UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Carana on October 13, 2015, 12:38:47 PM
-
I started a thread in the members' area... but as it has only attracted five posts (including my OP) since the beginning of September, perhaps it got missed.
To repeat my OP:
I'll give credit to Amaral & co for applying for permission to publicise her details (including the eye fleck) early on. Bizarrely, other "police experts" criticised the McCanns, yet again, for that, but anyway.
What else?
43
-
Amaral effectively scotched before May 3rd lunacy by acknowledging Dr David Payne as the last independent witness to see Madeleine alive (on evening May 3rd).
-
Thinking about it some more, there is a passage in Amaral's book that (genuinely) impressed me where he describes the day-to-day routine of policing in an enquiry such as the Madeleine enquiry.
I may try to find it a bit later ....
-
Is this about Sr Amaral's book which was published post investigation, or about the investigation which ran from May 2007 to July 2008. Who is included in & Co? The PJ and British police who were involved?
Just to establish the rules of engagement like.
-
PJ Inspector Dias was sound from start to finish; aside from a wobbly bit in the middle, I thought Joao Carlos was good and I liked his final report for the PJ.
I thought the PJ inspector who interviewed Yvonne Martin sized her up very well and the Portuguese dog-handlers who initially searched for Madeleine were outstanding (if equipped with dogs of the wrong discipline for the type of search required).
I also think that officers of the shelved enquiry generally put in a great deal of energy and effort to the initial enquiry, given the volume of interviews that were conducted, the language barriers, and the difficulties of translation.
I think we maybe overlook that Madeleine's disappearance came as a bolt out of the blue to the Portuguese, and a great deal of energy, effort and (honest) endeavour went in to that initial enquiry.
I understood Amaral and co to refer to the whole (shelved) investigation.
But doubtless Carana will correct me if she meant something different.
-
Is this about Sr Amaral's book which was published post investigation, or about the investigation which ran from May 2007 to July 2008. Who is included in & Co? The PJ and British police who were involved?
Just to establish the rules of engagement like.
There has been a lot of criticism of Amaral and his team. Although I'm not a fan, I thought it might be fair to offer an opportunity to give credit where it's due.
I'd suggest whatever is in the files up until he left (2 Oct) and whatever he has publicly stated in whichever media.
-
There has been a lot of criticism of Amaral and his team. Although I'm not a fan, I thought it might be fair to offer an opportunity to give credit where it's due.
I'd suggest whatever is in the files up until he left (2 Oct) and whatever he has publicly stated in whichever media.
I find areas which were covered as they should have been ... but are curtailed because the investigation took a different route which may have destroyed good initial detective work, for example ...
**Snip
INTERVIEWER
In the book “Maddie Truth of the Lie” you mention a Polish lead and you say that it is a loose end…
Mr AMARAL
Nobody cares about that. We should have gone there or made a rogatory letter. They (Polish police) misunderstood the goal. They went looking for the child and we asked for an intervention to control them first. The issue was the photographs. The man never let go of the camera. We wanted to know what photographs were on the camera and if maybe there was one of Maddie.
INTERVIEWER
Despite your theory that the girl died on that evening, wouldn’t there be a possibility that this couple “dispatched” the child within a few hours?
Mr AMARAL
That is already speculation. We inspected the apartment where they were staying. Blood was even found inside the apartment and it was not Maddie’s. We cannot forget that when we intervene, they are not in Portugal anymore.
INTERVIEWER
Could you have gone further with this couple?
Mr AMARAL
We could. And if they were here in Portugal we could have done even more. But then the route of the investigation takes us elsewhere.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/goncalo-amaral-the-interviews-augsep-08/#sthash.KjIeNSSV.dpuf
There is no doubt that given the circumstances the very least which should have happened here is that the photographs which were in the camera should have been checked out.
If the couple had been traced prior to their exit from Portugal I am sure that would have happened and it would at the least have removed one question from the inquiry.
So although unsuccessful, at least it was initially the right tack to take, and might have been worth taking the follow up action Mr Amaral said could have been taken.
