(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Iron/AMARAL.jpg)
That is not championing her death, and I would suggest that the vast majority of people who know of the case believe she is no longer alive.
That does not mean, you wish someone dead, DOES IT.
Among the dictionary definition for 'championing' are ~ advocate ~ promote ~ defend ~ uphold ~ support ~ back ~ espouse ~ ally oneself with ~ campaign for ~ lobby for ~ fight for ~ battle for ~ crusade for ~ propose ~ sponsor ~ vouch for;
If one builds a media persona and a career as an author based solely on the personal theory that a child is dead in particular circumstances and takes every opportunity to publicise that personal opinion ... which of the above words meaning to champion do you consider applicable?
Comment - 993
This money is for you Amaral our public face for justice!! This money is to fight ...
Comment 990
For justice and dignity
Comment 984
... please Goncalo keep up the fight for Justice ...
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_gafund500.htm
From these and many more relevant comments from the same location concerning Madeleine's supposed fate ... it can be seen that Amaral has been extraordinarily successful in getting his message across.
It is totally in Amaral's interests for Madeleine never to be found alive, that's for sure!
Amaral is but one man.
Many other people believe Madeleine is no longer alive.
He has a career as a policeman, until he was removed from the case, and as for the case itself, BLAME Gerry and Kate Mccann.
Their actions precipitated this case, and there is no getting away from that.
That is very true but remember we don't know everything that Amaral knows about the circumstances of Maddie's disappearance. To be honest he is most probably right about her being dead, I know it is a hard pill to swallow for some but in all reality it is the most likely outcome given what we know.
Don't get me wrong though, it is not the outcome I or any sensible human being would want but it is just facing reality.
Amaral is the architect of his own misfortune as regards his career with the Policia Judiciaria.
His book carried the weight of being authored by the lead detective in Madeleine's case and purported to tell the truth of the lie.
Re: the thread title, yes. In no way was he responsible for what happened to Madeleine, yet to some he is go to bogey man when anyone want to produce a straw man.
It is totally in Amaral's interests for Madeleine never to be found alive, that's for sure!
Now if I changed Amaral to the McCanns what would the reaction be. Let me know when you want it removing.
Now if I changed Amaral to the McCanns what would the reaction be. Let me know when you want it removing.I don't want it removing. It would totally be in the McCanns' interests for Madeleine to turn up alive, the opposite is the case in Amaral. Not really sure what your point is tbh.
I don't want it removing. It would totally be in the McCanns' interests for Madeleine to turn up alive, the opposite is the case in Amaral. Not really sure what your point is tbh.
I think if Madeleine were to turn up alive and well that Mr Amaral would become media shy overnight.
There is no doubt that former Portuguese police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has formed a view as to what befell Madeleine McCann and has not been shy in speaking his mind on the disappearance whenever the opportunity arises. He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame.
His theory is based on the knowledge he accrued as coordinator of the investigation prior to his removal from the case in August 2007 and allows him certain advantages over the rest of us. As coordinator he was at the centre of the investigation with all the detectives involved in the case answering directly to him. He was also central to the involvement of the English police and was extremely cognisant of their thoughts on the investigation. Indeed, it was the involvement and actions of the English police which indirectly brought about his own demise and eventual removal from the investigation when he complained to the Press about said involvement.
Amaral might well have promoted the thesis that Madeleine died in apartment 5a but proving it is another matter.
I don't really understand the bit I have bolded above. How do you espouse a theory and impugn others without defaming them? You are incandescent with rage that the Met have espoused a theory and impugned others in the Ben Needham case for example. What's the difference?
Your thinking, like mine, is shaped by the anglicised interpretation of what amounts to libel.John claims Amaral is at liberty to espouse any theory he likes and impugn but not defame. How is that possible though? How do you theorize that a man disposed of his daughter's body after an accidental overdose of Calpol (sic) without defaming that man?
I think the Portuguese one is very different.
I also think Amaral is handed much more licence than he would otherwise have because he quit the PJ before his book was published, rendering him free of liability for breach of judicial secrecy in getting his book onto the shelves so soon after the archiving, and entering into the public domain an account (of an event) that competes with Kate's account.
Under those conditions, by Portuguese law, you can say (almost) what you want, with scant regard to such considerations as truth or accuracy, and get away with it.
I think if Madeleine were to turn up alive and well that Mr Amaral would become media shy overnight.
There is no doubt that former Portuguese police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has formed a view as to what befell Madeleine McCann and has not been shy in speaking his mind on the disappearance whenever the opportunity arises. He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame.
His theory is based on the knowledge he accrued as coordinator of the investigation prior to his removal from the case in August 2007 and allows him certain advantages over the rest of us. As coordinator he was at the centre of the investigation with all the detectives involved in the case answering directly to him. He was also central to the involvement of the English police and was extremely cognisant of their thoughts on the investigation. Indeed, it was the involvement and actions of the English police which indirectly brought about his own demise and eventual removal from the investigation when he complained to the Press about said involvement.
Amaral might well have promoted the thesis that Madeleine died in apartment 5a but proving it is another matter.
John claims Amaral is at liberty to espouse any theory he likes and impugn but not defame. How is that possible though? How do you theorize that a man disposed of his daughter's body after an accidental overdose of Calpol (sic) without defaming that man?
John claims Amaral is at liberty to espouse any theory he likes and impugn but not defame. How is that possible though? How do you theorize that a man disposed of his daughter's body after an accidental overdose of Calpol (sic) without defaming that man?
As he never personally spoke to or met with the McCanns - its difficult to see how he could form some of the derogatory opinions he did of them - from what was only ever 2nd hand information from other people.
To this day I do not understand why he chose to put himself at such an obvious disadvantage by taking that approach.
IMO
Your thinking, like mine, is shaped by the anglicised interpretation of what amounts to libel.
I think the Portuguese one is very different.
I also think Amaral is handed much more licence than he would otherwise have because he quit the PJ before his book was published, rendering him free of liability for breach of judicial secrecy in getting his book onto the shelves so soon after the archiving, and entering into the public domain an account (of an event) that competes with Kate's account.
Under those conditions, by Portuguese law, you can say (almost) what you want, with scant regard to such considerations as truth or accuracy, and get away with it.
You have no way of knowing if Amaral is wrong so your claim that he libelled anyone is just nonsense. For all we know he could be right on the money. (oops pun)
Have you read the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch?
As he never personally spoke to or met with the McCanns - its difficult to see how he could form some of the derogatory opinions he did of them - from what was only ever 2nd hand information from other people.
To this day I do not understand why he chose to put himself at such an obvious disadvantage by taking that approach.
IMO
As he never personally spoke to or met with the McCanns - its difficult to see how he could form some of the derogatory opinions he did of them - from what was only ever 2nd hand information from other people.
To this day I do not understand why he chose to put himself at such an obvious disadvantage by taking that approach.
Point to where Amaral claims this because you won't find it. He made mention of Calpol in just two places in his book and they were general comments related to Maddie's sleeping. If readers like ferryman want to infer something more then that is up to them.
The insinuations Amaral made in his book re Calpol are unmistakeable IMO. Why would he even mention Calpol if it wasn't his intention to plant seeds in his readers' minds? What other reason could there be?
The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The insinuations Amaral made in his book re Calpol are unmistakeable IMO. Why would he even mention Calpol if it wasn't his intention to plant seeds in his readers' minds? What other reason could there be?
It wasn't his job to speak to them even if he could and as far as meeting them he would have been there when they were interviewed watching the proceedings and liaising with his officers. Clearly the McCanns were not aware of him or what he was such was their state of mind.
John claims Amaral is at liberty to espouse any theory he likes and impugn but not defame. How is that possible though? How do you theorize that a man disposed of his daughter's body after an accidental overdose of Calpol (sic) without defaming that man?
If Amaral had personally observed them then IMO he would have explained how he did that. But not a word. He certainly did his best in his book to disguise the fact that he'd never met them, also during TV interviews etc when he didn't give a straight answer when asked. Why the reluctance to reveal that info to the public if he had no problem with it?.
Common sense alone dictates that actually meeting and speaking to potential suspects face to face would be advantageous to a policeman trained to observe - rather than relying on the words and opinions of others.
Why he would want to deprive himself of the opportunity to make his own professional assessment of the McCanns - I have no idea.
AIMHO
If Amaral had personally observed them then IMO he would have explained how he did that. But not a word. He certainly did his best in his book to disguise the fact that he'd never met them, also during TV interviews etc when he didn't give a straight answer when asked. Why the reluctance to reveal that info to the public if he had no problem with it?.
Common sense alone dictates that actually meeting and speaking to potential suspects face to face would be advantageous to a policeman trained to observe - rather than relying on the words and opinions of others.
Why he would want to deprive himself of the opportunity to make his own professional assessment of the McCanns - I have no idea.
AIMHO
According to the Portuguese Appeal Court the thesis was based on the investigation prior to the archive, make of that what you may.
