Return of the Inspector to the crime scene - Goncalo Interview

[Gertrude]

Could you provide a link as to where your cite comes from

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

[Mr Gray]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

By the time amaral wrote his book there was the final report which was quite different... I seem to remember  amaral saying he hadn't even read it..

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm not with you, who is 'he' ?  The quotes I included are from Tavares de Almeida and Ricardo Paiva.

  I was answering Davel's request for a cite about which was the leading theory in the original investigation, I think the intention of the book is off topic somewhat.

Paiva would say that, I thought my question would have made it clear who I was referring to.

[Gertrude]

By the time amaral wrote his book there was the final report which was quite different... I seem to remember  amaral saying he hadn't even read it..

I don't see how it is relevant whether Amaral read the final report or not, the interview which started this thread concerns Amaral's theory from when he was working on the case, as does his book.

[Gertrude]

He should have read the final report because it said all the evidence used to make the McCann's arguidos was not confirmed... Ie... Almeidas report was based on evidence that eventually was found to have no basis in truth

 I think you should qualify that with an IMO.

    I feel you are moving the goal posts, you repeatedly asked me for cites and to clarify them, which I did to show what the investigation's leading theory was when Amaral was working on it.
 The interview which is the subject of this thread is 'Return of the Inspector to the crime scene - Goncalo Amaral Interview.  The interview is about Amaral's perspective, not the later report and if he should have read it.

[Mr Gray]

I think you should qualify that with an IMO.

    I feel you are moving the goal posts, you repeatedly asked me for cites and to clarify them, which I did to show what the investigation's leading theory was when Amaral was working on it.
 The interview which is the subject of this thread is 'Return of the Inspector to the crime scene - Goncalo Amaral Interview.  The interview is about Amaral's perspective, not the later report and if he should have read it.

When amaral wrote his book.... Tavares report was not the main theory... Things had moved on

[barrier]

The archiving report confirms none of the evidence was confirmed... There was no confirmed cadaver odour in the apartment.. Therefore no proof of, any body in the, aoartment

There is no evidence of stranger abduction either.

[Mr Gray]

There is no evidence of stranger abduction either.

Yes there is

[Lace]

Why would people question his mental health?  He lead an investigation where he concluded a child had probably died and then had to consider scenarios in which a body was concealed and disposed of.

  The December date is obviously not a direct quote from Amaral or it wouldn't be in brackets with a '?'. It's not a surprise that detractors of Amaral would make no effort at all to try and clarify what he actually said about concealment of a body but accept a glaringly obvious error because it makes Amaral look bad.  In other interviews it seems apparent that the cremation in Church theory came from information gathered from others on the case and was in the period in which the McCanns had a key to the church and were visitors of it, ie. in the month after their daughter went missing.


Transcript from CMTV interview, 23/04/16

Liverpool Echo, 2014

 So Amaral says it is just one possibility that would have to be investigated in an investigation of this kind and that it happened up to a month after the disappearance. Note the fact that 'a source close to the couple' felt the need to counter this theory even though 'no sane person would believe' it.

Lets look at this logically.    For the McCann's to produce Madeleine's body up to a month after her disappearance, where would they have kept her?

Can you imgine what sort of state the body was in?    To hide her body under a deceased woman in a coffin,  do you not think the body would be emitting a horrible smell?   

Those people were probably family members visiting the deceased to say goodbye.

Amaral makes that disgusting implication oh yes he says 'it may not have been the McCann's'   then why say anything about it?

[barrier]

Yes there is

There is no forensic evidence a stranger got into 5a and removed Madeleine.

[Alice Purjorick]

By amaral... Amaral libelled the McCann's but the SC decided his freedom of speech was more important...that's how I understand it

Oh well here we go again.
You have not been paying attention to the original ruling by the judge in the court of first instance.
She did not award damages for libel.

[Sunny]

Yes there is

Of course there is Davel, just that some of us fail to see it and you are unable to show what evidence of abduction there is or at least apart from Madeleine is missing which can have several causes IMO.

[Mr Gray]

Of course there is Davel, just that some of us fail to see it and you are unable to show what evidence of abduction there is or at least apart from Madeleine is missing which can have several causes IMO.

i
I wil explain again

Maddie is missing... 3 possibilities
Parental involvement... Seems to have been ruled out
Woke and wandered... Highly unlikely according to the, archiving report..
That leaves abduction.... As highly likely... By indirect evidence

[slartibartfast]

i
I wil explain again

Maddie is missing... 3 possibilities
Parental involvement... Seems to have been ruled out
Woke and wandered... Highly unlikely according to the, archiving report..
That leaves abduction.... As highly likely... By indirect evidence

So no evidence then, just some periodic statements for public consumption by some law enforcement agencies

[Mr Gray]

So no evidence then, just some periodic statements for public consumption by some law enforcement agencies

Try this... Is there any evidence Maddie is dead