Amaral say's its a "publicity stunt"

[sadie]

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...

And then there are
- the criminal types he associates with
- Writing a book about a missing child virtually accusing her parents
- Writing it whilst he was still a serving cop
- Making money on the back of a missing child by writing this book
- From day one deciding that the parents had dunit
- from day one only looking for a dead child. not allowing the thought that she had been abducted to enter his haed

Oh and then there is the horror of the Leonor Cipriano case.   Dont tell me that he didn't know what was going on there, the torture.    He was head honcho

Dunno if he was also involved in the Michael Cook case, in the Jacinta Rees case or the Rene Hassee and Carolina Santos cases ...  but they were probably all Faro / Portimao cases. 

Cant remember the other things.   Terribly tired.

Nigh Night

[Luz]

Sadie, Amaral didn't VIRTUALLY accuse, he accused the parents in fact. The McCann were accused of obstructing the investigation, to start with, and to occult or make inviable to access their dead daughters cadaver.

If at the time of the investigation there were clues that there was a death inside the apartment because of signaling in various places, that there was cadaver scent in the McCann woman clothes, child T-shirt, stuffed toy, car boot,....was it so surprising to consider them guilty?!

Forget they are the McCann and imagine  "nobodies", would you find them poor victims with all those leads, not to mention all that was behind?!

[Luz]

If I was innocent and all the evidence that was shown to me was accusatory, you bet I would respond every question and I would stay foot in the Police station until they proved me wrong.

But the McCann with all the political, police and judicial protection they had chose to escape, sort of highclass burglars, in a plane filled with journalists invited by them.

[j.rob]

Gosh. Is that true? I watched his 30 minute of so documentary giving his version of what he believes happened and I found it to be entirely credible. It was not sensational. He was measured and conducted himself with far more credibility and professionalism than he has been given credit for in the British media.

His investigation team didn't give much credence to the Jane Tanner siting and it now transpires they were right to do so. In any case, as many others have pointed out, the manner in which the child was being held was very strange - very difficult to hold a child who is nearly four in that manner.

I'm interested in the comment about the McCann's being 'nobodies' -  I cannot help but agree that the case would have turned out differently. But why HAVE  the McCann's received so much protection from high places? The freemason link, the fact that they are doctors, links with Leicestershire police force, media links?

A quick look at some of the people they engaged to advise them after Madeleine's disappearance would suggest a few shady characters.

I've done quite a bit of background reading on Amaral as I took had believed what I had read in the British press and thought that he was trying to frame the McCann's to cover up a botched police investigation.

However, you can see that he was successful in securing the prosecution of a parents in an alleged abduction case. There was a lot of mud being slung at him from the defendant's legal team as naturally the guilty parents preferred to pretend that their child had been abducted than to admit that they had lied and face life in prison. And their legal team obviously wanted to win the case, because that's how success is measured in legal terms.

So, once I had a bit more info on him, I saw his work in a different light.

Also, the reaction of the McCann's to the sniffer dog findings (which I believe are strong evidence for the theory that Madeleine died in the apartment) was really quite creepy. If they had been genuinely innocent of having played any part in her disappearance, then surely the findings of the dogs would have worried them. Maybe it would mean that their daughter really was dead (they believe she could still be alive, remember - that's what all the fund is for.........to keep looking  for her.....oh right, I almost forgot.......)

But no. They dismiss the finding as 'inexact science' and Jerry even makes a flippant comment about 'ask the dogs' about the findings. At least dogs don't lie, Jerry.

And I'm not sure that the science behind your abduction theory is particularly sound either.

Or the comments made by both of them that suggest that the more confusing the case becomes, the better it is as no-one knows what is true or not.

And why would that be a good thing, Kate and Jerry? Are you suggesting that you would rather the world remained confused about what happened to your daughter? Why would that be in her best interests, either dead or alive?

Honestly, it's turned into a Jerry Springer show with Kate and Jerry not even bothering to follow their silly little script any more. Their arrogance, self-importance, self-righteousness and downright audacity is breathtaking.

[j.rob]

hmmm...who was it that made a connection between  this sad case and the other sad case of OJ simpson's wife......

....OH PLEASE....can we have a different outcome......