As for impugning someone, disputing a version of events is not a defamation.
accusing someone of lying to the police....committing perjury...is defamation however much you try to pretend it isnt
Point to where Amaral claims this because you won't find it. He made mention of Calpol in just two places in his book and they were general comments related to Maddie's sleeping. If readers like ferryman want to infer something more then that is up to them.Why mention Calpol and Madeleine's sleeping at all then? Come off it Angelo, answer my main point or are you now going to claim that Amaral did not impugn the McCanns nor firmly put them in the frame in his book?
Planting seeds is one thing and I do agree that happened but he did not state that the parents killed their daughter as ferryman claimed. This is not the first time he has made claims which have been found wanting yet he considers himself to be a truth teller.
I have read it several times, it is neutral as expected.maybe you would be so good as to quote the post where I made that claim?
In any event, we are discussing Amaral, not the Prosecutor or the AG. Until such time as Maddie's fate is known Amaral's thesis is as good as anyone else's imho.
Maybe you or Alfie will be good enough to post where you claim Amaral has stated that the parents killed her?
The insinuations Amaral made in his book re Calpol are unmistakeable IMO. Why would he even mention Calpol if it wasn't his intention to plant seeds in his readers' minds? What other reason could there be?Precisely.
According to the Portuguese Appeal Court the thesis was based on the investigation prior to the archive, make of that what you may.So can we impugn the McCanns and Robert Murat and Martin Grime on this forum and not have you dole out points for libel then?? Some clarity please.
As for impugning someone, disputing a version of events is not a defamation.
We seem to have a thread that is self proving. We have a group of people who believe an abductor took a little girl left alone in an unlocked apartment and an investigating policeman is the bad guy.He's one of the bad guys, not AS bad as the abductor who took the little girl but bad enough.
The insinuations Amaral made in his book re Calpol are unmistakeable IMO. Why would he even mention Calpol if it wasn't his intention to plant seeds in his readers' minds? What other reason could there be?In the minds of those who believe the McCanns are guilty of a cover up there needs to be a sinister reason for hiding the body after the child's supposedly fatal accident. The motive as clearly hinted at by Amaral is that the McCanns sedated their children, and that is why they needed to cover up the death, because without the sedation aspect there would have been no need for a cover up. THAT is why it's mentioned in the book, and it's an integral part of his thesis.
He's one of the bad guys, not AS bad as the abductor who took the little girl but bad enough.
In the minds of those who believe the McCanns are guilty of a cover up there needs to be a sinister reason for hiding the body after the child's supposedly fatal accident. The motive as clearly hinted at by Amaral is that the McCanns sedated their children, and that is why they needed to cover up the death, because without the sedation aspect there would have been no need for a cover up. THAT is why it's mentioned in the book, and it's an integral part of his thesis.
I think there may be an element of attack being the best form of defence.
Quite brilliant, actually
accusing someone of lying to the police....committing perjury...is defamation however much you try to pretend it is
Why mention Calpol and Madeleine's sleeping at all then? Come off it Angelo, answer my main point or are you now going to claim that Amaral did not impugn the McCanns nor firmly put them in the frame in his book?
So can we impugn the McCanns and Robert Murat and Martin Grime on this forum and not have you dole out points for libel then?? Some clarity please.
He's one of the bad guys, not AS bad as the abductor who took the little girl but bad enough.
I think there may be an element of attack being the best form of defence.
Quite brilliant, actually.
Having launched the McCanns into the maelstrom of suspicion ... nobody was scrutinising his performance when a serving officer while at the same time failing to bother with the official archiving report.
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/pj-legal-summary-there-is-no-evidence.html
A detectives role is to investigate all possibilities and that is exactly what Amaral did.
Agreed that the AG found there to be no indications of the practise of any crime but that's not to say there weren't any. They do say that the truth is but a lie yet undiscovered.
You are shocking me, John. The McCanns really do seem to have had their right to the presumption of innocence forfeited for them mainly through the efforts of this one man.
You are shocking me, John. The McCanns really do seem to have had their right to the presumption of innocence forfeited for them mainly through the efforts of this one man.
I think if Madeleine were to turn up alive and well that Mr Amaral would become media shy overnight.
There is no doubt that former Portuguese police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has formed a view as to what befell Madeleine McCann and has not been shy in speaking his mind on the disappearance whenever the opportunity arises. He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame.
His theory is based on the knowledge he accrued as coordinator of the investigation prior to his removal from the case in August 2007 and allows him certain advantages over the rest of us. As coordinator he was at the centre of the investigation with all the detectives involved in the case answering directly to him. He was also central to the involvement of the English police and was extremely cognisant of their thoughts on the investigation. Indeed, it was the involvement and actions of the English police which indirectly brought about his own demise and eventual removal from the investigation when he complained to the Press about said involvement.
Amaral might well have promoted the thesis that Madeleine died in apartment 5a but proving it is another matter.
The dictionary definition of coordinator is an easy one.I doubt very much that his job description would shed any light on this. From personal experience, I know that in turbulent times one's superiors in a large organisation do not give a fig about job descriptions. The Madeleine case was not turbulent times. It was trying to boldly go where no police force had gone before, and not achieving that.
What are the actual responsibilities of a Portuguese police coordinator in a criminal investigation ... or if preferred ... what is the job description?
To evaluate Goncalo Amaral's role in Madeleine McCann's case it is necessary to know exactly the responsibilities assigned to him and the parameters he was expected to work within.
As there's been no trial they still enjoy the presumption of innocence in law. It means they wouldn't have to prove their innocence if charged with an offence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their guilt.
It's a fact that the McCanns came under suspicion and were therefore made arguidos. That clearly wasn't through the efforts of one man, that would be ridiculous.
As there's been no trial they still enjoy the presumption of innocence in law. It means they wouldn't have to prove their innocence if charged with an offence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their guilt.
It's a fact that the McCanns came under suspicion and were therefore made arguidos. That clearly wasn't through the efforts of one man, that would be ridiculous.
As there's been no trial they still enjoy the presumption of innocence in law. It means they wouldn't have to prove their innocence if charged with an offence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their guilt.
It's a fact that the McCanns came under suspicion and were therefore made arguidos. That clearly wasn't through the efforts of one man, that would be ridiculous.
Apologists for Amaral often state that the vindictive process of making the McCanns arguidos was nothing at all to do with Amaral but was the responsibility of those higher up the chain of command.
In other words ... "a big boy done it and ran away". Which just isn't true according to Alipio Ribeiro.
McCann suspect move 'too hasty'
The decision by detectives to make Madeleine McCann's parents suspects in her disappearance was too hasty, Portugal's top policeman has said.
Kate and Gerry McCann were named as formal suspects - or "arguidos" - four months after their daughter vanished from their holiday flat in the Algarve.
Alipio Ribeiro, head of the Policia Judiciaria, said another assessment should perhaps have taken place first.
Madeleine disappeared from the resort of Praia da Luz on the night of 3 May.
In an interview with Portugal's Radio Renascenca being broadcast on Sunday, Mr Ribeiro, national director of the PJ - Portugal's equivalent to the CID - stressed he did not give his officers orders about who should be named an arguido.
But he said there was a "certain hastiness" in making the McCanns suspects.
'Act humanely'
The couple's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said: "Now the national director of the Policia Judiciaria apparently accepts they should not have been made arguido, it follows that there is no case for Kate and Gerry to answer.
"As I have consistently said, Kate and Gerry are entirely innocent of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine."
He urged Portuguese judicial authorities to "act humanely" by removing their arguido status as swiftly as possible.
"If the Portuguese police, under Mr Ribeiro, now do the only proper thing by eliminating Kate and Gerry from their inquiry, they and our own investigators can work together rapidly and effectively to find Madeleine and to bring those responsible for her abduction to justice."
Speaking from Lisbon, the BBC's Alison Roberts said: "It is not clear whether Mr Ribeiro means tactically it was wrong to make them arguidos at that point or that they should not have been made arguidos at all."
She stressed the full text of the interview has not been published yet, adding: "These comments are likely to stir up controversy, but would not carry legal weight.
Forensic tests
"Mr Ribeiro makes the point that he does not give orders to officers to declare arguido status and it would not be normal for him to step in and order them to remove it."
And she emphasised that arguido status was intended as a means of protection, giving those involved in investigations more rights than witnesses - for example over access to lawyers.
Mr Ribeiro has previously expressed caution about the case.
On 10 September - three days after Mr and Mrs McCann were named suspects - he suggested forensic tests had not been conclusive.
Mr and Mrs McCann have been marking the third birthday of their other two children, twins Sean and Amelie, with family friends at their home in Rothley, Leicestershire.
In his latest internet blog entry, Mr McCann wrote: "We hope and pray that they will never have another birthday without Madeleine here."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7224347.stm
I doubt very much that his job description would shed any light on this. From personal experience, I know that in turbulent times one's superiors in a large organisation do not give a fig about job descriptions. The Madeleine case was not turbulent times. It was trying to boldly go where no police force had gone before, and not achieving that.
It is hard to pick out a principal actor who came out with reputation intact in this case - perhaps Rebelo.
Have you not read my previous post on this, senior police officers don't normally meet suspects.
The presumption of innocence is a basic human right.
Do you really think Brietta in your wildest imaginations, that any of your typed mantra will make a scrap of difference now.
