Abduction ... what is the evidence ?

[debunker]

I am beginning to find Luz's postings a little xenophobic

[John]

I cant help it if your brother didn't see them looking.  They did.  No doubt they had to deal with the GNR, giving accounts etc. and deal with OC and produce photos etc, but they searched.

Sorry but more myths.........


I doubt that Kate went out.  No husband would expect that.  She was destroyed by it all and someone had to stay with Sean and Amelie and deal with the police etc.  Be there in case Madeleine returned.

Why were the PJ so late coming? 

Why wasn't the crime scene taped off?

Why did Amaral NEVER EVER interview Kate and Gerry

Why did Amaral NEVER EVER come to the scene?

Why has Amaral been relieved of his duty as a police Odfficer?

Why has Amaral got a conviction for perjury?



Btw.  Many a criminal has been caught from his clothes and his physical shape from the back.  So what is different about this?  Far better to have a drawing showing most of it, even if his face is not there, than have nothing to go on


Surely even you can see that, LUZ ?

I agree Sadie, Amaral has been thoroughly discredited, his conviction really says something as such convictions of policemen rarely occur in the Iberian peninsula..

[C.Edwards]

I am beginning to find Luz's postings a little xenophobic

I'm beginning to find Sadie's posts a little hysterical and full of "pro" myths.

For one - why the heck would Amaral interview the McCanns and why would it be an issue anyway? Sadie flings out the accusation as though it's a flaming dagger of proof of corruption/incompetence.

He was the coordinator.

Also the whole "convicted perjuror" thing is getting old. We've just seen convicted child killer leonor cipriano get another 7 months for lying. The court found that there was no truth in her accusations.

What oh what will you do if Amaral successfully gets his conviction overturned on the basis of Cipriano's lies? He'll just be "incompetent and non-convicted perjuror amaral" then, will he? 

[debunker]

Warning. Fake C Edwards

[C.Edwards]

I agree Sadie, Amaral has been thoroughly discredited, his conviction really says something as such convictions of policemen rarely occur in the Iberian peninsula..

Thoroughly discredited?  By a technical conviction because the story given by his men was found to be untrue at the time and therefore his statement corroborating their words had to be false?  And since then Leonor Cipriano has been jailed for another 7 months for lying about the whole thing?  And you state he's been discredited?

Wow...

So let's just wait and see on what happens to his conviction then...!

[gilet]

I agree Sadie, Amaral has been thoroughly discredited, his conviction really says something as such convictions of policemen rarely occur in the Iberian peninsula..

Thoroughly discredited?  By a technical conviction because the story given by his men was found to be untrue at the time and therefore his statement corroborating their words had to be false?  And since then Leonor Cipriano has been jailed for another 7 months for lying about the whole thing?  And you state he's been discredited?

Wow...

So let's just wait and see on what happens to his conviction then...!

Do you not think he should have found out if the words were false or not before lying? Yes he was discredited. Either he did not know what was going on under his authority or he lied. Whichever hardly credit to him.

Also utterly discredited as a policeman when he was thrown off the case for talking to journalists (as he tells us in his own book). Breaking the Judicial Secrecy law and discrediting the PJ at the same time. Not very clever.

[John]

Yes, it takes something special for the Portuguese authorities to prosecute one of their own.

[C.Edwards]

All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral.  I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns.  So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works?  I think you're sadly mistaken about that.

With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?

[gilet]

All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral.  I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns.  So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works?  I think you're sadly mistaken about that.

With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?

Yes, it takes something special for the Portuguese authorities to prosecute one of their own.

Unfortunately that is happening quite frequently now. Even one of Amaral's own friends Cristovao is being investigated over serious charges.

[gilet]

All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral.  I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns.  So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works?  I think you're sadly mistaken about that.

With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?

Well as he used the book to describe his own dismissal from the case there are good reasons to say the book itself discredits the man. I am only quoting what he wrote in his own book.

I don't think Amaral gives much evidence for a large number of claims in that book though and some of his claims are directly in opposition to the reality which is found in the official files. As you say, lets wait and see.

[icabodcrane]

All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral.  I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns.  So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works?  I think you're sadly mistaken about that.

With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?

Well as he used the book to describe his own dismissal from the case there are good reasons to say the book itself discredits the man. I am only quoting what he wrote in his own book.

I don't think Amaral gives much evidence for a large number of claims in that book though and some of his claims are directly in opposition to the reality which is found in the official files. As you say, lets wait and see.

Which begs the question

...  why did the McCanns pull out of their  libel action  against him on the eve of the trial  ?