-
I find areas which were covered as they should have been ... but are curtailed because the investigation took a different route which may have destroyed good initial detective work, for example ...
**Snip
INTERVIEWER
In the book “Maddie Truth of the Lie” you mention a Polish lead and you say that it is a loose end…
[i]Mr AMARAL[/i]
Nobody cares about that. We should have gone there or made a rogatory letter. They (Polish police) misunderstood the goal. They went looking for the child and we asked for an intervention to control them first. The issue was the photographs. The man never let go of the camera. We wanted to know what photographs were on the camera and if maybe there was one of Maddie.
INTERVIEWER
Despite your theory that the girl died on that evening, wouldn’t there be a possibility that this couple “dispatched” the child within a few hours?
Mr AMARAL
That is already speculation. We inspected the apartment where they were staying. Blood was even found inside the apartment and it was not Maddie’s. We cannot forget that when we intervene, they are not in Portugal anymore.
INTERVIEWER
Could you have gone further with this couple?
Mr AMARAL
We could. And if they were here in Portugal we could have done even more. But then the route of the investigation takes us elsewhere.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/goncalo-amaral-the-interviews-augsep-08/#sthash.KjIeNSSV.dpuf
There is no doubt that given the circumstances the very least which should have happened here is that the photographs which were in the camera should have been checked out.
If the couple had been traced prior to their exit from Portugal I am sure that would have happened and it would at the least have removed one question from the inquiry.
So although unsuccessful, at least it was initially the right tack to take, and might have been worth taking the follow up action Mr Amaral said could have been taken.
Yes, he did seem to check on the Polish couple. I'm not quite sure what he thought the Polish police could do without an official request... but at least he tried, I suppose.
-
Yes, he did seem to check on the Polish couple. I'm not quite sure what he thought the Polish police could do without an official request... but at least he tried, I suppose.
I think he was right to have tried.
He may have expected the Polish police to have at least been able to ask to view the camera contents given the nature and urgency of the matter.
If they had refused when asked might that not have constituted probable cause?
Anyway, by the time he would have been able to follow it through from there, the evidence if any had ever existed would have been long gone. Which might have decided his later disinterest.
-
Thinking about it some more, there is a passage in Amaral's book that (genuinely) impressed me where he describes the day-to-day routine of policing in an enquiry such as the Madeleine enquiry.
I may try to find it a bit later ....
That would be interesting Ferryman. I'm struggling to come up with more than I have ... but I'll keep on puzzling there must be more than we've come up with so far.
-
PJ Inspector Dias was sound from start to finish; aside from a wobbly bit in the middle, I thought Joao Carlos was good and I liked his final report for the PJ.
I thought the PJ inspector who interviewed Yvonne Martin sized her up very well and the Portuguese dog-handlers who initially searched for Madeleine were outstanding (if equipped with dogs of the wrong discipline for the type of search required).
I also think that officers of the shelved enquiry generally put in a great deal of energy and effort to the initial enquiry, given the volume of interviews that were conducted, the language barriers, and the difficulties of translation.
I think we maybe overlook that Madeleine's disappearance came as a bolt out of the blue to the Portuguese, and a great deal of energy, effort and (honest) endeavour went in to that initial enquiry.
I understood Amaral and co to refer to the whole (shelved) investigation.
But doubtless Carana will correct me if she meant something different.
Sorry if that wasn't clear. I meant the team while Amaral was in charge, and what he has publicly stated since.
NOT the entire initial PT investigation following his departure.
-
... in response to questions regarding the situation regarding Joana Cipriano's case ...
INTERVIEWER
May the noise of the case have had some influence?
Mr AMARAL
When the first news came out I called for the attention of the director in Faro. What I said at that time was: maybe it’s best for the process to leave Portimão, or for me to step aside from the investigation.
UNTERVIEWER
Did you consider the possibility of leaving the Maddie case?
Mr AMARAL
I did. And the feedback that I got was that I had full support.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/goncalo-amaral-the-interviews-augsep-08/#sthash.KjIeNSSV.dpuf
I think he was absolutely right to consider leaving Madeleine's case.
-
Well, that's a surprise.