The case is unsolved.
There is not a scrap of 'evidence' which can point to abduction, which cannot be explained by the other scenarios.
To use a well worn idiom, you are flogging a dead horse.
The McCann's and associates statements were not consistent, but you know that all too well.
Investigation of the parents was par for the course.
The SY investigation has gone nowhere, and thinking otherwise is merely a delusion.
No-one disputes that ... "Investigation of the parents was par for the course." Normal police procedure in a case involving a missing child.
What is of interest is the character destroying imposition of arguido status on the parents of the missing child and what justification there may have been to take that action.
We do know that in the days following, changes to Portuguese law made it necessary for there to be supporting evidence before arguido status could be imposed ... in Madeleine's case it would have allowed more time for forensic evidence to be analysed appropriately.
I think it perfectly possible that arguido status was imposed ...
a) to destroy the McCanns' reputations and weaken their position
b) to elicit a confession in the knowledge there was no valid evidence which would have allowed charges to be laid
against them
Without doubt the McCanns were made arguidos inappropriately and - as attested by Alipio Ribeiro, head of the Policia Judiciaria - too hastily.
A detectives role is to investigate all possibilities and that is exactly what Amaral did.
I disagree that that is what Amaral did. It's the role of a detective to follow all of the evidence and hopefully find the perpetrator, not to decide who the perpetrator is on day one and then set out to fit the evidence to them by cherry picking those facts from the evidence which are convenient - and pretending that those facts which are not convenient - don't exist.
Neither is it the role of detectives to first of all abuse and break the law of the land themselves, by poisoning the minds of the general public via a smear campaign in the media - against the people you have decided are guilty.
You can make a case against anyone by using those unprofessional tactics.
AIMHO
The presumption of innocence is a basic human right.
A detectives role is to investigate all possibilities and that is exactly what Amaral did.Is a detective's role to then write a book and promote it vigorously in the media it to promulgate his theory, thereby impugning and accusing his victims / suspects in print and on air for the rest of his life?
You do know what impugn means? It isn't always to do with integrity.What??? I know what impugn means thank you, and if you dispute the truth, validity or honesty of a persons actions or deeds then what is that, if not to question their integrity? So, I'll ask again:
impugn
ɪmˈpjuːn/
verb
to dispute the truth, validity, or honesty of (a statement or motive); call into question.
Is a detective's role to then write a book and promote it vigorously in the media it to promulgate his theory, thereby impugning and accusing his victims / suspects in print and on air for the rest of his life?
He was no longer a detective, I believe, hence plenty of time on his hands to appear in the media.The question wasn't about how much time he had on his hands.
You are shocking me, John. The McCanns really do seem to have had their right to the presumption of innocence forfeited for them mainly through the efforts of this one man.
I don't agree, events which followed the disappearance are extremely concerning.What events are you talking about?
As there's been no trial they still enjoy the presumption of innocence in law. It means they wouldn't have to prove their innocence if charged with an offence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their guilt.
It's a fact that the McCanns came under suspicion and were therefore made arguidos. That clearly wasn't through the efforts of one man, that would be ridiculous.
Amaral gets the blame because he stuck his head up above the parapet but you are correct, the decision to designate Murat and the parents as arguidos was a joint decision by many others including the English police. That said, Amaral's input would have been crucial however and could not have happened without his agreement and the agreement of the PJ team under his control.
If we look at the Bamber case, a very senior officer was moved sideways when he disagreed with the investigating team below him, this isn't anything new and occurs regularly in investigations. Had Amaral not had the unequivocable support of those below him and of his bosses he could not have made the three suspects arguidos. And we all know what happened when that support melted away.
Amaral gets the blame because he stuck his head up above the parapet but you are correct, the decision to designate Murat and the parents as arguidos was a joint decision by many others including the English police. That said, Amaral's input would have been crucial however and could not have happened without his agreement and the agreement of the PJ team under his control.
If we look at the Bamber case, a very senior officer was moved sideways when he disagreed with the investigating team below him, this isn't anything new and occurs regularly in investigations. Had Amaral not had the unequivocable support of those below him and of his bosses he could not have made the three suspects arguidos. And we all know what happened when that support melted away.
If I had had anything to do with it, based solely on the information contained in the Policia Judiciaria case against him ... http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm ... I would have felt fully justified in making Robert Murat an arguido and prime suspect.I have to say this one bemuses me, because I can see nothing in the files other than a reporter thought his actions were suspicious. Can you see more?
Indeed, one wonders if the McCanns had packed their bags and headed back across the channel at that point, if he might not have been charged and brought to trial.
In my opinion there is no comparison between the justification for the three parties being made arguidos.
The fact that they are all three innocent and walking free probably shows that in cases involving high profile individuals such as these three the burden of proof enabling charges to be laid in Portuguese law must be seen to be being applied.
Murat has briefly detailed the devastating and lasting effect the suspicions engendered by his arguido status had on his life. I don't think the McCanns fared any better, but in their case I think that outcome was calculated.
Is a detective's role to then write a book and promote it vigorously in the media it to promulgate his theory, thereby impugning and accusing his victims / suspects in print and on air for the rest of his life?
What??? I know what impugn means thank you, and if you dispute the truth, validity or honesty of a persons actions or deeds then what is that, if not to question their integrity? So, I'll ask again:
Can we impugn the McCanns and Robert Murat and Martin Grime on this forum and not have you dole out points for libel then?? Some clarity please.
If I had had anything to do with it, based solely on the information contained in the Policia Judiciaria case against him ... http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm ... I would have felt fully justified in making Robert Murat an arguido and prime suspect.
Indeed, one wonders if the McCanns had packed their bags and headed back across the channel at that point, if he might not have been charged and brought to trial.
In my opinion there is no comparison between the justification for the three parties being made arguidos.
The fact that they are all three innocent and walking free probably shows that in cases involving high profile individuals such as these three the burden of proof enabling charges to be laid in Portuguese law must be seen to be being applied.
Murat has briefly detailed the devastating and lasting effect the suspicions engendered by his arguido status had on his life. I don't think the McCanns fared any better, but in their case I think that outcome was calculated.
I have to say this one bemuses me, because I can see nothing in the files other than a reporter thought his actions were suspicious. Can you see more?
Doesn't that occur regularly? Questioning someone's version of events is a normal debating activity. Nothing to do with libel.
I think you need to realise that what passes for opinion and free speech in Portugal does not necessarily pass the test here on in the UK.
You have read the Portuguese Appeal Court ruling I take it, the book was not found defamatory.
Erm...
No. I don't get it, John. Particularly not from you.
Why not? I thought the libel laws had changed here recently. If I repeat the quote from Amaral's book that you have seen fit to remove from this forum, would I be committing libel in this country?
Erm...
No. I don't get it, John. Particularly not from you.
I'm not sure why some have so much problem with understanding libel?
Depends which country you mean, our rules don't allow it as well you know.So in this country Amaral's book is considered defamatory, but not in Portugal, is that what you're saying? But according to you we all have the right to espouse any theories and to impugn. Could you explain how we are able to do this, whilst not defaming anyone? If my theory involved disposal of child's body in a bin by one of the parents for example, it would be my right to espouse it (says you) but how do I actually espouse it without at the exact same time defaming the parent?
I'm not sure why some have so much problem with understanding libel?I have a problem with understanding John's version of it:
So in this country Amaral's book is considered defamatory, but not in Portugal, is that what you're saying? But according to you we all have the right to espouse any theories and to impugn. Could you explain how we are able to do this, whilst not defaming anyone? If my theory involved disposal of child's body in a bin by one of the parents for example, it would be my right to espouse it (says you) but how do I actually espouse it without at the exact same time defaming the parent?
"He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame"
Hasn't that always been the accepted situation. Isn't that why Amaral's books are freely available in most of the world now but not in the UK or Ireland?I've read all my own posts thanks. Impugn doesn't just mean to question, it means calling into question by implying dishonesty or guilt of the one who one is assailing, references to online dictionaries which I have supplied and which you have chosen to delete. Was a time when if you claimed the McCanns / Friends were lying on this forum it would result in a warning from you and the post removed. Is that still the case or not?
Impugn has several meanings as you already pointed out so why don't you read your own post? According to the Oxford dictionary to impugn means to assail by words or arguments; to call into question , statements, evidence , etc, something we do here regularly.
I've read all my own posts thanks. Impugn doesn't just mean to question, it means calling into question by implying dishonesty or guilt of the one who one is assailing, references to online dictionaries which I have supplied and which you have chosen to delete. Was a time when if you claimed the McCanns / Friends were lying on this forum it would result in a warning from you and the post removed. Is that still the case or not?
Impugning means many things I agree so to infer it only implies or infers dishonesty is incorrect.Nonsense. If you "call into question" the McCanns' and their friends' version of events (Eg your thread suggesting the half-hourly checks were a convenient invention after the fact) then you are implying dishonesty on their part. Amaral's impugning of the McCanns in his book is one long critique of their alleged lack of honesty and integrity. But according to you this is is fine as long as it's not defamation, which it obviously is (as you yourself have confirmed by removing passages of his book from this forum!)
