I read it there some time ago and I am not prepared to trawl through the sewer that ..... is.
It is a den of hate and anyone who agrees with views there, is just as bad as them.
Meanwhile your hatred of Amaral is clear to see from your writing and your stance is not neutral, it merely follows the Mccann line.
So like Luz, you have failed completely to post any evidence for your claim. I am sure readers here will take note of those failures. They are not conducive to good debate.
Your so-called knowledge of my opinion of Amaral is interesting. The fact is that I have only stated categorical facts about Goncalo Amaral. I have expressed no opinion about the man. It is a statement of fact that his behaviour was disgraceful. In this country he would never have been in charge of the McCann case because his being a suspect in such a serious breach of procedure in another missing child case that it eventually led to his conviction would have probably have seen him suspended and would at the very least have seen him removed to less controversial roles.
I follow the line of wishing to find the truth. And your posting of speculation without evidence as fact is never going to help anyone get to that goal.
The 'beating up' of Cipriano has not been proved to be carried out by the police.
There is no proof Amaral took part in her alleged 'beating up'.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Meanwhile, from a poster on Amazon, would you care to answer the following points.
' Might be worth reminding gilet to read the forensics reports, too. I honestly do not know how s/he has become so confused, they are all over the place.
He claims that
'' It was the PJ who failed to collect samples from the bed. It was Amaral who was coordinating the PJ at that time. When a police force fails so badly to collect such potential vital evidence in a missing child case then I think it is fair to point out their failure and to call it disgraceful work.''
For starters, Madeleine's bed WAS examined, this is from the report of the Crime scene team from the police laboratory
''After the recovery of hairs described above there proceeded the search for possible traces of semen, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, there being identified various [several] areas where fluorescence characteristic of this type of trace evidence was seen.
The areas where the fluorescence was seen were submitted to a "Phosphatise test" search there being a slightly positive reaction (purplish colour) only in area of the bed-cover of the single bed opposite to the bed from where the minor disappeared, a piece of that bed-cover being collected and placed inside a paper envelope in accordance with instructions issued by the Biology Section of the LPC, it being referenced as trace evidence #5;
A search was also made for possible biological traces and fibres on the single bed from where the minor disappeared, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, the result obtained having been negative.''
He then goes on to say this:
'' It was also the PJ who in one of the most strange twists of the case accepted the pillow case brought by Gerry McCann back from Rothley as evidence. Having failed to find any DNA (Were their techniques simply not up to the task? Were they as bad as the fingerprinting techniques which Amaral himself says were not the best?) they should then have liaised with Leicester Police for a reference DNA sample from the house and should never have simply accepted a sample via the father of the missing child. Such incredible stupidity on the part of the PJ was the responsibility of Goncalo Amaral who was co-ordinating the PJ team who allowed it.''
This is all nonsense, and would put the mythmakers to shame
The pillowcase was examined and a surrogate reference sample recovered by the FSS, in England, not brought back to Portugal. It had nothing to do with Amaral and none of gilet's subsequent claims make any sense whatsoever.
Again, this is all covered in some detail in the PJ files, so there really is no excuse. '
I await your reply.