-
Well, that's a surprise.
At least I've got a good word to say for him ...
I await with interest the huge list you must be in process of compiling ...
-
Quite amusing that a policeman who was in a case for six months out of 8 years of investigations and got most things wrong is still a boogey man that gets some people wound up ...says volumes
Akin to two dogs' findings and their handler that are meaningless but get the same reaction
must mean the rest of the 7 and a half years of investigations have not disproven the first two
&%+((£
-
Odd that Amaral 's supporters here don't have more examples of all the great stuff he did as part of the investigation.... &%+((£
-
Truth hurts 8(0(* The only thing Amaral got wrong was jumping the gun because two were running back home.
Tut tut, pathfinder.
There are lots and lots and lots of things Mr Amaral got wrong in my opinion ... the thread is about what he and his team may have got right and I and others have done our best to come up with something along those lines.
Of the posts made by apologists for him, it is noticeable that the usual off topic diversionary rubbish prevails ... with not a single achievement or constructive action in the early days of Madeleine's case being mentioned.
The early days of the investigation into a missing child and not one of you can bring one positive action that he got right to the board.
You are letting the side down boys and girls ... and it is speaking volumes.
-
Even Amaral admits he got things wrong, but his worshippers would never admit it.
Wrong Alfred, he made mistakes.
However, his basic theory of accidental death has not been disproved.
By the way you don't have to worship someone to provide support.
-
Odd that Amaral 's supporters here don't have more examples of all the great stuff he did as part of the investigation.... &%+((£
So far, in posters opinion, we have ...
- publicising the mark in Madeleine's eye
- scotching rumours about the last independent witness to see Madeleine
- the consistent good work carried out by some inspectors eg Inspector Diaz and whoever put Yvonne Martin back into her box
- acting on information received, for example, chasing through on the Polish couple
- recognition his circumstances regarding his arguido status might be prejudicial
If we are agreed on these ... what else did he do or attempt to do which could fit the thread title?[/list][/list]
-
So far, in posters opinion, we have ...
- publicising the mark in Madeleine's eye
- scotching rumours about the last independent witness to see Madeleine
- the consistent good work carried out by some inspectors eg Inspector Diaz and whoever put Yvonne Martin back into her box
- acting on information received, for example, chasing through on the Polish couple
- recognition his circumstances regarding his arguido status might be prejudicial
If we are agreed on these ... what else did he do or attempt to do which could fit the thread title?
Not sure if this qualifies - but IIRC he was big enough to admit that they had let Madeleine down - regarding the failure of his officers to check for CCTV evidence as a matter of urgency in Luz. From memory so am happy to retract it if incorrect.
-
Odd that Amaral 's supporters here don't have more examples of all the great stuff he did as part of the investigation.... &%+((£
First you need to identify these 'Amaral supporters'. People can have doubts about the McCanns but it doesn't follow that they are therefore supporters of Amaral.
I think the early investigators did a good job, given the difficulties of the language barrier, a rapidly disappearing population of holidaymakers, the media circus and the large amount of information coming in to them. I'm also aware that this was a team, so don't quite see why the co-ordinator is being singled out. Was he able to make important decisions without discussion with his superiors?
-
First you need to identify these 'Amaral supporters'. People can have doubts about the McCanns but it doesn't follow that they are therefore supporters of Amaral.
I think the early investigators did a good job, given the difficulties of the language barrier, a rapidly disappearing population of holidaymakers, the media circus and the large amount of information coming in to them. I'm also aware that this was a team, so don't quite see why the co-ordinator is being singled out. Was he able to make important decisions without discussion with his superiors?
I would say that in the responses so far, due weight has been given to (I agree with you) a commendable team effort.
Does anyone else have an idea where, in Amaral's book, that passage is where he describes the typical day-to-day running and management of an enquiry such as the Madeleine enquiry?
-
First you need to identify these 'Amaral supporters'. People can have doubts about the McCanns but it doesn't follow that they are therefore supporters of Amaral.
