Amaral - a major discrepancy.

[stephen25000]

Does anyone know where to find the original of that interview?

Funnily enough no.  The only link to it (a translated version) I can now find is here:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=38782117&postcount=623

Interesting to note the following quote from it by Amaral in 2010

"And it is true that whilst there is no evidence of the involvement of certain people, the fact remains that there is no evidence of an abduction"...

Perhaps this particular interview was deemed a bit of an embarrassment and quietly removed from certain sites.  It did used to be on McCannfiles as the above forum link shows but is not there any more as far as I can see...

So Martha, what evidence is there of abduction exactly ?

If you want to start a thread about evidence for abduction feel free to do so.  This thread is about Amaral's "major discrepancy".  What do you think of his statement that there is no evidence of the involvement of "certain people"?  What could he possibly mean...? >@@(*&)

Quite possibly Robert Murat.

Now tell me, who pointed the finger of guilt in his direction ?

[stephen25000]

Does anyone know where to find the original of that interview?

Funnily enough no.  The only link to it (a translated version) I can now find is here:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=38782117&postcount=623

Interesting to note the following quote from it by Amaral in 2010

"And it is true that whilst there is no evidence of the involvement of certain people, the fact remains that there is no evidence of an abduction"...

Perhaps this particular interview was deemed a bit of an embarrassment and quietly removed from certain sites.  It did used to be on McCannfiles as the above forum link shows but is not there any more as far as I can see...

So Martha, what evidence is there of abduction exactly ?

If you want to start a thread about evidence for abduction feel free to do so.  This thread is about Amaral's "major discrepancy".  What do you think of his statement that there is no evidence of the involvement of "certain people"?  What could he possibly mean...? >@@(*&)

Quite possibly Robert Murat.

Now tell me, who pointed the finger of guilt in his direction ?

Robert Murat is a person not "people", is he not? 

As for your second question it was a female reporter from the Mirror I believe who first pointed the finger of suspicion at Murat.

Indeed,  the same reporter who was/is a close friend/associate of the Mccanns.


Also, Martha remember arguido status can be reactivated for up to 20 years.

Ah, let's not forget strangers standing in the streets as well.

Now that's magic.

[debunker]

Does anyone know where to find the original of that interview?

Funnily enough no.  The only link to it (a translated version) I can now find is here:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=38782117&postcount=623

Interesting to note the following quote from it by Amaral in 2010


"And it is true that whilst there is no evidence of the involvement of certain people, the fact remains that there is no evidence of an abduction"...

Perhaps this particular interview was deemed a bit of an embarrassment and quietly removed from certain sites.  It did used to be on McCannfiles as the above forum link shows but is not there any more as far as I can see...

So Martha, what evidence is there of abduction exactly ?

THere is an old saying in science

"ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE"

And even more important for non-rationalists

"ANECDOTE IS NOT THE OF SINGULAR OF DATA"

And further

"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE"

[Carana]

Was it from this interview?

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjoana-morais.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fmiguel-sousa-tavares-entrevista-goncalo.html&sl=auto&tl=en

No....


It's from here:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/OCrime25February2010.jpg&target=tlx_picbkf0

It can't be a translation error as the original is in Portuguese and it says the same thing.

[debunker]

You will find that I am interested in the TRUTH, using the scientific method.

If insisting people keep to the facts rather than fantasy, well, yes, i do reject fantasy- if that is control, so be it.

[Carana]

Has your questioned been answered, Martha?

[Carana]

Sooo... where are we on this issue?

Tanner was not there (according to the police files) and a scan of a PT tabloid states that, in an interview, GA had said she was.

[John]

Reminder to all posters to keep on topic otherwise superfluous and irrelevant postings will be expunged.

Thank you!

[gilet]

Sooo... where are we on this issue?

Tanner was not there (according to the police files) and a scan of a PT tabloid states that, in an interview, GA had said she was.

I think that there is no explanation for this discrepancy other than at one point Amaral was entirely untruthful.

Whether that was because he lied or whether it was because he simply never had a proper grasp of the facts of the case only he would really know.

It has to be one or the other but would be pure speculation for us to try to determine which.

[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"...

Tanner was not in the group that was "acareado" (confronted) with Murat because she didn't accuse him of being in the vicinity of the apartment before that event.
It was only later that she started saying that the man she saw looked like Murat. But you should know the evolution of Ms. tanner's sighting - she saw many different persons on that night, didn't she?

[gilet]

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"...

Tanner was not in the group that was "acareado" (confronted) with Murat because she didn't accuse him of being in the vicinity of the apartment before that event.
It was only later that she started saying that the man she saw looked like Murat. But you should know the evolution of Ms. tanner's sighting - she saw many different persons on that night, didn't she?

Then I was quite correct. If Jane Tanner was not in the group then Amaral got it wrong during the interview either deliberately or because he simply did not have a grasp of the facts.

[Luz]

YOU ARE WRONG GILET.
Ms Tanner was in a van, undercover, to identify Murat among a group of man that were crossing the same street where she insinuated that she saw a man with a child. Since she had already done this exercise no other means of identification were needed. And as I said, she only started claiming it was Murat after the others did.

[gilet]

YOU ARE WRONG GILET.
Ms Tanner was in a van, undercover, to identify Murat among a group of man that were crossing the same street where she insinuated that she saw a man with a child. Since she had already done this exercise no other means of identification were needed. And as I said, she only started claiming it was Murat after the others did.

I am not wrong at all. You are missing the whole point of the thread.

I never said she was not in that van.

She was not at the confrontation with Murat as Amaral implies in the interview. I am quite correct.

[John]

Does anyone really think that Mr Murat would have been so stupid as to have done such a thing on his own doorstep?

[C.Edwards]

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?