Wandering Off Topic

[slartibartfast]

Have I missed something?   

Easily done...

[G-Unit]

It seems you thought correctly

Snip
Some members continue to hold the mistaken belief that Dr Gonçalo Amaral was convicted of torture in the Joana Cipriano case.  I suggest they read up on the facts outlined below.


Madeleine McCann police chief found guilty of falsifying evidence



By John Bingham
23 May 2009

The former Portuguese police chief who accused the parents of Madeleine McCann of involvement in her disappearance, has been found guilty of falsifying evidence in another missing child case.



Mr Amaral has now been convicted of falsifying evidence to help cover up for three of his officers who were accused of torture.

He stood trial in relation to the investigation into the disappearance of eight-year-old Joana Cipriano from a village near Praia da Luz in 2004.

Her mother, Leonor, and uncle, Joao Cipriano, were convicted of murdering her, although her body was never found.

They later claimed they were tortured into confessing but police said that Mrs Cipriano tried to commit suicide by throwing herself off a staircase.

Three inspectors – Leonel Marques, Pereira Cristovao and Paulo Marques Bom – were cleared of torture after a seven-month trial at Faro Court in the Algarve.

The jury nevertheless found Mr Amaral guilty of falsifying documents to help cover for them.

A fifth officer, Antonio Nunes Cardoso, was found guilty of falsifying documents and was given a two-and-a-half year suspended jail sentence.

Outside court, Mr Amaral said he was not surprised by the verdict and blamed "political pressure".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5370361/Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-found-guilty-of-falsifying-evidence.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5840.msg207872#msg207872

So those saying he was convicted before he retired, or before he wrote his book are wrong? I'm pleased we've cleared that up.

Retirement 2008
Book release 2008
Conviction 2009.

[Carana]

Wasn't that a disgrace for the mccanns to employ criminals.

Fransisco Marco, Mracos Aragao, Kevin Halligen - to name but a few.



Not to find maddie - but to dish the dirt on G A. [ from the maddie fund] IMO.

I presume that you can support the implication that the Mccans employed them in full knowledge of the facts at the time via credible sources.

And that the reason for doing so was "Not to find maddie - but to dish the dirt on G A. [ from the maddie fund]
IMO".

[Carana]

Easily done...

Not fun being a mod...

We don't often agree on substance, but I don't recall you being online when I posted on the now-defunct thread to find my hard-researched post on a short trip to Pluto. You did edit my post later to remove my comment referring to the removal of the thread in question, but I have no problem with that, just normal modding.

[kizzy]

I presume that you can support the implication that the Mccans employed them in full knowledge of the facts at the time via credible sources.

And that the reason for doing so was "Not to find maddie - but to dish the dirt on G A. [ from the maddie fund]
IMO".

Well they didn't check their credible sources did they -  when employing them.

Detectives Hired by the McCanns want to Frame Gonçalo Amaral



https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/02/detectives-hired-by-mccanns-want-to.html

Método 3, the Spanish detective agency hired by the McCanns, tried to convince Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer to change the course of defense. The agency operational wanted to make of Gonçalo Amaral - the former coordinator of the PJ of Portimão, responsible for the investigation to the disappearance of Madeleine and Joana, the main target, through the intersection of the two cases

[Brietta]

So those saying he was convicted before he retired, or before he wrote his book are wrong? I'm pleased we've cleared that up.

Retirement 2008
Book release 2008
Conviction 2009.

Absolutely ... couldn't be clearer
Madeleine McCann police chief found guilty of falsifying evidence



By John Bingham
23 May 2009

The former Portuguese police chief who accused the parents of Madeleine McCann of involvement in her disappearance, has been found guilty of falsifying evidence in another missing child case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However it did drag on for quite some time, Amaral having been made arguido on 4th May 2007 ... then of course there was his failed appeal against his criminal conviction a couple of years later.
So it was apparently all go for him.  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1162.msg32770#msg32770

[slartibartfast]

Not fun being a mod...