Impugning means many things I agree so to infer it only implies dishonesty is incorrect.Fall guy is a colloquial phrase that refers to a person to whom blame is deliberately and falsely attributed in order to deflect blame from another party.
Could we move on please and discuss the topic, "Has Gonçalo Amaral become the fall guy in the Madeleine McCann case?"
Nonsense. If you "call into question" the McCanns' and their friends' version of events (Eg your thread suggesting the half-hourly checks were a convenient invention after the fact) then you are implying dishonesty on their part. Amaral's impugning of the McCanns in his book is one long critique of their alleged lack of honesty and integrity. But according to you this is is fine as long as it's not defamation, which it obviously is (as you yourself have confirmed by removing passages of his book from this forum!)
Fall guy is a colloquial phrase that refers to a person to whom blame is deliberately and falsely attributed in order to deflect blame from another party.
So - the contention here is - Amaral is free of all blame but is falsely being blamed for....what, exactly? The failings of the PJ in this case? Then who in the PJ is ultimately to blame for the failings if not him?
Amaral must take some responsibility as far as his involvement was concerned but since he was denied the opportunity to complete the task that responsibility is somewhat mitigated. As far as being a fall guy was concerned I believe that blame was deliberately and falsely attributed him in order to deflect blame from others. It appears that political interference in this case had much to do with it.Blame from which others? Who falsely blamed him?
You do know what impugn means? It isn't always to do with integrity.
impugn
ɪmˈpjuːn/
verb
to dispute the truth, validity, or honesty of (a statement or motive); call into question.
The first hit on Google.Perhaps you'd like to use google to find any example of impugn, impugned or impugning used in a sentence which does not call into question another's honesty and integrity then? Should be loads of examples.
Perhaps you'd like to use google to find any example of impugn, impugned or impugning used in a sentence which does not call into question another's honesty and integrity then? Should be loads of examples.
I have to say this one bemuses me, because I can see nothing in the files other than a reporter thought his actions were suspicious. Can you see more?
As there's been no trial they still enjoy the presumption of innocence in law. It means they wouldn't have to prove their innocence if charged with an offence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their guilt.
It's a fact that the McCanns came under suspicion and were therefore made arguidos. That clearly wasn't through the efforts of one man, that would be ridiculous.
Of course it wasnt, it was through a whole investigative team in portual, and probably two if you include uk elements, its a shame b...... has been brainwashed or otherwise thnks these biased thoughts herself that JUst Amaral made up a theory and went with it like a rogue cop, right up to ag level LoooooL, the facts say different
Sorry for late reply and bumping points but i only get to post here late at night..oh,and yes i agree its utterly ridicukous
But he was a rogue cop - and has a criminal record to prove it.
Please cite the conviction for "rogue cop" ta
The conviction that got him an 18 months suspended prison sentence in the Cipriano case.
Thats not a cite or any proof of rogue cop, sorry
Why not? What is it a cite of then IYO if not a rogue cop.
No, its up to you to define a rogue cop and then defend you accusation
A rogue cop is a policeman who abuses his position of trust and behaves like a criminal himself.
Amaral has a criminal record for doing just that.
Are you saying he hasn't? Surely not mercury?
Between Rogue Cop and Impugn we have two supporters, one relying on a fairly common usage and the other on a dictionary definition.
Just a question, was Amaral found guilty of knowing about any torture?
He wasn't a very good cop if he didn't know what was going on in his police station for nigh on two days.
In full acceptance of the statement made which removed all suspicion of wrongdoing by the McCanns and Murat I will not go into my thoughts from the time because they were wrong.So what else was there that justified making Murat an arguido? A thumbnail sketch will suffice.
Quote
Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's suspected abduction, and lifted all conditions imposed on them.
End quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2440157/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-officially-cleared-of-arguido-status.html
The Policia Judiciaria suspicions at the time leading to Murat's arguido status were wrong but in my belief worthy of investigation.
I do read a great deal more into the PJ record than the mere suspicion of one newspaper reporter. It surprises me that you don't.
The majority of people can see the wrong that would have been perpetrated if instead of latching onto Madeleine's parents Amaral had written a book of accusation directed at Murat.
Therefore far from being a 'fall guy' in my opinion Amaral has cynically manipulated a family tragedy into one of the most disgracefully self serving episodes in history.
Not only in his police station Eleanor - but with his officers - who were working on his case at his direction.
So what else was there that justified making Murat an arguido? A thumbnail sketch will suffice.
I am sure you are as competent as I when it comes to English interpretation.
It seems that our opinions of the Policia Judiciaria investigation may diverge somewhat ... and I will not discuss my opinion of the reading as it would certainly risk libelling an innocent man
- the suspicions of Murat were thoroughly investigated and nothing connecting him to Madeleine was found
- to make anything other than a generalisation and enter into the minutiae of the PJ file on Murat calls that investigation and its outcome into question
Can anyone tell me why Amaral had to make out that Gerry McCann knew that the person who alleged to know where Madeleine was and was going to ring with information, was a fake? Amaral accused Gerry of knowing this man was a fake in his book.
Can anyone tell me why Amaral made out there was a sinister force at work when his dog died? More or less pointing the finger at the McCann's? He did the same when his neighbours house was burgled.
Can anyone tell me why Amaral tried to make out that Gerry was this cold calculated man in his book with the 'he cut up bodies before breakfast' quote.
Why did Amaral mention 'Calpol Night' when it hadn't even arrived on the shelves?
Sorry but reading Amaral's book just confirmed to me that he is a sly person, quite willing to blacken the names of Gerry and Kate to turn the public against them and strengthen his theory of death in 5a and removal of Madeleine's body.
well can anyone tell ......why the mccs hired metedo 3..with cash from fund to dish the dirt on G A probably before he even wrote the book
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic24430.html
He wasn't a very good cop if he didn't know what was going on in his police station for nigh on two days.
Are you suggesting he did know?
He wasn't a very good cop if he didn't know what was going on in his police station for nigh on two days.
I think that Murat was picked on because The PJ in general knew that The McCanns could not have disposed of a body without local help.Crikey!
I think that Murat was picked on because The PJ in general knew that The McCanns could not have disposed of a body without local help.
No, he was 'picked on' because several of the tapas group and an overzealous female reporter fingered him when all he had done was try to help by acting as an interpreter for them. One even took part in a covert exercise to identify him.
As for disposing of a body, how hard would it have been to carry her off, hide her and return later when all had gone quiet? Local help was never a necessity.
People fail to realise the circumstances of why pressure was put on Leonor Cipriano. A young girl with a history of neglect was missing, her mother initially claimed she had been abducted then changed her mind claiming she had hit the girl, that she had hit her head off a wall and died of her injuries. The police were desperate to find this child in case she was still alive and the mother was refusing to cooperate. Little wonder she got a mild beating with a cardboard roll. I would have done the same in the circumstances, it might not be ethical but in those circumstances a speedy resolution was needed.
It's all very well people moralising after the event but they were not there or put in the unenviable position the police were put in. I cannot fault them.
Hmmm?
The Tapas 3 reacted when they saw him coming out of the police station on TV and denied whatever it was (helping to translate that night, from memory). Was he already an arguido at that point?
Angelo, you're a mod. This isn't the right board on which I could respond to this. Suffice to say that I disagree.
Three of them told the PJ that they saw him outside apartment 5a hours after Maddie disappeared.
No, he was 'picked on' because several of the tapas group and an overzealous female reporter fingered him when all he had done was try to help by acting as an interpreter for them. One even took part in a covert exercise to identify him.Easy as pie I'm sure, and you're going to tell us how a foreigner disposed of a body within walking distance of Apartment 5A without any digging implements or independent light source in the middle of the night, in the middle of a tourist holiday village, not only disposed of the body but did it so effectively that 10 years later it still has not been found!
As for disposing of a body, how hard would it have been to carry her off, hide her and return later when all had gone quiet? Local help was never a necessity.
People fail to realise the circumstances of why pressure was put on Leonor Cipriano. A young girl with a history of neglect was missing, her mother initially claimed she had been abducted then changed her mind claiming she had hit the girl, that she had hit her head off a wall and died of her injuries. The police were desperate to find this child in case she was still alive and the mother was refusing to cooperate. Little wonder she got a mild beating with a cardboard roll. I would have done the same in the circumstances, it might not be ethical but in those circumstances a speedy resolution was needed.
It's all very well people moralising after the event but they were not there or put in the unenviable position the police were put in. I cannot fault them.
Three of them told the PJ that they saw him outside apartment 5a hours after Maddie disappeared.
Three of them told the PJ that they saw him outside apartment 5a hours after Maddie disappeared.
But he was a rogue cop - and has a criminal record to prove it.
Please cite the conviction for "rogue cop" ta
Rogue coos are defined by multiples of wrong doing in their job
please cite for him personally
Easy as pie I'm sure, and you're going to tell us how a foreigner disposed of a body within walking distance of Apartment 5A without any digging implements or independent light source in the middle of the night, in the middle of a tourist holiday village, not only disposed of the body but did it so effectively that 10 years later it still has not been found!
