What did Amaral & co get right?

[Alfred R Jones]

Odd that Amaral 's supporters here don't have more examples of all the great stuff he did as part of the investigation.... &%+((£

[Brietta]

Truth hurts  The only thing Amaral got wrong was jumping the gun because two were running back home.

Tut tut, pathfinder.

There are lots and lots and lots of things Mr Amaral got wrong in my opinion ... the thread is about what he and his team may have got right and I and others have done our best to come up with something along those lines.

Of the posts made by apologists for him, it is noticeable that the usual off topic diversionary rubbish prevails ... with not a single achievement or constructive action in the early days of Madeleine's case being mentioned.

The early days of the investigation into a missing child and not one of you can bring one positive action that he got right to the board.
You are letting the side down boys and girls ... and it is speaking volumes.

[stephen25000]

Even Amaral admits he got things wrong, but his worshippers would never admit it.

Wrong Alfred, he made mistakes.

However, his basic theory of accidental death has not been disproved.

By the way you don't have to worship someone to provide support.

[Brietta]

Odd that Amaral 's supporters here don't have more examples of all the great stuff he did as part of the investigation.... &%+((£

So far, in posters opinion, we have ...

• publicising the mark in Madeleine's eye
• scotching rumours about the last independent witness to see Madeleine
• the consistent good work carried out by some inspectors eg Inspector Diaz and whoever put Yvonne Martin back into her box
• acting on information received, for example, chasing through on the Polish couple
• recognition his circumstances regarding his arguido status might be prejudicial

If we are agreed on these ... what else did he do or attempt to do which could fit the thread title?[/list][/list]

[Benice]

So far, in posters opinion, we have ...


• publicising the mark in Madeleine's eye
• scotching rumours about the last independent witness to see Madeleine
• the consistent good work carried out by some inspectors eg Inspector Diaz and whoever put Yvonne Martin back into her box
• acting on information received, for example, chasing through on the Polish couple
• recognition his circumstances regarding his arguido status might be prejudicial


If we are agreed on these ... what else did he do or attempt to do which could fit the thread title?

Not sure if this qualifies - but IIRC he was big enough to admit that they had let Madeleine down - regarding the failure of his officers to check for CCTV evidence as a matter of urgency in Luz.     From memory so am happy to retract it if incorrect.   

[G-Unit]

Odd that Amaral 's supporters here don't have more examples of all the great stuff he did as part of the investigation.... &%+((£

First you need to identify these 'Amaral supporters'. People can have doubts about the McCanns but it doesn't follow that they are therefore supporters of Amaral.

I think the early investigators did a good job, given the difficulties of the language barrier, a rapidly disappearing population of holidaymakers, the media circus and the large amount of information coming in to them. I'm also aware that this was a team, so don't quite see why the co-ordinator is being singled out. Was he able to make important decisions without discussion with his superiors?

[ferryman]

First you need to identify these 'Amaral supporters'. People can have doubts about the McCanns but it doesn't follow that they are therefore supporters of Amaral.

I think the early investigators did a good job, given the difficulties of the language barrier, a rapidly disappearing population of holidaymakers, the media circus and the large amount of information coming in to them. I'm also aware that this was a team, so don't quite see why the co-ordinator is being singled out. Was he able to make important decisions without discussion with his superiors?

I would say that in the responses so far, due weight has been given to (I agree with you) a commendable team effort.

Does anyone else have an idea where, in Amaral's book, that passage is where he describes the typical day-to-day running and management of an enquiry such as the Madeleine enquiry?

[Alfred R Jones]

First you need to identify these 'Amaral supporters'. People can have doubts about the McCanns but it doesn't follow that they are therefore supporters of Amaral.

I think the early investigators did a good job, given the difficulties of the language barrier, a rapidly disappearing population of holidaymakers, the media circus and the large amount of information coming in to them. I'm also aware that this was a team, so don't quite see why the co-ordinator is being singled out. Was he able to make important decisions without discussion with his superiors?

A supporter of Amaral would be someone who contributed to his Fund on a regular basis, overlooks the fact that he is a convicted criminal, thinks his theory was basically sound and that he is perfectly entitled to make a career out of promulgating it in books and on TV. 

Amaral certainly gives the impression in his book that he was the one calling the shots in the investigation, but if it wasn't him then who was it?

[Brietta]

Not sure if this qualifies - but IIRC he was big enough to admit that they had let Madeleine down - regarding the failure of his officers to check for CCTV evidence as a matter of urgency in Luz.     From memory so am happy to retract it if incorrect.

He did admit the error.
I am unsure why it would have happened though because they certainly did make the effort with one or two petrol stations.  Yet it was left to the Rebelo investigation to try to retrieve the highway CCTV.