.......what is the point of having lawyers or a justice system if there are prominent people in it who are just going to run around like idiotic bullies in a school playground, scoring stupid points...

[Carana]

Of course it was a miscarriage of justice. The alleged torturers were acquitted because the accuser couldn't identify them in a line up (she used a piece of paper in Court written by Aragão to say their names, but even there she couldn't identify them), and the ones that were not in contact with her were accused of ridiculous crimes like omission to report (a crime that din't happen, and falsifying evidence, that never existed). In Portugal, people that followed this case know that the accuser was beaten in prison (as it's usual for children abusers or murderers) - there was an ex-inmate of her that testified about it but was dismissed because it was not convenient for the set up of Amaral. The Ourique prison director made a terrible mistake by not putting Leonor in a secluded area away from her inmates and when she came back from her 3 days holiday she saw the mess she was in. Mr. Marinho Pinto, her close friend arranged with the help of Aragão Correia, an inventive way for her not to be subjected to a disciplinary inquest and eventual dismissal.

If she was beaten in prison, why did the police officers write up a report about an incident concerning the police station staircase in the first place?

[C.Edwards]

If she was beaten in prison, why did the police officers write up a report about an incident concerning the police station staircase in the first place?

Eh?  Why wouldn't they?  She ran at a railing at the top of a staircase and hurt herself on that. There was an incident, they did a report. What's not to understand?

[imustpointout]

how now for the "publicity stunt"?

[AnneGuedes]

Although the Portuguese police did not publicise the sighting and instead made the parents suspects in the case, once their investigation closed the McCanns arranged for a sketch to be drawn showing the man Miss Tanner had seen.

Dis-informing, DCI ?
The MP authorized the PJ to divulge Ms Tanner's sighting on the 25th of May, the McCanns became suspects more than 3 months later.

[AnneGuedes]

Eh?  Why wouldn't they?  She ran at a railing at the top of a staircase and hurt herself on that. There was an incident, they did a report. What's not to understand?

Carana and co should watch a very interesting series called " The staircase". It's on line.

[Mr Gray]

Eh?  Why wouldn't they?  She ran at a railing at the top of a staircase and hurt herself on that. There was an incident, they did a report. What's not to understand?

what a load of baloney...you talk as though  you were there...remember the Portuguese courts believe she was tortured by the police...

[AnneGuedes]

 They dismiss the finding as 'inexact science'

Yes that was one of their biggest errors, the first one being the shutters/window, errors that betray a singular lack of imagination : Mrs McCann didn't correct it in her book. With a bit of subtlety she had said they were horrified by the idea and desperately denied it, but that they were hoping the dogs were by chance wrong.

[AnneGuedes]

If I was innocent and all the evidence that was shown to me was accusatory, you bet I would respond every question and I would stay foot in the Police station until they proved me wrong.

But the McCann with all the political, police and judicial protection they had chose to escape, sort of highclass burglars, in a plane filled with journalists invited by them.

But, Luz, they had lost Madeleine, they knew they could do nothing for her, so what else had they to worry about if not themselves ?

[Mr Gray]

If I was innocent and all the evidence that was shown to me was accusatory, you bet I would respond every question and I would stay foot in the Police station until they proved me wrong.

But the McCann with all the political, police and judicial protection they had chose to escape, sort of highclass burglars, in a plane filled with journalists invited by them.

I don't think the McCanns trusted the PJ

[Benice]

LUZ said
If I was innocent and all the evidence that was shown to me was accusatory, you bet I would respond every question and I would stay foot in the Police station until they proved me wrong.

But the McCann with all the political, police and judicial protection they had chose to escape, sort of highclass burglars, in a plane filled with journalists invited by them.

I don't think the McCanns trusted the PJ

And who could blame them davel.  If I was in a foreign country and realised their police were trying to pin a crime on me I didn't commit - I'd want to get home asap.     It would be insane to stay in those circumstances.

And were all those journalists really so disinterested in the McCanns and their departure from Portugal that they needed an invitation to follow after them?   What a ludicrous suggestion.    The McCanns had arranged to leave anyway before they were made Arguidos, they simply left one day earlier than originally planned.