. The authorities looked. listened and had immediate doubts about what they were being told. Experts from the UK mentioned 'staging' and others pointed out that the child was not in the usual age range for abduction and that the parents should be investigated.

It seems to me that denying that problems exist with the story owes more to wishful thinking than to an unbiased assessment of what was said and done.

[Mr Gray]

There are two possibilities in this case. Either the parents told the truth or they didn't. For some their story and behaviour was so strange that it wasn't believable. Others spend their time arguing that their story and behaviour wasn't strange at all.

So who is more likely to have got it right? The grandmother couldn't believe it when she was told that her grandchildren had been left  alone in an unlocked apartment every night. Those who wrote supportive articles in the press expressed surprise that children were left in an unlocked apartment that was clearly vulnerable. The authorities looked. listened and had immediate doubts about what they were being told. Experts from the UK mentioned 'staging' and others pointed out that the child was not in the usual age range for abduction and that the parents should be investigated.

It seems to me that denying that problems exist with the story owes more to wishful thinking than to an unbiased assessment of what was said and done.

a totally biased and inaccurate post..

what authorities had immediate doubts about what they were being told
the staging comment was in a documentary that also said an abductor could have been in and out of the apartment within a minute

It is perfectly normal for the parents to be investigated ...as the needhams were...
you forgot to say SY have said the parents are not suspects and that it is their opinion that maddie was taken in a criminal act by a stranger