I think the early investigators did a good job, given the difficulties of the language barrier, a rapidly disappearing population of holidaymakers, the media circus and the large amount of information coming in to them. I'm also aware that this was a team, so don't quite see why the co-ordinator is being singled out. Was he able to make important decisions without discussion with his superiors?
A supporter of Amaral would be someone who contributed to his Fund on a regular basis, overlooks the fact that he is a convicted criminal, thinks his theory was basically sound and that he is perfectly entitled to make a career out of promulgating it in books and on TV.
Amaral certainly gives the impression in his book that he was the one calling the shots in the investigation, but if it wasn't him then who was it?
-
Not sure if this qualifies - but IIRC he was big enough to admit that they had let Madeleine down - regarding the failure of his officers to check for CCTV evidence as a matter of urgency in Luz. From memory so am happy to retract it if incorrect.
He did admit the error.
I am unsure why it would have happened though because they certainly did make the effort with one or two petrol stations. Yet it was left to the Rebelo investigation to try to retrieve the highway CCTV.
Sounds to me as if they were pulled off CCTV information gathering to concentrate on something else.
These guys followed orders. Someone ordered them to check CCTV footage. When they stopped doing so ... it was because someone had ordered them to stop.
I would say on balance that it was not one of the things that went right for the investigation ... particularly as it would have given an accurate date and time for the return of the Smith family.
-
A supporter of Amaral would be someone who contributed to his Fund on a regular basis, overlooks the fact that he is a convicted criminal, thinks his theory was basically sound and that he is perfectly entitled to make a career out of promulgating it in books and on TV.
Amaral certainly gives the impression in his book that he was the one calling the shots in the investigation, but if it wasn't him then who was it?
I would say there are no outright Amaral supporters on here then, judging by what people have said.
Amaral's job title was chief of the PJ criminal investigation department based in Portimão, which covers Praia da Luz. His immediate superior was Chief Inspector Guilhermino Encarnacao, described as director of the Judicial Police in Faro. I don't know who Encaenacao's superior was, perhaps he reported to Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the Judicial Police. Ribeiro seems to be the person who removed Amaral from his position. Amaral was 3rd in command and he was in charge of the day to day running of the investigation
-
Found it:
In Portugal, the criminal process is comprised of three phases: the investigation, the instruction and the trial. Under the direction and control of the Public Minister, the investigation is led by the criminal police, who enjoy total practical and tactical independence. The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit. This status confers on a suspect a set of rights and responsibilities. One of the fundamental principles of our code of criminal procedure is that of non-self-incrimination: it is illegal for information given by a witness to later be used against him and to implicate him in a crime. The right of silence, therefore, allows him to avoid giving incriminating details. But the status heaps opprobrium on those who become arguido, in spite of the principle of presumption of innocence.
(Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie)
I'll give Amaral credit for that passage. It's quite informative and particularly describes the arguido process well and succinctly ....
-
Found it:
(Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie)
I'll give Amaral credit for that passage. It's quite informative and particularly describes the arguido process well and succinctly ....
It is informative.
It shows that he was in full command of the knowledge that to make the Drs McCann arguidos would in effect subject them to added stress and opprobrium.
"But the status heaps opprobrium on those who become arguido, in spite of the principle of presumption of innocence." Amaral
Let no-one ever say as they always do that this was not a calculated decision taken on his part ... right from the horse's mouth we have ...
"The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit." Amaral
In one paragraph we have an admission that he took the decision to make Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos in the full knowledge of what that status would do to them in the public perception.
A measure of the man.
Sorry, Ferryman, I disagree vehemently that this was one of the things he got right. In my opinion little else could be held up as an exemplar of just exactly how wrong he was capable of being.
-
It is informative.
It shows that he was in full command of the knowledge that to make the Drs McCann arguidos would in effect subject them to added stress and opprobrium.
"But the status heaps opprobrium on those who become arguido, in spite of the principle of presumption of innocence." Amaral
Let no-one ever say as they always do that this was not a calculated decision taken on his part ... right from the horse's mouth we have ...
"The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit." Amaral
In one paragraph we have an admission that he took the decision to make Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos in the full knowledge of what that status would do to them in the public perception.
A measure of the man.