Easy as pie I'm sure, and you're going to tell us how a foreigner disposed of a body within walking distance of Apartment 5A without any digging implements or independent light source in the middle of the night, in the middle of a tourist holiday village, not only disposed of the body but did it so effectively that 10 years later it still has not been found!
No. I'm suggesting he was a very poor copper if he didn't.
Harrison covered that very point, no shovel needed. I wonder was he aware of the Smith's sighting when he wrote his reports?
Well the court said he didn't and therefore wasn't present at whatever happened, so not sure how he should know. It was said that the beating happened in prison which the governor denied strangely enough.No, as you must well know, the torture took place on the Algarve at Faro IIRC. Why are you twisting facts?
No, as you must well know, the torture took place on the Algarve at Faro IIRC. Why are you twisting facts?
Leonor was fetched at some ungodly hour, very early in the morning, from Odemira prison without the prison Governor Dr Ana Calados knowledge. She was seriously tortured for hours only being returned two days later in a sorry state. She was covered in bruises and virtually blinded for a month.
http://database.statewatch.org/article.asp?aid=29207
Can't be a very good governor if she didn't know a prisoner was taken ?What a thoughtless response Slarti. Dr Ana proved herself a very fine governor, putting herself on the line by supporting Justice for her prisoner against the PJ; a risky thing to do. No person is at work every hour of the day, but to remove a prisoner would surely need the permission of the governor. Procedures appear to have been ignored by the PJ.
In fact if she said she was fine when she left the prison but didn't know she had been taken then she is making a statement that she can't know? I wonder who else was found guilty of that?
Well the court said he didn't and therefore wasn't present at whatever happened, so not sure how he should know. It was said that the beating happened in prison which the governor denied strangely enough.
What a thoughtless response Slarti. Dr Ana proved herself a very fine governor, putting herself on the line by supporting Justice for her prisoner against the PJ; a risky thing to do. No person is at work every hour of the day, but to remove a prisoner would surely need the permission of the governor. Procedures appear to have been ignored by the PJ.
Seems the Portimao PJ thought themselves above procedures?
Leonor was only admitted to Odemira Prison the previous day .... and in what must have seemed like the middle of the night, she was bundled away without the Governors permissiion. Then NOT returned for 2 days.
It is quite a long journey from Odemira to Faro in a police van probably going at breakneck speed.
Where have you got the idea that the Torture damage to Leonor could have happened prior to leaving prison ? It's a cover up for the PJ, shift the blame onto the prison !
Please cite the conviction for "rogue cop" ta
Rogue coos are defined by multiples of wrong doing in their job
please cite for him personally
It must be remembered that Amaral's one and only conviction was for changing a police timesheet in order to protect his subordinates.
The above quote is particularly interesting in the context when it has been disclosed that many serving police officers in the UK have criminal convictions. So are these UK cops rogues too?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13067129.More_than_150_serving_police_officers_in_Scotland_have_convictions/
and...
Separate figures obtained from 18 UK police forces showed that there are at least 295 officers and police community support officers (PCSOs) with convictions who are currently serving with the police.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33635962
It's a cover up for the prison, shift the blame onto the PJ. Doesn't quite meet your narrative does it?No, the courts accepted that she had been tortured by several officers of the PJ ... and five were charged.
P.S. please explain how the governor knew.
No, the courts accepted that she had been tortured by several officers of the PJ ... and five were charged.
But the devious sods had put a bag over her head so that she could not see, so she was unable to identify just which ones did it. Barstewards!
You KNOW all this; it has been gone over umpteen times. Why are you trying to change facts? That is devious imho
Amaral did not torture anyone.
Your posts are mere deflections Sadie, and it won't work.
P.S. CIPRIANO remains a convicted murderer.
Alf
don't you think the little girl needed justice ..or is it always just the parents...
why should it always be ag a who is fall guy ...or who always gets the blame.........
try blaming the parents..............
who have put themselves in the position they are in.............
serious allegations? I am quaking in my boots. It would be nice to have a court case here in the UK where theyIt's up to you Mistaken, but I wouldn't like to see you in serious trouble. A smack on the wrists perhaps. *&*%£
WILL HAVE TO PROVE I LIED.. oh dear how will they do that do you think?
They will have to show their evidence of the search being hampered by Amarals book
They will have to show evidence of them NOT saying on the Operah Winfrey show that Jane saw the abductor and a child wearing pyjamas like those ( holding them up)
I will retaliate by showing the BBC crimewatch where, non sardine munching, cops say Jane never saw the abductor- he was a resident
and I would show her eyesight was not so great she could recall details of pyjamas. in that light at that distance before talking to the parents...
So, Sadie do you think I will be their next victim? hahahaha
Amaral did not torture anyone. << He was head honcho; it happened under his command.
P.S. CIPRIANO remains a convicted murderer.
Yep, the greatest Miscarriage of Justice that I have ever come across.
It's up to you Mistaken, but I wouldn't like to see you in serious trouble. A smack on the wrists perhaps. *&*%£%£&)**# some folks would pay good money for that.
Only joking 8(0(*
If you wanted Madeleine to get justice you would want a Police Officer who could conduct a proper investigation.
I don't think Amaral should have been in charge of the investigation as he was an Arguido. He lied in court.
Then he accused the McCann's of all sorts of ludicrous things in his book in order to turn the public against them and strengthen his theory that they were guilty of hiding Madeleine's body.
I see the post that Mistaken just posted calling Shining in Luz by the name Luz, has been taken down along with my post reminding him/her that Luz was the nasty piece of work who tore the Madeleine appeal posters down and boasted about it.
My response has been taken down too; in fact it never was shown.
Why? have I hit the nail on the head?
This makes me wonder, 'Is Shining actually Luz' on a come back mission ? Back here on a different name heavily disguised to begin with as a Mccann supporter?
The fact that her blog is riddled with titles "The Mccanns did it" (or similar words) adds to that suspicion. That Shining, is pure and unadulterated disinformation and propaganda.
You are not dull. You know as we all know that loads of people dont bother with the small print below the heading in large bold print. People just read "The Mccanns did it" written by a 'respected' blogger.
Shining: Are you a re-incarnation of the poster Luz?
I see the post that Mistaken just posted calling Shining in Luz by the name Luz, has been taken down along with my post reminding him/her that Luz was the nasty piece of work who tore the Madeleine appeal posters down and boasted about it.Your post is still up on the ShiningInLuz Tours hit the MSM thread.
My response has been taken down too; in fact it never was shown.
Why? have I hit the nail on the head?
This makes me wonder, 'Is Shining actually Luz' on a come back mission ? Back here on a different name heavily disguised to begin with as a Mccann supporter?
The fact that her blog is riddled with titles "The Mccanns did it" (or similar words) adds to that suspicion. That Shining, is pure and unadulterated disinformation and propaganda.
You are not dull. You know as we all know that loads of people dont bother with the small print below the heading in large bold print. People just read "The Mccanns did it" written by a 'respected' blogger.
Shining: Are you a re-incarnation of the poster Luz?
Trying this again...
In Red, Can you tell us what was not done properly in your opinion.
Your post is still up on the ShiningInLuz Tours hit the MSM thread.
"Please dont call SIL Luz. That is an insult too far. S/he was the one that tore down and defaced the early posters of Madeleine appealing for information as to her whereabouts. Then bragged about it."
I have no idea whatsoever who the poster called Luz was/is, other than it's not me.
Trying what again?
Amaral didn't call 5a a crime scene straight away and allowed families to stay there after Madeleine disappeared, The bedding from Madeleine's bed was not kept for forensic tests. Amaral did not check that there was any video camera's in the area straight away. He didn't visit the scene and talk with the McCann's. Amaral didn't order any photographs of the group. He didn't have the twins tested for drugs. Amaral didn't have Mrs. Fenn interviewed straight away. Amaral didn't rule out Smith man, all he had to do was look at the list for the nannies doing the night sitting and look at the names to interview. He misunderstood the forensic results.
Then after all this he decided the McCann's were guilty and wouldn't follow any other route but his own theory of what happened.
I am sure I have left a lot out.
Then he wrote a book and had the audacity to make out he knew what the McCann's were like, the man had never met them, it didn't stop him saying that they give the children Calpol to help them sleep and that Gerry was a cold person among other accusations I have mentioned before.
Have no fear Sadie ... the mods seem to be fine with the objection you have to Shining in Luz being insulted by being equated with another poster.
Still here ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7660.msg362020#msg362020
Shining is renowned for efforts to publicise ... not destroy publicity ... on behalf of Madeleine.
It was perhaps one of the clearer examples that Amaral was unsuited to head an investigation into a missing child that he undervalued publicity and took the hump at the McCanns because they knew the value of such and did just that.
It seems that at least one adherent of that policy still subscribes to the 'no publicity' model feeling not the slightest bit of shame in boasting publicly to being a participant in destroying posters put up to publicise Madeleine.
What has the publicity achieved ?
A very simple answer to that one.
Is there? I would have thought that no internet poster can really say anything about Madeleine's case with any degree of certainty unless they are an insider working in the investigation.
Trying what again?