Sounds to me as if they were pulled off CCTV information gathering to concentrate on something else.

These guys followed orders.  Someone ordered them to check CCTV footage.  When they stopped doing so ... it was because someone had ordered them to stop.

I would say on balance that it was not one of the things that went right for the investigation ... particularly as it would have given an accurate date and time for the return of the Smith family.

[G-Unit]

A supporter of Amaral would be someone who contributed to his Fund on a regular basis, overlooks the fact that he is a convicted criminal, thinks his theory was basically sound and that he is perfectly entitled to make a career out of promulgating it in books and on TV. 

Amaral certainly gives the impression in his book that he was the one calling the shots in the investigation, but if it wasn't him then who was it?

I would say there are no outright Amaral supporters on here then, judging by what people have said.

Amaral's job title was chief of the PJ criminal investigation department based in Portimão, which covers Praia da Luz. His immediate superior was Chief Inspector Guilhermino Encarnacao, described as director of the Judicial Police in Faro. I don't know who Encaenacao's superior was, perhaps he reported to Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the Judicial Police. Ribeiro seems to be the person who removed Amaral from his position. Amaral was 3rd in command and he was in charge of the day to day running of the investigation

[ferryman]

Found it:

In Portugal, the criminal process is comprised of three phases: the investigation, the instruction and the trial. Under the direction and control of the Public Minister, the investigation is led by the criminal police, who enjoy total practical and tactical independence. The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit. This status confers on a suspect a set of rights and responsibilities. One of the fundamental principles of our code of criminal procedure is that of non-self-incrimination: it is illegal for information given by a witness to later be used against him and to implicate him in a crime. The right of silence, therefore, allows him to avoid giving incriminating details. But the status heaps opprobrium on those who become arguido, in spite of the principle of presumption of innocence.

(Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie)

I'll give Amaral credit for that passage.  It's quite informative and particularly describes the arguido process well and succinctly ....

[Brietta]

Found it:

(Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the Lie)

I'll give Amaral credit for that passage.  It's quite informative and particularly describes the arguido process well and succinctly ....

It is informative.

It shows that he was in full command of the knowledge that to make the Drs McCann arguidos would in effect subject them to added stress and opprobrium.
"But the status heaps opprobrium on those who become arguido, in spite of the principle of presumption of innocence." Amaral

Let no-one ever say as they always do that this was not a calculated decision taken on his part ... right from the horse's mouth we have ...
"The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit." Amaral

In one paragraph we have an admission that he took the decision to make Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos in the full knowledge of what that status would do to them in the public perception.
A measure of the man.

Sorry, Ferryman, I disagree vehemently that this was one of the things he got right.  In my opinion little else could be held up as an exemplar of just exactly how wrong he was capable of being.

[ferryman]

It is informative.

It shows that he was in full command of the knowledge that to make the Drs McCann arguidos would in effect subject them to added stress and opprobrium.
"But the status heaps opprobrium on those who become arguido, in spite of the principle of presumption of innocence." Amaral

Let no-one ever say as they always do that this was not a calculated decision taken on his part ... right from the horse's mouth we have ...
"The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit." Amaral

In one paragraph we have an admission that he took the decision to make Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos in the full knowledge of what that status would do to them in the public perception.
A measure of the man.

Sorry, Ferryman, I disagree vehemently that this was one of the things he got right.  In my opinion little else could be held up as an exemplar of just exactly how wrong he was capable of being.

I agree with you entirely about motive and intent.

But I think, what he does do well, is describe the arguido process.

Compare with this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm

[Alice Purjorick]

It is informative.

It shows that he was in full command of the knowledge that to make the Drs McCann arguidos would in effect subject them to added stress and opprobrium.
"But the status heaps opprobrium on those who become arguido, in spite of the principle of presumption of innocence." Amaral

Let no-one ever say as they always do that this was not a calculated decision taken on his part ... right from the horse's mouth we have ...
"The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit." Amaral

In one paragraph we have an admission that he took the decision to make Madeleine McCann's parents arguidos in the full knowledge of what that status would do to them in the public perception.
A measure of the man.

Sorry, Ferryman, I disagree vehemently that this was one of the things he got right.  In my opinion little else could be held up as an exemplar of just exactly how wrong he was capable of being.

The authors of the archiving report had no quibble with it.
>>>>snip:Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act. snip<<<<
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Brietta]

I agree with you entirely about motive and intent.

But I think, what he does do well, is describe the arguido process.

Compare with this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm

So his description of the process was correct.

As an aside ... did he mention his own arguido status anywhere in the book?