What did Amaral & co get right?

[Carana]

I started a thread in the members' area... but as it has only attracted five posts (including my OP) since the beginning of September, perhaps it got missed.


To repeat my OP:

I'll give credit to Amaral & co for applying for permission to publicise her details (including the eye fleck) early on. Bizarrely, other "police experts" criticised the McCanns, yet again, for that, but anyway.

What else?

43

[ferryman]

Amaral effectively scotched before May 3rd lunacy by acknowledging Dr David Payne as the last independent witness to see Madeleine alive (on evening May 3rd).

[ferryman]

Thinking about it some more, there is a passage in Amaral's book that (genuinely) impressed me where he describes the day-to-day routine of policing in an enquiry such as the Madeleine enquiry.

I may try to find it a bit later ....

[Alice Purjorick]

Is this about Sr Amaral's book which was published post investigation, or about the investigation which ran from May 2007 to July 2008. Who is included in & Co? The PJ and British police who were involved?
Just to establish the rules of engagement like.

[ferryman]

PJ Inspector Dias was sound from start to finish; aside from a wobbly bit in the middle, I thought Joao Carlos was good and I liked his final report for the PJ.

I thought the PJ inspector who interviewed Yvonne Martin sized her up very well and the Portuguese dog-handlers who initially searched for Madeleine were outstanding (if equipped with dogs of the wrong discipline for the type of search required).

I also think that officers of the shelved enquiry generally put in a great deal of energy and effort to the initial enquiry, given the volume of interviews that were conducted, the language barriers, and the difficulties of translation.

I think we maybe overlook that Madeleine's disappearance came as a bolt out of the blue to the Portuguese, and a great deal of energy, effort and (honest) endeavour went in to that initial enquiry. 

I understood Amaral and co to refer to the whole (shelved) investigation.

But doubtless Carana will correct me if she meant something different.

[Carana]

Is this about Sr Amaral's book which was published post investigation, or about the investigation which ran from May 2007 to July 2008. Who is included in & Co? The PJ and British police who were involved?
Just to establish the rules of engagement like.

There has been a lot of criticism of Amaral and his team. Although I'm not a fan, I thought it might be fair to offer an opportunity to give credit where it's due.

I'd suggest whatever is in the files up until he left (2 Oct) and whatever he has publicly stated in whichever media.

[Brietta]

There has been a lot of criticism of Amaral and his team. Although I'm not a fan, I thought it might be fair to offer an opportunity to give credit where it's due.

I'd suggest whatever is in the files up until he left (2 Oct) and whatever he has publicly stated in whichever media.

I find areas which were covered as they should have been ... but are curtailed because the investigation took a different route which may have destroyed good initial detective work, for example ...

**Snip
INTERVIEWER
In the book “Maddie Truth of the Lie” you mention a Polish lead and you say that it is a loose end…

Mr AMARAL
Nobody cares about that. We should have gone there or made a rogatory letter. They (Polish police) misunderstood the goal. They went looking for the child and we asked for an intervention to control them first. The issue was the photographs. The man never let go of the camera. We wanted to know what photographs were on the camera and if maybe there was one of Maddie.

INTERVIEWER
Despite your theory that the girl died on that evening, wouldn’t there be a possibility that this couple “dispatched” the child within a few hours?

Mr AMARAL
That is already speculation. We inspected the apartment where they were staying. Blood was even found inside the apartment and it was not Maddie’s. We cannot forget that when we intervene, they are not in Portugal anymore.

INTERVIEWER
Could you have gone further with this couple?

Mr AMARAL
We could. And if they were here in Portugal we could have done even more. But then the route of the investigation takes us elsewhere.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/goncalo-amaral-the-interviews-augsep-08/#sthash.KjIeNSSV.dpuf


There is no doubt that given the circumstances the very least which should have happened here is that the photographs which were in the camera should have been checked out.
If the couple had been traced prior to their exit from Portugal I am sure that would have happened and it would at the least have removed one question from the inquiry. 
So although unsuccessful, at least it was initially the right tack to take, and might have been worth taking the follow up action Mr Amaral said could have been taken.

[Carana]

I find areas which were covered as they should have been ... but are curtailed because the investigation took a different route which may have destroyed good initial detective work, for example ...