Amaral didn't call 5a a crime scene straight away and allowed families to stay there after Madeleine disappeared, The bedding from Madeleine's bed was not kept for forensic tests. Amaral did not check that there was any video camera's in the area straight away. He didn't visit the scene and talk with the McCann's. Amaral didn't order any photographs of the group. He didn't have the twins tested for drugs. Amaral didn't have Mrs. Fenn interviewed straight away. Amaral didn't rule out Tannerman, all he had to do was look at the list for the nannies doing the night sitting and look at the names to interview. He misunderstood the forensic results.
Then after all this he decided the McCann's were guilty and wouldn't follow any other route but his own theory of what happened.
I am sure I have left a lot out.
Then he wrote a book and had the audacity to make out he knew what the McCann's were like, the man had never met them, it didn't stop him saying that they give the children Calpol to help them sleep and that Gerry was a cold person among other accusations I have mentioned before.
Trying what again?
Amaral didn't call 5a a crime scene straight away and allowed families to stay there after Madeleine disappeared, The bedding from Madeleine's bed was not kept for forensic tests. Amaral did not check that there was any video camera's in the area straight away. He didn't visit the scene and talk with the McCann's. Amaral didn't order any photographs of the group. He didn't have the twins tested for drugs. Amaral didn't have Mrs. Fenn interviewed straight away. Amaral didn't rule out Tannerman, all he had to do was look at the list for the nannies doing the night sitting and look at the names to interview. He misunderstood the forensic results.
Then after all this he decided the McCann's were guilty and wouldn't follow any other route but his own theory of what happened.
I am sure I have left a lot out.
Then he wrote a book and had the audacity to make out he knew what the McCann's were like, the man had never met them, it didn't stop him saying that they give the children Calpol to help them sleep and that Gerry was a cold person among other accusations I have mentioned before.
Can we have the cite for the Calpol please?
From Amarals book. and IMO a clear attempt to convince his readers that calpol was used on the children as a sedative.
Quote
One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The mother admits having taken some to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol, and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday. At the time of her disappearance, Madeleine was sleeping in the same room as the twins. The latter, in spite of the noise, the mother's screaming and the comings and goings, did not wake up, as if they had been given sedatives. Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine's tragic end?
Unquote
Anyone who can claim the above is not a deliberate attempt to convince his readers that Kate sedated her children with Calpol needs to explain what he was attempting to do.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to wonder if and with what the children were sedated (as Kate McCann suggested).
But Amaral wasn't just 'wondering' if Madeleine had been sedated - he was blatantly insinuating to his readers that not only had she been sedated with Calpol - but that it was Kate who had sedated her.
If there is any other interpretation of that part of his book - then what is it?
IMO
Please cite the conviction for "rogue cop" ta
Rogue coos are defined by multiples of wrong doing in their job
please cite for him personally
A brief reminder, yet again.
She had already confessed to the crime.
The PJ were trying to find Joanna's body.
The woman and her brother remain convicted murderers.
In the biggest miscarriage of justice in Portugal since God was a lad, according to some, against which there has been no successful appeal.................. &%+((£
That's correct, one swallow doesn't maketh a summer!!
Gonc made an error of judgement in altering the police log in order to protect his subordinates. With his previous record he is most certainly not a rogue cop or a criminal and that my dears is why he was not immediately sacked.
Indeed, until now on this very forum a gofund me page is being set up by supporters to have Amaral disected and burned at the steak and the other 30 bob is for the appeal for immediate release of the convicted Murderers...
Sorry that may be another supporters forum.... 8(>((
Amaral's Book
quote "Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine's tragic end?"
Now what do we have here, Oh yes, a question mark wow. Some people put them at the end of sentences as they are asking a question. What Amaral meant to say was Kate gave the calpol what killed her daughter. OR maybe not. Putting it all in context;
It was reported that there was a lot of noise in that room, parents howling, people comings and goings and the children slept throught this though it has been noted that the children did habitually wake up through the night, even Kate checked to see if the twins were breathing. So Amaral is asking a question is there a chance someone had sedated the children. HE DOES NOT NAME KATE at all. He does not insinuate anything, he asks can there be a connection. Yeah and it is what police do... they ask questions Duh.
If you wanted Madeleine to get justice you would want a Police Officer who could conduct a proper investigation.
I don't think Amaral should have been in charge of the investigation as he was an Arguido. He lied in court.
Then he accused the McCann's of all sorts of ludicrous things in his book in order to turn the public against them and strengthen his theory that they were guilty of hiding Madeleine's body.
Right .......the thing is here you are all so happy to blame G A...put his head on the chopping block .....fall guy ...whatever....
you said you don't think G A should have been in charge .....
the mccs was ...
in charge of their children and well being ...and safety...
in charge of the decision........ to leave them alone....... .at risk....
in charge of .three small children .....in a unlocked room ..in a foreign country.....
The mccs were in charge....the children were dependent on them.... to keep them safe........... .......not G A.
But Amaral wasn't just 'wondering' if Madeleine had been sedated - he was blatantly insinuating to his readers that not only had she been sedated with Calpol - but that it was Kate who had sedated her.
If there is any other interpretation of that part of his book - then what is it?
IMO
What a thoughtless response Slarti. Dr Ana proved herself a very fine governor, putting herself on the line by supporting Justice for her prisoner against the PJ; a risky thing to do. No person is at work every hour of the day, but to remove a prisoner would surely need the permission of the governor. Procedures appear to have been ignored by the PJ.
Seems the Portimao PJ thought themselves above procedures?
Leonor was only admitted to Odemira Prison the previouxs day .... and in what must have seemed like the middle of the night, she was bundled away WITHOUT the Governors permissiion. Then NOT returned for 2 days.
It is quite a long journey from Odemira to Faro, at a quick estimation about 90 miles along twisting roads, in a police ?van probably going at breakneck speed.
Where have you got the idea that the Torture damage to Leonor could have happened prior to leaving prison ? It's a cover up for the PJ, shift the blame onto the prison !
Snippet from Marcos Correia's Report dated 8 April 2008.
Subject: Report on police torture of Leonor Cipriano
Another strange fact was that the Portuguese police had chosen Tuesday as the day to question her, coinciding with their week of vacation.
If I were the head of the police, I would never have allowed the behaviour of the Policia Judiciara. They got Leonor Cipriano at 6 o’clock in the morning, and then returned for her in the middle of the night. There was no formal request for this form of interrogation from the Director of the Policia Judiciara.
It was even stranger that, when enquiries began with an internal investigation into the interrogation and torture of Leonor Cipriano by the PJ, a team of two inspectors from Lisbon held a private meeting with her in prison. Their mission was to try to negotiate a sharing of blame between the PJ and the Odemira Prison in relation to the attacks on, and torture of, Leonor.
As a person of integrity, Dr. Ana Calado obviously refused to come to any compromise regarding something for which the establishment for which she was responsible at the time – Odemira prison – had no responsibility for whatsoever.
The Chief Prison Medical Officer said that Leonor Cipriano’s health had got even worse a week after she had been tortured. The blood had accumulated around the eyebrows and became highly inflamed and swollen, making her nearly blind for nearly a month.
My only regret today, said Dr Ana Calado, was that at the time I did not order more photographs to be taken to illustrate Leonor’s poor state of health on admission and immediately afterwards. Dr Ana Maria’s statement added: “I must say that in terms of her attitude and behaviour, Leonor Cipriano is one of the best prisoners that I have had for many years. She has not tried to commit suicide although she had many opportunities to do so after the fateful interrogation. Leonor has always had an excellent relationship with all the prison guards and the other prisoners, which has gone from strength to strength.”
With a touch of humor, Dr Ana Calado added that: “If your car had exploded this morning, I already know who would have been responsible!”.
Marcos Aragão Correia
Full Report in English and Portuguese:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7738.msg362158#msg362158
I think we know from anecdotal evidence that child killers to do not have an easy time in prison and are, on the whole, despised by the general prison population. I believe this is even more so in women's prisons.
The night of the hurricane in England, 1987, I was at home at my parents' house and slept right through it. Dad brought me a cup of tea next morning and was amazed. I didn't know the first thing about it till he told me.
I hadn't been drinking and I was certainly not drugged.
I just slept right through.
Perhaps a little unusual, but scarcely outside bounds of 'normal'.
Gonçalo Amaral has in many ways become the patsy or the fallguy but then this came about as a direct consequence of his own actions.
The Portuguese court found Leonor Cipriano guilty of killing her daughter and found proved that she was assaulted/tortured whilst in the care of the Policia Judicial in Faro. What one cannot do is pick and choose what to believe simply because it doesn't sit too well.
Coreia boasted after the PJ torture trial that "the target had been hit!". He has refused to reveal who paid him to represent Cipriano and pursue the PJ officers. I think it's about time this was investigated as he was in cahoots with Metodo, who were being paid directly by the Madeleine Fund, this being an obvious conflict of interest.
I think we know from anecdotal evidence that child killers to do not have an easy time in prison and are, on the whole, despised by the general prison population. I believe this is even more so in women's prisons.Perhaps some of the prisoners in Odemira jail had been falsely accused and badly treated by the Faro / Portimao PJ and knew the "score".
