Amaral say's its a "publicity stunt"

[jassi]

Do you think the British media feel that they can begin to report Amaral's fridge theory, jassi?

Who knows ? All sorts of things are beginning to appear.

[Wonderfulspam]

Do you think the British media feel that they can begin to report Amaral's fridge theory, jassi?

No, I think the lead into that theory went cold.....

[Mr Gray]

No, I think the lead into that theory went cold.....

thank heavens someone has a sense of humour

[BigFatBlonde]

No, I think the lead into that theory went cold.....

Yeah, apparently the PJ put that one on ice

[AnneGuedes]

Yeah, apparently the PJ put that one on ice

It's like suspending the flow of time. But some are pragmatic and know that reality ends always catching you up. Without mercy.

[Redblossom]

yes sir mr Chemical  Ali

Sweet dreams lmao, the mccans have never won  a case ever and they are not going to now either, deal with it.........

[icabodcrane]

Sweet dreams lmao, the mccans have never won  a case ever and they are not going to now either, deal with it.........

 

Well,  this the first libel case that ever reached court in fairness,  so there's nothing to measure it against   (   threats and intimidation have sufficied in the past  ) 

 

[Montclair]

 

Well,  this the first libel case that ever reached court in fairness,  so there's nothing to measure it against   (   threats and intimidation have sufficied in the past  )

And the McCanns were convinced that threats and intimidation were going to be enough to get Gonçalo Amaral to give in before the trial began. But they were wrong.

[Benita]

well I will say amaral hasn't much going for him

sacked ex cop
conviction for falsifying a legal document in torture case
Adultery
threatening his fancy woman's husband with a gun ?
trying to rip his own brother off
and tax evasion


not a honest man is he...

[C.Edwards]

well I will say amaral hasn't much going for him

sacked ex cop
conviction for falsifying a legal document in torture case
Adultery
threatening his fancy woman's husband with a gun ?
trying to rip his own brother off
and tax evasion

not a honest man is he...

Was he sacked?
His crime was false testimony. As everyone who has read the case will know, it was a technical conviction and he actively did NOT falsify evidence which would have got him in trouble. Answer me this. If you are a supervisor at work and a customer is led to you with blood pouring from their nose and you ask what the heck just happened and your staff tell you the person fell over, then that's their side of the story. If the customer then says that one of your staff hit him, that's the other side.  You talk to your staff and decide that they are telling the truth and fill in an accident form.  Subsequently there is a court case and the customer is found to be telling the truth and your staff member was guilty of hitting him...

Are you now guilty of falsifying a legal document in a torture case? Or any case?  'Coz that's what happened to Amaral. He was convicted on the basis that he "should have known" when his "crime" was to trust his men.

Now subsequently your staff member appeals and wins. The customer is found to have a long history of self harm in shops seeking damages and is found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to 7 months.  Woohoo! You're off the hook and exonerated. Your report was accurate and you're no longer a criminal, right?

Well, not in Portugal... the "crime" stands as the offence happened when not all the facts were known and you/Amaral "should have known better".

Legally he's guilty. Morally, you tell me after you've thought long and hard about the scenario I've just given you.  I know it suits you to bash Amaral (and for the life of me I still can't see why... what if he had been taken off the case on day 1 - how do you know the next person wouldn't have done exactly the same as Amaral or maybe suspected the parents even more?  You can't just keep blaming one man for all the ills that befall the McCanns and look reasonable, you know?

[AnneGuedes]

yes..you must be terribly worried about anarel

Mr Amaral is an idealist, Davel !

[Benita]

Was he sacked?
His crime was false testimony. As everyone who has read the case will know, it was a technical conviction and he actively did NOT falsify evidence which would have got him in trouble. Answer me this. If you are a supervisor at work and a customer is led to you with blood pouring from their nose and you ask what the heck just happened and your staff tell you the person fell over, then that's their side of the story. If the customer then says that one of your staff hit him, that's the other side.  You talk to your staff and decide that they are telling the truth and fill in an accident form.  Subsequently there is a court case and the customer is found to be telling the truth and your staff member was guilty of hitting him...

Are you now guilty of falsifying a legal document in a torture case? Or any case?  'Coz that's what happened to Amaral. He was convicted on the basis that he "should have known" when his "crime" was to trust his men.

Now subsequently your staff member appeals and wins. The customer is found to have a long history of self harm in shops seeking damages and is found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to 7 months.  Woohoo! You're off the hook and exonerated. Your report was accurate and you're no longer a criminal, right?

