Amaral - a major discrepancy.

[gilet]

Regardless of whether Amaral was mistaken or not (to suppose he is lying deliberately is stretching credibility a bit I think) I think there's a world of difference between the discrepancies of a first person witness (i.e. Kate McCann) and those of the investigating coordinator.

What purpose would Amaral deliberately lying have?  What would be gained?  What is the point of this apart from to engage in discrediting Amaral?

I gave two options for this discrepancy. The first was a deliberate lie which I agree is unlikely but nevertheless possible.

The second is that it shows that he really did not have a proper grasp of the facts of the case.

Whilst the second does discredit Amaral I think it would be important to know if the Co-ordinator did have a grasp of facts, don't you?

If you think the discrepancy could be for some other reason do enlighten us. 

Remember in both cases the statements are directly attributable to Amaral.

[Luz]

Yesterday we were asked to consider the 'major discrepancy' between what Kate McCann wrote in her book about the curtains in Apartment 5A (closed) and what she apparently said about them in her statement to the police (open).

What then do Amaral supporters make of the folowing 'major discrepancy' concerning the confrontation of Murat by various of the McCann friends?

From his book:

On July 11th at 10am, a confrontation is organised between the witnesses - Rachael Mampilly, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien - and Robert Murat. Nothing new comes out of it.

From an interview with Amaral in 2010:

Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.
Who are they?
Those who I remember, besides Jane Tanner, were her husband and the wife of Oldfield. They faced a confrontation with Mr Murat.

So - was Tanner at the confrontation or not?  The photos taken at the time seem to suggest that she was not part of the group.  Has Amaral ever explained this 'major' discrepancy to the public?  As far as I know he has not... :-)

Is Amaral allowed to get details wrong, unlike Kate McCann who must remember every single detail perfectly and never contradict herself?  Or is Amaral right even when he is apparently contradicting himself?   Over to you, McCann "sceptics"...

Easy, about the Tanner I've already talked, and for me everything she said was bull...

As for Ms. Healy, what she wrote in her book is less than peas in a can to sell for those that like canned food.

[gilet]

Easy, about the Tanner I've already talked, and for me everything she said was bull...

As for Ms. Healy, what she wrote in her book is less than peas in a can to sell for those that like canned food.

Why are you diverting this thread with such nonsense. It is clear that your opinion of Jane Tanner and Kate McCann is not of the highest. Your dismissive comments show that.

But this thread is not about them. It is about the fact that Amaral has either lied or shown a fundamental failure to grasp the facts of the case. Can't you see that?

[Chinagirl]

@Luz:

Easy, about the Tanner I've already talked, and for me everything she said was bull...

As for Ms. Healy, what she wrote in her book is less than peas in a can to sell for those that like canned food.

My word, what a cop-out.  Can't or unwilling to answer the questions so resorts to petulant insults!

[gilet]

Are you really surprised. You must have seen that kind of behaviour before from people who have no real way of  defending the position  they hold in the McCann case?

[Chinagirl]

Are you really surprised. You must have seen that kind of behaviour before from people who have no real way of  defending the position  they hold in the McCann case?

Indeed I have, Gilet.

[gilet]

Regardless of whether Amaral was mistaken or not (to suppose he is lying deliberately is stretching credibility a bit I think) I think there's a world of difference between the discrepancies of a first person witness (i.e. Kate McCann) and those of the investigating coordinator.

What purpose would Amaral deliberately lying have?  What would be gained?  What is the point of this apart from to engage in discrediting Amaral?

The point of this is to show that people DO make mistakes of recollection which directly contradict each other, and to highlight the fact that Anti McCanns make allowances for people like Amaral to do such a thing  but that when Kate or Gerry McCann, or onw of their friends do it it is used as evidence of lying.  Why do you think that is the case?

I can think of only one reason. They are biased towards Amaral and against the McCanns and friends and their understanding of what is truth and what is not is clouded by that bias.

[John]

What surprised me in this case was that Amaral for all his bravado never ever met the McCanns.  As Coordinator in charge of such a major case with such worldwide interest did it not occur to him to question the McCanns himself at some stage?

[gilet]

What surprised me in this case was that Amaral for all his bravado never ever met the McCanns.  As Coordinator in charge of such a major case with such worldwide interest did it not occur to him to question the McCanns himself at some stage?

Even if it was not his role in the PJ to do the actual interviewing, I would have expected just as a matter of decency that the person co-ordinating the search for a missing child (for that is precisely what the Madeleine McCann case is) would have the decency to introduce himself to the parents of that missing child.

I cannot imagine that the OIC in a UK missing child case would be so downright rude as never to even contact the parents personally with a sympathetic word or two.

[DCI]

What surprised me in this case was that Amaral for all his bravado never ever met the McCanns.  As Coordinator in charge of such a major case with such worldwide interest did it not occur to him to question the McCanns himself at some stage?

Even if it was not his role in the PJ to do the actual interviewing, I would have expected just as a matter of decency that the person co-ordinating the search for a missing child (for that is precisely what the Madeleine McCann case is) would have the decency to introduce himself to the parents of that missing child.

I cannot imagine that the OIC in a UK missing child case would be so downright rude as never to even contact the parents personally with a sympathetic word or two.

He was made an arguido, himself on the morning of May 4th 2007, in the torture case of Leonor Cipriano.  So IMO, he should never have been any where near this case.

[Eleanor]

What surprised me in this case was that Amaral for all his bravado never ever met the McCanns.  As Coordinator in charge of such a major case with such worldwide interest did it not occur to him to question the McCanns himself at some stage?

Even if it was not his role in the PJ to do the actual interviewing, I would have expected just as a matter of decency that the person co-ordinating the search for a missing child (for that is precisely what the Madeleine McCann case is) would have the decency to introduce himself to the parents of that missing child.

I cannot imagine that the OIC in a UK missing child case would be so downright rude as never to even contact the parents personally with a sympathetic word or two.

He was made an arguido, himself on the morning of May 4th 2007, in the torture case of Leonor Cipriano.  So IMO, he should never have been any where near this case.

That is indeed a mystery.  And a disgrace.

[DCI]

Some very important info, about Amaral, on this site.

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/f55-goncalo-amaral-wife

Along with proof, of the type of person the McCann's have been up against, for nearly 6 years.