**Snip
INTERVIEWER
In the book “Maddie Truth of the Lie” you mention a Polish lead and you say that it is a loose end…

[i]Mr AMARAL[/i]
Nobody cares about that. We should have gone there or made a rogatory letter. They (Polish police) misunderstood the goal. They went looking for the child and we asked for an intervention to control them first. The issue was the photographs. The man never let go of the camera. We wanted to know what photographs were on the camera and if maybe there was one of Maddie.

INTERVIEWER
Despite your theory that the girl died on that evening, wouldn’t there be a possibility that this couple “dispatched” the child within a few hours?

Mr AMARAL
That is already speculation. We inspected the apartment where they were staying. Blood was even found inside the apartment and it was not Maddie’s. We cannot forget that when we intervene, they are not in Portugal anymore.

INTERVIEWER
Could you have gone further with this couple?

Mr AMARAL
We could. And if they were here in Portugal we could have done even more. But then the route of the investigation takes us elsewhere.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/goncalo-amaral-the-interviews-augsep-08/#sthash.KjIeNSSV.dpuf


There is no doubt that given the circumstances the very least which should have happened here is that the photographs which were in the camera should have been checked out.
If the couple had been traced prior to their exit from Portugal I am sure that would have happened and it would at the least have removed one question from the inquiry. 
So although unsuccessful, at least it was initially the right tack to take, and might have been worth taking the follow up action Mr Amaral said could have been taken.

Yes, he did seem to check on the Polish couple. I'm not quite sure what he thought the Polish police could do without an official request... but at least he tried, I suppose.

[Brietta]

Yes, he did seem to check on the Polish couple. I'm not quite sure what he thought the Polish police could do without an official request... but at least he tried, I suppose.

I think he was right to have tried.

He may have expected the Polish police to have at least been able to ask to view the camera contents given the nature and urgency of the matter.
If they had refused when asked might that not have constituted probable cause?

Anyway, by the time he would have been able to follow it through from there, the evidence if any had ever existed would have been long gone.  Which might have decided his later disinterest.

[Brietta]

Thinking about it some more, there is a passage in Amaral's book that (genuinely) impressed me where he describes the day-to-day routine of policing in an enquiry such as the Madeleine enquiry.

I may try to find it a bit later ....

That would be interesting Ferryman.  I'm struggling to come up with more than I have ... but I'll keep on puzzling there must be more than we've come up with so far.

[Carana]

PJ Inspector Dias was sound from start to finish; aside from a wobbly bit in the middle, I thought Joao Carlos was good and I liked his final report for the PJ.

I thought the PJ inspector who interviewed Yvonne Martin sized her up very well and the Portuguese dog-handlers who initially searched for Madeleine were outstanding (if equipped with dogs of the wrong discipline for the type of search required).

I also think that officers of the shelved enquiry generally put in a great deal of energy and effort to the initial enquiry, given the volume of interviews that were conducted, the language barriers, and the difficulties of translation.

I think we maybe overlook that Madeleine's disappearance came as a bolt out of the blue to the Portuguese, and a great deal of energy, effort and (honest) endeavour went in to that initial enquiry. 

I understood Amaral and co to refer to the whole (shelved) investigation.

But doubtless Carana will correct me if she meant something different.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I meant the team while Amaral was in charge, and what he has publicly stated since.

NOT the entire initial PT investigation following his departure.

[Brietta]

 ... in response to questions regarding the situation regarding Joana Cipriano's case ...

INTERVIEWER
May the noise of the case have had some influence?

Mr AMARAL
When the first news came out I called for the attention of the director in Faro. What I said at that time was: maybe it’s best for the process to leave Portimão, or for me to step aside from the investigation.

UNTERVIEWER
Did you consider the possibility of leaving the Maddie case?

Mr AMARAL
I did. And the feedback that I got was that I had full support.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/goncalo-amaral-the-interviews-augsep-08/#sthash.KjIeNSSV.dpuf


I think he was absolutely right to consider leaving Madeleine's case.

[stephen25000]

Well, that's a surprise.

[Brietta]

Well, that's a surprise.

          At least I've got a good word to say for him ...
                                                I await with interest the huge list you must be in process of compiling ...

[mercury]

Quite amusing that a policeman who was in a case for six months out of 8 years of investigations and got most things wrong is still a boogey man that gets some people wound up ...says volumes

Akin to two dogs' findings and their handler that are meaningless but get the same reaction

must mean the rest of the 7 and a half years of investigations have not disproven the first two

 &%+((£