You all defeat me. I have never in all of my life come across such nastiness, regardless of any proof. I can only presume that none of you have any idea of the damage that you do.
I don't think the description of 'fall guy' could be even tenuously associated with Amaral.
Right .......the thing is here you are all so happy to blame G A...put his head on the chopping block .....fall guy ...whatever....
you said you don't think G A should have been in charge .....
the mccs was ...
in charge of their children and well being ...and safety...
in charge of the decision........ to leave them alone....... .at risk....
in charge of .three small children .....in a unlocked room ..in a foreign country.....
The mccs were in charge....the children were dependent on them.... to keep them safe........... .......not G A.
I don't think you quite understood my post, where in my post do I say that Amaral was meant to keep Madeleine safe?
It seems you have back tracked to the 'leaving them alone' as you had no answer to the accusations Amaral made in his book.
I said I don't think Amaral should have been in charge, and in charge he was, I don't think he should have been in charge as he was a perjurer 'sweetie'
Before you say it, Amaral made mistakes, but the hypothesis of accidental death has most certainly not been disproved.
Meanwhile do you have any idea how many UK serving police officers have a criminal record ?
I was answering xtina as to why in my opinion Amaral shouldn't have been in charge of the investigation.
I don't think you quite understood my post, where in my post do I say that Amaral was meant to keep Madeleine safe?
It seems you have back tracked to the 'leaving them alone' as you had no answer to the accusations Amaral made in his book.
I said I don't think Amaral should have been in charge, and in charge he was, I don't think he should have been in charge as he was a perjurer 'sweetie'
yes well .the investigation would never have happened .....if the Macs had took charge of there responsibility's ....
took charge of giving the children there right of being protected......
they were in a foreign country .in a unlocked room on a open road ...fgs
well seems he knew he would be the fall guy .......that is why he wrote the book...why should he take all the flack...he was doing his job ....its the mccs who wasn't
by Goncalo Amaral
Foreword
Certainly, this book responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited by the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years, without being given any chance to explain myself, publicly or within the institution itself. I made the request several times, but it was never heard. I, therefore, scrupulously respected the rules of the police judiciaire and I refrained from making any comment. But this goes without saying: I experienced that silence to which I was constrained as an attack on my dignity. Later, I was removed from the investigation. It was then that I understood that it was time to speak. To do that, I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely.
However, the purpose of this work is more important: to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the "Maddie case." Truth and justice are two values strongly anchored within me, which reflect my profound beliefs: they always guided the work I did for the institution to which I am proud to have belonged. Even in retirement, they continue to inspire me and to be present in my life.
In no way does this text seek to challenge the work of my colleagues in the police judiciaire or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation. However, the reader will have access to unpublished information, to new interpretations of events - always with respect for the law - and, of course, to relevant enquiries.
The only objective of a criminal investigation is the search for truth. There is no place for the "politically correct."
Ah yes, new interpretations of events!! Yes, where he accuses the McCann's of having something to do with the death of his dog, of having mistaken his neighbours house for his during a burglary, accusing Gerry of knowing that the person saying he had information to where Madeleine was, was a fraud, for hinting the McCann's drugged the children, for giving the impression Gerry was cold and calculated. Oh yes, new interpretations alright.
Search for the truth? Now that is where I really can't take him seriously.
Ah yes, new interpretations of events!! Yes, where he accuses the McCann's of having something to do with the death of his dog, of having mistaken his neighbours house for his during a burglary, accusing Gerry of knowing that the person saying he had information to where Madeleine was, was a fraud, for hinting the McCann's drugged the children, for giving the impression Gerry was cold and calculated. Oh yes, new interpretations alright.
Search for the truth? Now that is where I really can't take him seriously.
I have rarely seen a more warm and loving father than Gerry. His relationship with his children was so touching to see. Joining in with singing their nursery Rhymes, getting down on his hands and knees to be crawled all over and to become a donkey ride for them. He truly loved his little ones.
can you prove any of that was wrong ........no
same as you dont know maddie was abducted
Ok let's start with the death of his dog, what do you make of this paragraph, and why is it in his book at all? -Amaral ran a theme that British security services were involved.
I receive a phone call from Sofia, who insists on my going home: our Shitzu dog is dead. She found it that morning, lifeless on the ground, with a head injury. She did everything to make sure the girls did not see it, but she didn’t have the courage to remove him. When I arrive, everyone is already in bed. I place the Shitzu in a plastic bag, not sure about where I am going to be able to bury him. The ground is hard here. it’s not easy to dig a hole and I hardly have the time for it. I decide to drop his remains into a bin. The animal is small, but he seems to weigh more than usual. I use my car to take her. As I am getting rid of it, I realise just how easy it is to hide a body – and how difficult it is to bury….When I get back, I discuss it with Sofia: she is afraid. She asks me to abandon the investigation and to worry about our daughters rather than other people’s. For her, the dog’s death is a bad omen. I reply that she is unfair, that her fears are irrational. Justice must be done for Madeleine, as for all other children and adults. It’s my duty as a police officer: to seek the truth so that justice may be done.
Amaral ran a theme that British security services were involved.
I cannot for the life of me see how that paragraph points a finger at the McCanns, which is what was being claimed.
And if OG had read the book, they might just have ruled out grave digging in central Luz as a body disposal method.
It is quite obvious that he is hinting that someone killed his dog, an omen, a sign. He says his wife didn't want him to continue because it was dangerous she was fearing for her children[for some reason] then Amaral goes on to say, he has to continue for justice for Madeleine.I would agree with Xtina on this. That your interpretation of this is not supported by what is written in the book.
If not an accusation then why put it in his book?
I would agree with Xtina on this. That your interpretation of this is not supported by what is written in the book.
I simply took it to mean that despite some odd events, he was going to fulfil his duty. To interpret this as the work of the McCanns requires that they could foresee they were to be made arguidos, or that having left Portugal, they had such vast reach that they could get dirty deeds done on their behalf. That is stretching it too far, IMO.
You are entitled to your opinion. Why put it in his book? Why mention getting justice for Madeleine?I've covered why it entered the book. It portrays him in a good light, a man of courage and integrity.
You must remember he is writing this book AFTER the McCann's were made arguidos. He is in my opinion, trying to say he was up against strange forces led by the McCann's, that he had to battle through the threats.
Now the burglary. He says his dog was barking and howling. Then he explains about his temper saying that the British police should concentrate on the Portuguese investigation. Then you get this -Again, it depends on the date of this incident. Pre-arguido? Post-arguido? Pre removal from the case? Post removal from the case?
At last, I get home. It’s when I visit my neighbours that I finally understand the reason for my dog’s agitation the previous night. Their house has been burgled. The thieves left behind lots of valuable objects but snatched a briefcase containing personal documents. Deep down, I can’t help thinking that perhaps they mistook their target.
So what is he insinuating this time?
I've covered why it entered the book. It portrays him in a good light, a man of courage and integrity.
When the book was written is not pertinent.
The important dates are when the dog incident occurred and when the McCanns were made arguidos. If before arguidodom, the McCanns could predict the future. If after arguidodom, the allegedly disgraced McCanns still had supporters in Portugal trying to scare Amaral.
Neither fits.
Again, it depends on the date of this incident. Pre-arguido? Post-arguido? Pre removal from the case? Post removal from the case?
That is if you believe what he says. He could be fitting those written paragraphs with the incidents that occurred in order for the reader to think the McCann's were responsible.I don't know if his dog died. I don't know if his wife said what is claimed.
For instance, maybe his dog did die, but did Sophia actually say what she did
He wrote his book when he left the force, he could say anything in it couldn't he?The pertinent date is the date of the burglary, and how that fits with the other dates.
Now the burglary. He says his dog was barking and howling. Then he explains about his temper saying that the British police should concentrate on the Portuguese investigation. Then you get this -
At last, I get home. It’s when I visit my neighbours that I finally understand the reason for my dog’s agitation the previous night. Their house has been burgled. The thieves left behind lots of valuable objects but snatched a briefcase containing personal documents. Deep down, I can’t help thinking that perhaps they mistook their target.
So what is he insinuating this time?
I wonder how Amaral's wife reacted to the the news that her dog had been dumped in a bin. Doing that was also uncalled for IMO.
Masterful understatement.
Imagine how sceptics might have responded if Kate had written something similar in her book.
I wonder how Amaral's wife reacted to the the news that her dog had been dumped in a bin. Doing that was also uncalled for IMO.
I have no idea and neither do you. I was discussing the tone of Ferryman's post towards Amaral's wife. She, from what I understand, spent a lot of time alone while he worked on the McCann case. She had every right to be nervous when she found her dog killed and has done nothing to deserve being discussed in a sarcastic manner.
I have no idea and neither do you. I was discussing the tone of Ferryman's post towards Amaral's wife. She, from what I understand, spent a lot of time alone while he worked on the McCann case. She had every right to be nervous when she found her dog killed and has done nothing to deserve being discussed in a sarcastic manner.
But why should she be nervous about her husband working on the McCann case?