[debunker]

All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral.  I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns.  So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works?  I think you're sadly mistaken about that.

With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?

Well as he used the book to describe his own dismissal from the case there are good reasons to say the book itself discredits the man. I am only quoting what he wrote in his own book.

I don't think Amaral gives much evidence for a large number of claims in that book though and some of his claims are directly in opposition to the reality which is found in the official files. As you say, lets wait and see.

Which begs the question

...  why did the McCanns pull out of their  libel action  against him on the eve of the trial  ?

DId they or are you lying.

[sadie]

@C Edwards

1.  Carolina Santos.  The police didn't even bother to investigate who walked her off.  18 miles from Pdl and less than 5 months before Madeleine went.  Had carolinas abduction been successful then madeleine probably would not have been taken.  Carolina was also a pretty 3 year old blonde girl

http://metro.co.uk/2007/05/25/snatch-attempt-of-girl-who-looks-like-maddy-398445/

2.  Joana Cipriano.  Mother and uncle severely tortured into confessing to a crime it seems they diid not commit.  Mother, Leonor Cipriano, bruised all over her head and torso .  Also blinded by blood running into her eyes for one month. 
That she was tortured has been proven in Court at least twice.

The only "witness" Leandro was also tortured into being a "witness" allegedly by Amaral.  Leandro rescinded his witness statemebt as soon as he could, and uis I believe sueing Amaral for torture

No Forensics were done on blood found in their fridge... no forensics done on anything  No body has been found, yet both are in jail for supposed murder, because the PJ made up a cock and Bull story that Leonor and her brother were caught having sex together ... so they had to murder her.  The story went on that L and Joao had cut up her body and kept it in the fridge, gradually gfeeding it to their pigs.  Amaral and Cristavao allowed (put out?) this wicked story to the media and the pair were the most reviled peeps in PT

There were three judges and three jurors IIRC and the one Judge stated that it was a miscarriage of Justice and refused to sign the commital.

The PJ have it on all their records that it was a murder.  That is their official line ... but absolutely NO evidence was produced ... just tortured out stuff and an appalling story from Amaral and Cristovao.  It was a total miscarriage of Justice. Cristavao was got rid of at that time. Both PJ Officers were on trial as a result of this case  ... in a torture trial.    He now faces a further seven charges.  Amaral faces at least one more trial.  Both "officers have been found guilty already of crimes.

Of course such a story ... illicit sex between brother and sister .. "evil" mother and Uncle killing the youngster because "she found them at it", and the cutting up of the body to store in their fridge and feed to their pigs was JUST THE TITILATING STUFF to sell mega numbers of books.  A fortune was made



The above two abductions, were in less than 3 years before Madeleine went and both within about 18 miles of PdL

Then there was little Rene Hassees abducted on the Atlantic Coast of the Algarve .. just 18 miles away from PdL.  That happened during the period of the Northern abductions.  After the suspect was taken in by the Authorities in about !999, there were no mainland PT prepubescent stranger abductions for five years until Joana went in 2004

You can pick up all the details of Jorge Sepulveda (1991), Claudia Silves de Santos (1994), Rene Hasse (1996) Rui Pedro (1998) anf Rui Perreira (1999) from the PJ official missing children pages.  All of these were in a small group clustered to the north and East of Oporto.  The group was in an area no more than 32 miles across.

The Southern group [Rene, Joana, Carolina and Madeleine] was in a cluster of about 25 miles across



The two areas are about 300 miles apart.  There were no other prepubescent stranger abductions in the whole of PT


Read up C Edwards and kindly apologise. 

SY are aware of these abductions and their very definite pattern.  Also of other pointers which I do not propose to make public.

Both men have made a mint out of writing stories about these missing girls Joana and Madeleine



Remember TORTURED OUT EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE.  It is Fascism at its worst.

[peter claridge]

In the two timelines written by Russell O'Brien the partner of Jane Tanner he fails to mention that she relieved him of his Childcare duties yet the claim was that Jane was in the apartment when the alarm was raised, in the first timeline he also fails to mention his claimed joint check with Mathew Oldfield; of course in the third timeline written by the group six days later (minus Dianne Webster) they attempt to remedy these discrepences!

[gilet]

In the two timelines written by Russell O'Brien the partner of Jane Tanner he fails to mention that she relieved him of his Childcare duties yet the claim was that Jane was in the apartment when the alarm was raised, in the first timeline he also fails to mention his claimed joint check with Mathew Oldfield; of course in the third timeline written by the group six days later (minus Dianne Webster) they attempt to remedy these discrepences!

How are these discrepancies relevant to a thread about abduction?

Why not start a new topic about this issue?