Sorry, Ferryman, I disagree vehemently that this was one of the things he got right. In my opinion little else could be held up as an exemplar of just exactly how wrong he was capable of being.
I agree with you entirely about motive and intent.
But I think, what he does do well, is describe the arguido process.
Compare with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm
-
It is informative.
It shows that he was in full command of the knowledge that to make the Drs McCann arguidos would in effect subject them to added stress and opprobrium.
"But the status heaps opprobrium on those who become arguido, in spite of the principle of presumption of innocence." Amaral
Let no-one ever say as they always do that this was not a calculated decision taken on his part ... right from the horse's mouth we have ...
"The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit." Amaral
In one paragraph we have an admission that he took the decision to make Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos in the full knowledge of what that status would do to them in the public perception.
A measure of the man.
Sorry, Ferryman, I disagree vehemently that this was one of the things he got right. In my opinion little else could be held up as an exemplar of just exactly how wrong he was capable of being.
The authors of the archiving report had no quibble with it.
>>>>snip:Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act. snip<<<<
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
I agree with you entirely about motive and intent.
But I think, what he does do well, is describe the arguido process.
Compare with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm
So his description of the process was correct.
As an aside ... did he mention his own arguido status anywhere in the book?
-
So his description of the process was correct.
As an aside ... did he mention his own arguido status anywhere in the book?
I don't think so.
I'm trying to stay on-topic.
And finding it as difficult as you ....
-
The authors of the archiving report had no quibble with it.
>>>>snip:Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act. snip<<<<
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Ferryman was describing his synopsis of the process as being informative not what he actually did with it which imo was at that stage calculated spite.
-
I don't think so.
I'm trying to stay on-topic.
And finding it as difficult as you ....
The topic is a really difficult one. So far I'm finding little but when I do it is qualified with an ..."ah but ... ".
Given the information available to them at the time, I think it was the correct thing to do to make Robert Murat an arguido.
-
Ferryman was describing his synopsis of the process as being informative not what he actually did with it which imo was at that stage calculated spite.
You are entitled to your opinion which possibly may not be in the same county as reality let alone the same field.
It is possible that Drs McCann could have been made arguido(a) on the basis of being the missing persons parents and the last known persons to see her alive.
-
You are entitled to your opinion which possibly may not be in the same county as reality let alone the same field.
It is possible that Drs McCann could have been made arguido(a) on the basis of being the missing persons parents and the last known persons to see her alive.
How about deflecting back to the topic of the thread which isn't really about my opinion as far as I can see, but about what Mr Amaral may have got right in the process of his sojourn into missing child territory.
Maybe you can come up with something along those lines as everyone else appears to be struggling a bit.
-
How about deflecting back to the topic of the thread which isn't really about my opinion as far as I can see, but about what Mr Amaral may have got right in the process of his sojourn into missing child territory.
Maybe you can come up with something along those lines as everyone else appears to be struggling a bit.
Then why quote your opinion?
As for the rest of it? there are apparently 55 volumes of evidence attached to this case. I doubt anyone on here has read them all so I guess the posts to this thread will be mostly opinion biased one way or another.
-
The topic is a really difficult one. So far I'm finding little but when I do it is qualified with an ..."ah but ... ".
Given the information available to them at the time, I think it was the correct thing to do to make Robert Murat an arguido.
May I ask why?
AFAIK, this was based on someone thinking his behaviour was odd. And is it correct to subject someone to opprobrium etc. on this basis?
Lots of folks thought the McCann behaviour was odd, but that hardly makes them guilty of anything other than odd behaviour.
-
May I ask why?
AFAIK, this was based on someone thinking his behaviour was odd. And is it correct to subject someone to opprobrium etc. on this basis?
Lots of folks thought the McCann behaviour was odd, but that hardly makes them guilty of anything other than odd behaviour.
Veering wildly off-topic, here, but more than odd.
Sinister.
Claiming to correct and contradict Prior on interpretation of the forensic results (in a way deeply pejorative to the McCanns), for example ...
-
Veering wildly off-topic, here, but more than odd.
Sinister.