Its Amaral who tells us (below) that Sophia linked the death of her dog to the McCanns . Amaral then tells her that her fears are irrational and that justice must be done for Madeleine - but only after he has firmly planted the seed of a connection between the killing of their dog to the McCanns in his readers minds IMO.
He uses this same 'seed planting' tactic throughout his book.
Quote
When I get back, I discuss it with Sofia: she is afraid. She asks me to abandon the investigation and to worry about our daughters rather than other people’s. For her, the dog’s death is a bad omen. I reply that she is unfair, that her fears are irrational. Justice must be done for Madeleine, as for all other children and adults. It’s my duty as a police officer: to seek the truth so that justice may be done.
Unquote
AIMHO
To repeat; my point is not what Amaral said, hinted, or inferred. My point is that Amaral's wife isn't fair game for nasty insinuations;
Amaral (as I say), plagiarising Harrison, wrote this sob-sob story of his wife pleading with him to quit the investigation after finding the body of their pet dog with head injuries, and she is scared (poor lamb!).
Ferryman
Was she supposed to take the death of her dog in her stride? I think a lot of people would have been unnerved to find their dog dead from head injuries. It seems those who lecture others on empathy can empathise only with certain chosen ones.
To repeat; my point is not what Amaral said, hinted, or inferred. My point is that Amaral's wife isn't fair game for nasty insinuations;
Amaral (as I say), plagiarising Harrison, wrote this sob-sob story of his wife pleading with him to quit the investigation after finding the body of their pet dog with head injuries, and she is scared (poor lamb!).
Ferryman
Was she supposed to take the death of her dog in her stride? I think a lot of people would have been unnerved to find their dog dead from head injuries. It seems those who lecture others on empathy can empathise only with certain chosen ones.
It seems you have more empathy for someone who has lost their dog than the McCanns who have lost their daughter
No lecture needed to show the absurdity of that
The ironic thing being they both probably met the same end.You are jumping the gun Angelo ... and there is something very nasty and not needed about your response IMO
I may have had more sympathy for Sophia if she had not injected herself into the case with her open letter to Kate which incidentally is 100% sarcastic from beginning to end.
The whole dog incident as described by Amaral in his book is an attempt to infer (via his wife) that there was some sinister connection between the death of the dog and the McCanns. Although why she would come to that conclusion on her own - he does not explain.
AIMHO
G A wife and children are totally innocent in all this ...yet have had their life ruined....through no fault of their own
You are jumping the gun Angelo ... and there is something very nasty and not needed about your response IMO
SY are still searching so they seem to think there is a high chance that Madeleine is still alive ... out there somewhere.
It seems you have more empathy for someone who has lost their dog than the McCanns who have lost their daughter
No lecture needed to show the absurdity of that
I may have had more sympathy for Sophia if she had not injected herself into the case with her open letter to Kate which incidentally is 100% sarcastic from beginning to end.
The whole dog incident as described by Amaral in his book is an attempt to infer (via his wife) that there was some sinister connection between the death of the dog and the McCanns. Although why she would come to that conclusion on her own - he does not explain.
AIMHO
The thing about attempting to dig a hole to bury the dog is plagiarising Harrison's work in digging holes to assess the feasibility of 'beach-burial', which Harrison ruled out.
Amaral never figured that out, and seemed to be claiming (personal) 'credit' for the theory of 'burial'.
I don't follow that.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain the reasoning behind that statement.
I receive a phone call from Sofia, who insists on my going home: our Shitzu dog is dead. She found it that morning, lifeless on the ground, with a head injury. She did everything to make sure the girls did not see it, but she didn't have the courage to remove him. When I arrive, everyone is already in bed. I place the Shitzu in a plastic bag, not sure about where I am going to be able to bury him. The ground is hard here. it's not easy to dig a hole and I hardly have the time for it. I decide to drop his remains into a bin. The animal is small, but he seems to weigh more than usual. I use my car to take her. As I am getting rid of it, I realise just how easy it is to hide a body - and how difficult it is to bury....When I get back, I discuss it with Sofia: she is afraid. She asks me to abandon the investigation and to worry about our daughters rather than other people's. For her, the dog's death is a bad omen. I reply that she is unfair, that her fears are irrational. Justice must be done for Madeleine, as for all other children and adults. It's my duty as a police officer: to seek the truth so that justice may be done.
Chapter 7: Suspicious behaviour and contradictions:
Thus was formed Amaral's hypothesis of what was supposed to have beeen done with the body of Madeleine.
Yes! thank you for reposting that bit which I did read first time out before posing my question.
You seem to have missed a bit out to whit:
How do you arrive at the postulation that this is a plagiarism of Mr Harrison's "work".
Which is what I asked in the first place.
Harrison took a shovel, attempted to dig holes in various places and thus ruled out 'burial' (as a possible means of disposing of Madeleine's body).
Harrison took a shovel, attempted to dig holes in various places and thus ruled out 'burial' (as a possible means of disposing of Madeleine's body).
Chapter 7: Suspicious behaviour and contradictions:
Thus was formed Amaral's hypothesis of what Gerry is supposed to have done with the body of Madeleine.
From the Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document (in English) by Mark Harrison 2007.07.23
"Prologue
In compiling this report I have walked around the relevant areas of Praia Da
Luz during the hours of darkness and then during daylight hours of high and
low tide. I have concluded reconnaissance flights using the Civil defence
helicopter. On 30/7/07a full site assessment of beach dynamics and a
digability study was conducted by me along with Professors Alveirhino Dias
and Oscar Ferreira costa1 and marine dynamics experts. Additional
consultation has been made with Dr. Jorge Goncalves, a marine biologist.
These named experts all work at the FCMA (oceanographic centre) University
of Algarve."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2258.jpg)
I take it you aren't quibbling that Harrison ruled out burial?
I take it you aren't quibbling that Harrison ruled out burial?
This thread is one which gives the Amaral team their opportunity to explain exactly why it is that Amaral is seen by some to be the victim here ... so far I've seen little to justify that aspect. Apart from his situation regarding his precarious position regarding his place in the Policia Judiciaria ... which predated Madelaine's case ... but which may explain his desperation to have it solved and someone - anyone - behind bars as a result of his efforts, which may have pulled his chestnuts out of the fire as far as the job and prestige attached to a 'successful' conclusion to the investigation would certainly have had for him.
His haste perhaps led to missing out on proper procedures, if he even knew what they were in a missing child case. Incompetence almost certainly led to the universally accepted agreement that irreplaceable loss of essential information from the 'golden hours' of the investigation occurred as a result.
If there was a Policia Judiciaria internal investigation to learn from the errors made at the time, I've not heard of it, although that means nothing as they do play their cards very close to their chests.
One of these errors lay in the failure to treat Madeleine's parents appropriately in the immediate aftermath of her disappearance and work the case on from there.
As an arguido himself he knew exactly what that status entailed, particularly the associated rights it gave.
Having witnessed the press feeding frenzy suffered by Murat I think he showed a certain malice aforethought in the added effect conferring arguido status on the lives of Madeleine's parents would have ... and he used it, not to help Madeleine but more to help himself get out of the corner he had painted himself into.
I don't see this guy as a fall guy and victim of the parents of a missing child ... if anyone was out to get him it was the PJ ... and he assisted them in that by his arrogance.
How have I no regard for Amaral's wife and children? Are you saying that she was correct in saying Amaral should have packed the case in as there was eminent danger towards his wife and children? As that is what Amaral wants you to think.
Who has had their life ruined? The McCann's were not to blame for the break up of Amaral's marriage. No one made him write a book.
My agenda is debating the McCann case.
With all this cr*p about what is supposed to have happened to his dog, Amaral was plagiarising the work of Harrison.
Acting on the instructions of his PJ paymasters, Harrison explored the possibility that Madeleine might have been buried on the beach, and ruled out that option.
Amaral (as I say), plagiarising Harrison, wrote this sob-sob story of his wife pleading with him to quit the investigation after finding the body of their pet dog with head injuries, and she is scared (poor lamb!).
Why would a pet dog be out and roaming alone at night?
A pet cat, maybe, but a pet dog?
Surely not!
G A ...put everything on the line when he wrote that book ....now where would he have been .....if maddie had been found alive.......
Most cold cases progressing at the rate this one appears to be would be back in the fridge by now.
Where do you get the idea that the McCann's have always classed Amaral as a threat?
They took him to court because he was claiming that Madeleine was dead, when he had no definite proof that she was.
Where do you get the idea that the McCann's have always classed Amaral as a threat?
They took him to court because he was claiming that Madeleine was dead, when he had no definite proof that she was.
Many cold cases run into years of investigation, sometimes filed away again and then reopened years later. Some even have new evidence after many years.
It is quite obvious that he is hinting that someone killed his dog, an omen, a sign. He says his wife didn't want him to continue because it was dangerous she was fearing for her children[for some reason] then Amaral goes on to say, he has to continue for justice for Madeleine.
If not an accusation then why put it in his book?
Re: Has Gonçalo Amaral become the fall guy in the Madeleine McCann case?
Is that you idea of a discussion?NO!
Is that you idea of a discussion?