We don't often agree on substance, but I don't recall you being online when I posted on the now-defunct thread to find my hard-researched post on a short trip to Pluto. You did edit my post later to remove my comment referring to the removal of the thread in question, but I have no problem with that, just normal modding.

If we could all live near the top of this pyramid (in link), life would be much more pleasant.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_disagreement

[Carana]

Well they didn't check their credible sources did they -  when employing them.

Detectives Hired by the McCanns want to Frame Gonçalo Amaral



https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/02/detectives-hired-by-mccanns-want-to.html

Método 3, the Spanish detective agency hired by the McCanns, tried to convince Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer to change the course of defense. The agency operational wanted to make of Gonçalo Amaral - the former coordinator of the PJ of Portimão, responsible for the investigation to the disappearance of Madeleine and Joana, the main target, through the intersection of the two cases

What substantiates the inferences in that paragraph?

Personally, when possible, I prefer official documents, cited in context. Or at least, neutral reporting by non-tabloids, whatever that means these days.

[jassi]

I do find it a bit of a bummer when cites are provided and then scorned or rejected because they fail to meet a poster's criteria.

[Carana]

I do find it a bit of a bummer when cites are provided and then scorned or rejected because they fail to meet a poster's criteria.

I partially agree with that, Jassi.

Personally, I find old tabloid articles (even the wildly OTT ones) worthy of discussion, if a balanced analysis and some kind of factual conclusion is the end result.

Whether that discussion is feasible, when a thread descends into partisan slamming matches, is hard for any mod to judge as it unfolds, on whichever forum and whatever the topic on any easily-searchable  corner of the Internet.

ETA: where I have a problem is when tabloids are cited with no caveat, particularly when cited by those who should know better as to the cut-throat media war at the time and the lack of time, decency, or a genuine misunderstanding of facts at the time.

[G-Unit]

I partially agree with that, Jassi.

Personally, I find old tabloid articles (even the wildly OTT ones) worthy of discussion, if a balanced analysis and some kind of factual conclusion is the end result.

Whether that discussion is feasible, when a thread descends into partisan slamming matches, is hard for any mod to judge as it unfolds, on whichever forum and whatever the topic on any easily-searchable  corner of the Internet.

ETA: where I have a problem is when tabloids are cited with no caveat, particularly when cited by those who should know better as to the cut-throat media war at the time and the lack of time, decency, or a genuine misunderstanding of facts at the time.

As Rowley observed, stories in the media can't be relied upon to be correct. In my opinion they contain grains of truth, but also spin, gossip and speculation.

[Carana]

As Rowley observed, stories in the media can't be relied upon to be correct. In my opinion they contain grains of truth, but also spin, gossip and speculation.

That's the same gist as what I said, yet again, a dozen or so posts ago.

I tried to check back to refer to it, but I think it went out with the bath-water. lol

[Robittybob1]

So those saying he was convicted before he retired, or before he wrote his book are wrong? I'm pleased we've cleared that up.

Retirement 2008
Book release 2008
Conviction 2009.

But I see what he was convicted of was a crime that happened in 2004, and from what I understand he had been charged with involvement in that crime prior to being made coordinator in the McCann case.
Having these factors in your mind is not conducive to good work IMO.
The date of conviction is less important.

[Alice Purjorick]

But I see what he was convicted of was a crime that happened in 2004, and from what I understand he had been charged with involvement in that crime prior to being made coordinator in the McCann case.
Having these factors in your mind is not conducive to good work IMO.
The date of conviction is less important.

Until he is convicted there must be a presumption of innocence so why is the date of the conviction unimportant?

Oh boy am I going to enjoy this!

[Robittybob1]

Until he is convicted there must be a presumption of innocence so why is the date of the conviction unimportant?

Oh boy am I going to enjoy this!

Was he convicted in 2009?  Yes he was so he was in hindsight guilty all along.  He should have felt guilty in knowing what he had done prior to the conviction.  If he didn't that is another matter.