Amaral and MI5

[Brietta]

Only about 21 anti-Amaral insults there.
Beaten easily by DR's masterpiece article, which scores about 50 anti-Amaral insults.

Just to give some balance, pegasus, how many anti-McCann insults do you reckon will have been posted today?  Take your pick from FB pages set up for that purpose, twitter or any one of blogs set up specially to do so.

[pegasus]

Just to give some balance, pegasus, how many anti-McCann insults do you reckon will have been posted today?  Take your pick from FB pages set up for that purpose, twitter or any one of blogs set up specially to do so.

I disapprove of those insult posts you refer to every bit as much as you do.
BTW you will find absolutely no insults from me. In fact only today I referred to the author of a book I was quoting from as honest, and I mean it.

[jassi]

Just to give some balance, pegasus, how many anti-McCann insults do you reckon will have been posted today?  Take your pick from FB pages set up for that purpose, twitter or any one of blogs set up specially to do so.

Do you follow all these sites as well as this forum?

[Brietta]

I disapprove of those insult posts you refer to every bit as much as you do.
BTW you will find absolutely no insults from me. In fact only today I referred to the author of a book I was quoting from as honest, and I mean it.

Apologies if you think there was inference that you make insulting posts about anyone. On this forum, I know you most certainly do not and although you are a bit of a pedant (IMO) I enjoy following what you have to say.
I am not being pejorative; calling you pedantic is a compliment in my book, it gives a depth to what you have to say.

My concern is that whenever comment is made about Dr Amaral containing documented fact, not speculation, it is immediately seen as an outrage. I was disappointed you saw what Gadfly had to say as an attack.
I found the particular comment I bumped from Gadfly a sensitive summation of a tragic situation concerning the self destruction of an individual and put much more sympathetically than I ever could.
 
I think recent behaviour and comment has served to underline the tragedy of the downward spiral of an individual who IMO pressed the self destruct button a long time ago.

[pegasus]

The very first, definitive, anti-Amaral newspaper article was published on Sunday 16 Sept 2007.
Make a note of that date.
If anyone has an earlier example, please do let me know, I think it is the first.
It contains a sequence of insults like "corpulent" "sweaty" "making a swatting motion as though batting away an insect" "slurping coffee and cakes" " ill-fitting jacket" etc etc.
Now the interesting thing is that the "author" of that article allegedly (link available) previously fed the UK public misleading information, by accepting it from a third party, about a far more serious matter than this case, one which affected the lives of hundreds of innocent children, not just one.

BTW, Sun 16 Sept, does that ring a bell? Didn't someone switch jobs that weekend? 

[pegasus]

1. Interesting article about supposed links between MI5/MI6 and the small parts of the UK press.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/mi6-mi5-intelligence-briefings

2. Article in The Observer 14 Oct 2001 by David Rose and Ed Vulliamy
"American investigators probing anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New York
believe they have all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack - and have named
Iraq as prime suspect as the source of the deadly spores. Their inquiries are adding to what US hawks say is a growing mass of evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the 11 September hijackers. ..."
(Original article may possibly be no longer online)

A question to posters: Are you happy that the 2001 Observer article was straight honest journalism? Did it tell you the truth? How highly would you trust the writers?

3. Article in Daily Mail 18 Sept 2007 by David Rose
"I confronted the sweaty, corpulent figure in an ill-fitting jacket twice last Friday: the first time at 10am, as he sat slurping coffee and cakes at the Kalahary cafe ... the reaction was the same both times: "No speak! No speak!" was all Amaral would say, making a swatting motion as though batting away an insect."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482007/Lies-beatings-secret-trials-dark-police-handling-Madeleine-case.html

[Gadfly]

What is your overall point Pegasus?

[sadie]

1. Interesting article about supposed links between MI5/MI6 and the small parts of the UK press.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/mi6-mi5-intelligence-briefings

2. Article in The Observer 14 Oct 2001 by David Rose and Ed Vulliamy
"American investigators probing anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New York
believe they have all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack - and have named
Iraq as prime suspect as the source of the deadly spores. Their inquiries are adding to what US hawks say is a growing mass of evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the 11 September hijackers. ..."
(Original article may possibly be no longer online)

A question to posters: Are you happy that the 2001 Observer article was straight honest journalism? Did it tell you the truth? How highly would you trust the writers?

3. Article in Daily Mail 18 Sept 2007 by David Rose
"I confronted the sweaty, corpulent figure in an ill-fitting jacket twice last Friday: the first time at 10am, as he sat slurping coffee and cakes at the Kalahary cafe ... the reaction was the same both times: "No speak! No speak!" was all Amaral would say, making a swatting motion as though batting away an insect."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482007/Lies-beatings-secret-trials-dark-police-handling-Madeleine-case.html

Apart from "sweaty", I cant see much wrong with that if it actually happened.  And seems it did.  I wouldn't have used the word "sweaty", but Corpulent is true and OK and ill fitting jacket (sometimes a gawd awful shiny one) was his trade mark.  As was his crumpled pork pie hat.

Seems he slurped his coffee.  Now I might have left the "slurped" word out too, but everything else is fine.



Just remember the gawd awful things said then and still about Kate especially.  Amaral got off lightly in comparison.

[Gadfly]

All that needs to be said about Amaral has been said in a court of law by a judge summing up, and in the Prosecutors' files -- they compared him to a fictional detective.

The rest is there for everyone else to see - a few times a week on local Portuguese television.  A man with a penchant for fictional story telling, profiting from the probable death of a young girl.

[pegasus]

What is your overall point Pegasus?

One point is to encourage the question: on what exact date did the anti-Amaral articles begin?

[Gadfly]

One point is to encourage the question: on what exact date did the anti-Amaral articles begin?

MI5 do not give a stuff about a criminal case in Portugal.  If there is some insinuation that MI5 would set out to discredit a Portuguese detective in a criminal case, that's just plain wrong.

The reason Amaral was critiqued was simple - the PJ started to 'out' him due to the considerable scrutiny they were under.  The British also had their doubts too. 

That doesn't lead to MI5 dropping Islamic extremism in Bradford, Leeds and North London... for... Goncalo Amaral.

Only Goncala Amaral is delusional enough to claim that.

[John]

Amaral did a superb job of discrediting himself by his own actions which have subsequently been revealed in both the civil and criminal courts.  Had any cop in the UK been convicted in such a manner he would be out the door before the ink was dry on the judges notepad. 

[Eleanor]

This is something that I don't understand.  How could a Chief Inspector, charged with Perjury in the case of a missing child, be allowed to front a case of another missing child?
And that was his act to discredit himself that we were aware of, although not for some considerable time.  There have been many more since.

And now we have his accusations against MI5.  This should be laughable.  Not only was he out of his depth, he also appears to be suffering from paranoia.

[Benice]

This is something that I don't understand.  How could a Chief Inspector, charged with Perjury in the case of a missing child, be allowed to front a case of another missing child?
And that was his act to discredit himself that we were aware of, although not for some considerable time.  There have been many more since.

And now we have his accusations against MI5.  This should be laughable.  Not only was he out of his depth, he also appears to be suffering from paranoia.

His paranoia is clearly illustrated in his book IMO.

[stephen25000]

His paranoia is clearly illustrated in his book IMO.

...and what if Amaral is right ?

Do you really think that the 'establishment' in this country has not covered up crimes, heinous or otherwise ?

Just keep an eye out on current developments in the cover up of the paedophilia ring in governmental circles.