Why was Gonçalo Amaral taken off the Madeleine McCann case?

[Carana]

The topic is: "Why was Gonçalo Amaral taken off the Madeleine McCann case?"

[xtina]

The topic is: "Why was Gonçalo Amaral taken off the Madeleine McCann case?"

because he was getting to the truth of what happened to maddie

the evidence was there ....

political pressure took over ...

G.A....was sacked..

the rest is history..

[stephen25000]

.

Some of Sadie's theories are not without merit.  And at least she has done some on the ground research.

Which ones ?

[Benice]

As it is obvious you don't agree with Angelo, how about answering the question.

Do you believe in Sadie's theories ?

I've always been very impressed with Sadies meticulous research.  At least she doesn't confine her time to just sitting repeating  ''they left their kids!! ' over and over again like a brain-dead parrot.

I think Sadie makes some excellent points,  but no - I don't agree with all of her conclusions.   I don't suppose for a minute that Sadie will take offence at that - as she often posts that people don't have to agree with her.

[sadie]

because he was getting to the truth of what happened to maddie

the evidence was there ....

political pressure took over ...

G.A....was sacked..

the rest is history..

There was NO EVIDENCE.

Amaral misunderstood (at best, giving him the benefit of the doubt) things, especially the so called Dog alerts.

He got it all wrong.  He was making a right B***s up, no wonder they sacked him.  IMO of course


As for Political pressure ... nothing that I have seen so far has convinced me on that.  Bet you cant cos there is no evidence.  Zilch nada

[Jean-Pierre]

Indeed, she has made a lot of claims, with no cites.

Pots and kettles?   

[xtina]

There was NO EVIDENCE.

Amaral misunderstood (at best, giving him the benefit of the doubt) things, especially the so called Dog alerts.

He got it all wrong.  He was making a right B***s up, no wonder they sacked him.  IMO of course


As for Political pressure ... nothing that I have seen so far has convinced me on that.  Bet you cant cos there is no evidence.  Zilch nada

yes of course in your opinion ...there was no evidence ...

but in my opinion there was sweetie

G.A was took of the case ....but there was a reason...and it wasn't the crude explanation you gave babes

its because he was too near the truth

[Carana]

because he was getting to the truth of what happened to maddie

the evidence was there ....

political pressure took over ...

G.A....was sacked..

the rest is history..

Perhaps you'd like to contribute to the tumbleweed thread "What did Amaral & co get right?"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6692.0

[stephen25000]

Pots and kettles?   

Do you believe in fairy tales jp ? %£5&%

[xtina]

Perhaps you'd like to contribute to the tumbleweed thread "What did Amaral & co get right?"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6692.0

no ...i will leave that to you obviously you have a interest in it ...

you ask ...what G A c/o....got right meaning the British police....they were on the right track ....the evidence was there

strange how G Brown ...wanted to know if G A...had been took off the case ...why would he need to know that ...why did he get involved ...unless there was an ulterior motive.

what proof do you have he was wrong

[G-Unit]

This is a quote from the Times article (re- the efits) which resulted in the Times apologising to the McCann.


Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote


This has previously been discussed at length.  I'm surprised you don't remember it G.   

IMO it should be noted that Martin Smith was always quick to threaten legal action against those who misrepresented him in the Press.   What the Times claimed above is a massive turnaround - and I do not believe that Martin Smith would have allowed it to stand if it was untrue. 

No retraction or apology was issued by the Times re their claim -  which common sense alone dictates is because Martin Smith did not consider he had been misrepresented on that occasion and so made no complaints.

It's very kind of you to provide Sadie's cites for her benice. Of course there is still no cite, just a copy and paste from somewhere. The newspaper article doesn't provide a direct quote from Mr smith either.

There is always the possibility that Smith thought about it and realised that if he complained he would be assumed to be denying that he changed his mind. Perhaps he preferred not to show his hand.

[sadie]

I've always been very impressed with Sadies meticulous research.  At least she doesn't confine her time to just sitting repeating  ''they left their kids!! ' over and over again like a brain-dead parrot.

I think Sadie makes some excellent points,  but no - I don't agree with all of her conclusions.   I don't suppose for a minute that Sadie will take offence at that - as she often posts that people don't have to agree with her.

Thank you Benice

And you are right, I dont expect everyone to agree with everythuing I say.

Some things sound so bizarre, but believe you me [or not ] the traffickers of today are massive globally and mightily organised and they did not develop their expertise overnight.  They developed their knowledge of global sea routes,hidden caves, tiny willing ports, tribes (people) that were willing to make a fast buck illicitly over centuries.

OK lets return to The Phoecians, the Barbary pirates (many also phoenicisn influenced), The Templars, The Vikings, .... all of whom were exceptional Sea going warriers and/or theives (pirates).  As I say global smuggling and trafficking did NOT develop overnight.


Try reading Frederick Forsyths book "The Cobra"   

He researched traficking very thoroughly,, even hiding himself in the dangerous bandit controlled Guineau Bissau to watch what went on.  He had to depart very suddenly when things got too hot.

See what he says on page 25 ( my paperback copies anyway) in the paragraph beginning
"He could not know that four containers up, two layers down .........

Do please make the effort and read it.  You might be very surprised.

[Benice]

It's very kind of you to provide Sadie's cites for her benice. Of course there is still no cite, just a copy and paste from somewhere. The newspaper article doesn't provide a direct quote from Mr smith either.

There is always the possibility that Smith thought about it and realised that if he complained he would be assumed to be denying that he changed his mind. Perhaps he preferred not to show his hand.

The cite was from the Sunday Times article which mentioned the Efits.    I don't have the complete article anymore but someone else may have it.  It was discussed on here at great length.

Martin Smith had no qualms whatsoever about taking to task newpapers which misrepresented him via his lawyers.      The idea that such a HUGE LIE  (if that's what it was)  would be allowed by him  to remain in the Sunday Times without his contacting the paper and demanding a retraction may be something you can talk yourself into G.       But it doesn't work for me - because it makes no sense for him to allow such a massive lie about himself to remain in the public domain - when it would be such a simple matter to get a retraction.   

IMO

[sadie]

The cite was from the Sunday Times article which mentioned the Efits.    I don't have the complete article anymore but someone else may have it.  It was discussed on here at great length.

Martin Smith had no qualms whatsoever about taking to task newpapers which misrepresented him via his lawyers.      The idea that such a HUGE LIE  (if that's what it was)  would be allowed by him  to remain in the Sunday Times without his contacting the paper and demanding a retraction may be something you can talk yourself into G.       But it doesn't work for me - because it makes no sense for him to allow such a massive lie about himself to remain in the public domain - when it would be such a simple matter to get a retraction.   

IMO

... and thank you again Benice.   

So we have confirmation from a very rekliable newspaper, The Times, that Martin Smith did NOT think that Smithman was Gerry

I knew that the Martin Smith had stressed that Smithman was NOT Gerry, but since my eyesight has deteriorated I doubt that I could have found the cite.



OK so let's put it on the record

[Eleanor]

Can we stick to The Topic, Please.  I don't actually enjoy deleting posts.