Claiming to correct and contradict Prior on interpretation of the forensic results (in a way deeply pejorative to the McCanns), for example ...
You've lost me.
Were there ANY forensic results back when Murat was made an arguido? And as far as I am aware, none of the forensic results implicates Murat in any way, shape or form.
I wondered why making Murat an arguido without evidence was seen as OK, whilst making the McCanns arguidos without evidence was seen as unacceptable.
-
You've lost me.
Were there ANY forensic results back when Murat was made an arguido? And as far as I am aware, none of the forensic results implicates Murat in ant way, shape or form.
I wondered why making Murat an arguido without evidence was seen as OK, whilst making the McCanns arguidos without evidence was seen as unacceptable.
My apologies.
I hadn't read Brietta's post you were responding to and thought you were talking about Amaral.
-
You've lost me.
Were there ANY forensic results back when Murat was made an arguido? And as far as I am aware, none of the forensic results implicates Murat in ant way, shape or form.
I wondered why making Murat an arguido without evidence was seen as OK, whilst making the McCanns arguidos without evidence was seen as unacceptable.
I don't think making either of them arguido was unacceptable....but keeping them as arguido for such a long time was when there was no evidence against them . I wonder why no one on here has highlighted the inconsistencies in Murat's statements but rabbit on incessantly re the alleged inconsistencies in those of the mccanns
-
May I ask why?
AFAIK, this was based on someone thinking his behaviour was odd. And is it correct to subject someone to opprobrium etc. on this basis?
Lots of folks thought the McCann behaviour was odd, but that hardly makes them guilty of anything other than odd behaviour.
I don't think it was very much at all to do with Lori Campbell who mainly gets the "credit" for whistle blowing or anyone else.
The PJ very much had their suspicions about him the least of it being what might be called eccentric behaviour and based on the information in the files they would have been seriously remiss in their duty had they not checked out the information they had on him.
In this instance the arguido status was instituted in appropriate and proper circumstances which protected his rights.
Given what has come out since regarding official thinking it was probably the time to do the same for the Drs McCann when it might have afforded them some protection and rights ... rather than being used as a salvo in a personal war.
Read the files and it will become apparent why the PJ acted correctly, that was their job, the fact that they found no further evidence to back up initial suspicions ... which were not as a result of 'odd' behaviour ... is part of the process.
-
I don't think it was very much at all to do with Lori Campbell who mainly gets the "credit" for whistle blowing or anyone else.
The PJ very much had their suspicions about him the least of it being what might be called eccentric behaviour and based on the information in the files they would have been seriously remiss in their duty had they not checked out the information they had on him.
In this instance the arguido status was instituted in appropriate and proper circumstances which protected his rights.
Given what has come out since regarding official thinking it was probably the time to do the same for the Drs McCann when it might have afforded them some protection and rights ... rather than being used as a salvo in a personal war.
Read the files and it will become apparent why the PJ acted correctly, that was their job, the fact that they found no further evidence to back up initial suspicions ... which were not as a result of 'odd' behaviour ... is part of the process.
There is a (genuinely excellent) profile of Robert Murat in The Times that casts Murat's mode of behaviour in an entirely light.
It seems that, from way before events of PdL 2007, he was the sort of neighbour that would be a God-send to have, always eager to help, always on-hand, nothing, ever, too much trouble, to an extent that occasionally you might think he was too enthusiastic and eager.
I think, when you read that profile, it casts his way of conducting himself in the wake of Madeleine's disappearance in a very different light ...
-
There is a (genuinely excellent) profile of Robert Murat in The Times that casts Murat's mode of behaviour in an entirely light.
It seems that, from way before events of PdL 2007, he was the sort of neighbour that would be a God-send to have, always eager to help, always on-hand, nothing, ever, too much trouble, to an extent that occasionally you might think he was too enthusiastic and eager.
I think, when you read that profile, it casts his way of conducting himself in the wake of Madeleine's disappearance in a very different light ...
It is an interesting topic ... but we are going to get whooshed ... since apart from my thinking the PJ were correct to investigate him therefore having to constitute him arguido ... we are wandering OT.