Well, not in Portugal... the "crime" stands as the offence happened when not all the facts were known and you/Amaral "should have known better".

Legally he's guilty. Morally, you tell me after you've thought long and hard about the scenario I've just given you.  I know it suits you to bash Amaral (and for the life of me I still can't see why... what if he had been taken off the case on day 1 - how do you know the next person wouldn't have done exactly the same as Amaral or maybe suspected the parents even more?  You can't just keep blaming one man for all the ills that befall the McCanns and look reasonable, you know?

quite a story you have concocted there I must say ..you don't know that that was the case..amaral was convicted end of..mud sticks ...
the mccanns do not have any convictions ...as for bashing amaral.. why do you bash the parents of a missing child ???

[C.Edwards]

quite a story you have concocted there I must say ..you don't know that that was the case..amaral was convicted end of..mud sticks ...
the mccanns do not have any convictions ...as for bashing amaral.. why do you bash the parents of a missing child ???

That's a swerve worthy of davel himself!

Benita, it's not a story (about Amaral) I've concocted.  If you actually read up about the case, you'll find that's what happened.  The story I did concoct was one in which I thought you may find it easy to imagine yourself and one that mirrors what happened to Amaral.  I was only trying to see if you were capable of making a logical link...

The point about your Amaral bashing is that it's irrelevant. You're attacking an investigating officer basically because he doesn't agree with your point of view. If he'd been more more willing to "play ball" on the abductor scenario you wouldn't have a word to say against him.  Your logic is that because he has a criminal conviction he's a "bad 'un" and his policing skills are diminished. With all due respect, this is not a logical conclusion to be drawing.

[C.Edwards]

Exactly sort of point I made in another thread. Ad homenim attacks do nothing to further a discussion. It seems to me that these sort of arguments are the last recourse for those who have nothing left to argue. They are a lazy attempt to stiffle any further discussion. The fact that Amaral has a conviction, due to the type of conviction and the circumstances behind it, has no baring on this case and so should be unimportant.

I don't think that all those who are so quick to criticise Amaral are fully aware of the circumstances of the conviction.  I'm also yet to see convincing evidence of half the other stuff they accuse him of and it really perplexes me why the McCann-supporter tactic is to go after every person who doesn't agree with the McCann version of events with the proverbial attack dogs in the hope of intimidating or (in their eyes) discrediting in some way.  There seems to be an obsession with "outing" people as though that in some way diminishes anything they have to say?  It doesn't make sense to me and it always seems to be justified with an argument along the lines of "well you do it to the McCanns so there!" which seems to be a case of guilt by association as far as I can tell?  Because some that doubt the McCanns are extremist nutcases, we must ALL be extremist nutcases so we're fair game!

Back on topic, Amaral was/is highly respected in the PJ as an investigating officer. Had a great record for solving drug cases. Pretty obviously he knew what he was doing and he is someone that knows more about the case than any of us.  Another criticism flung at him by McCann supporters is "he didn't even meet the McCanns!" well so damn what?!  Who cares? What relevance does it have?  He was the chief coordinator, not the flipping family liaison officer so why the heck should he meet the McCanns? What difference does it make?  He's well able to formulate opinions on them from information given to him by his men so it really beggars belief that these accusations are supposed to be relevant about his policing capabilities.

It's just more of the same - attack the player, not the ball. Smear, discredit, accuse and repeat to fade.  I don't even particularly like the bloke from the interviews I've seen with him but I respect what he's achieved and was trying to achieve in the face of what looks like great adversity in the McCann case.

[jassi]

There is absolutely no need for a senior investigating officer to meet the family of the victim, or victim or suspect in any case. However, the senior officer is in charge of the investigation and therefore responsible for the conduct of those under him. The head of the RCMP said at a conference recently that it was a resigning matter if a subordinate broke the rules as the head is responsible for the actions of his subordinates. If not the top is always insulated from malpractice.

Do you not think that in the present case that Amaral was a little to willing to take the word of his subordinates? What investigation did he conduct? Did he look at the medical evidence or for any corroboration? It is yet another indication of the partisan nature of opinions here. Views on Amaral depend on what side you take in the McCann case.

Cipriano is a different matter that requires its own investigation to establish if torture occurred or not and not by anyone with a vested interest. It is not a stick to use to fight McCann agendas, or rather it should not be.

I think any and every stick is used, irrespective of how irrelevant it might actually be.
Amaral is seen as the enemy and must be crushed by any means possible.

What McCann supports appear not to realise is that events have moved on and the newspapers are no longer as supportive as they were earlier.  Attacking yesterday's enemy does not win tomorrow's battle