Has Gonçalo Amaral become the fall guy in the Madeleine McCann case?

[Benice]

Point to where Amaral claims this because you won't find it.  He made mention of Calpol in just two places in his book and they were general comments related to Maddie's sleeping.  If readers like ferryman want to infer something more then that is up to them.

The insinuations Amaral made in his book re Calpol are  unmistakeable IMO.    Why would he even  mention Calpol if it wasn't his intention to plant seeds in his readers' minds?    What other reason could there be?

[ferryman]

The insinuations Amaral made in his book re Calpol are  unmistakeable IMO.    Why would he even  mention Calpol if it wasn't his intention to plant seeds in his readers' minds?    What other reason could there be?

Still more, why would he mention calpol night?

He did!

Chapter 4: The Real Victim Is The Missing Child

The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.

To be clear (and to avoid being, personally, guilty of libel) Madeleine's grandad actually said that Kate and Gerry gave Madeleine calpol, a child-medication intended to releve pain, but not remotely to sedate.

[John]

The insinuations Amaral made in his book re Calpol are  unmistakeable IMO.    Why would he even  mention Calpol if it wasn't his intention to plant seeds in his readers' minds?    What other reason could there be?

Planting seeds is one thing and I do agree that happened but he did not state that the parents killed their daughter as ferryman claimed. This is not the first time he has made claims which have been found wanting yet he considers himself to be a truth teller.

[Benice]

It wasn't his job to speak to them even if he could and as far as meeting them he would have been there when they were interviewed watching the proceedings and liaising with his officers.  Clearly the McCanns were not aware of him or what he was such was their state of mind.

If Amaral had personally observed them then IMO he would have explained how he did that.    But not a word.    He certainly did his best in his book to disguise the fact that he'd never met them, also during TV interviews etc when  he didn't give a straight answer when asked.   Why the reluctance to reveal that info to the public if he had no problem with it?.

Common sense alone dictates that actually meeting and speaking to potential suspects face to face would be advantageous to a policeman trained to observe  - rather than relying on the words and opinions of others. 

Why he would want to deprive himself of the opportunity to make his own professional assessment of the McCanns  - I have no idea.

AIMHO




 

[John]

John claims Amaral is at liberty to espouse any theory he likes and impugn but not defame.  How is that possible though?  How do you theorize that a man disposed of his daughter's body after an accidental overdose of Calpol (sic) without defaming that man?

According to the Portuguese Appeal Court the thesis was based on the investigation prior to the archive, make of that what you may.

As for impugning someone, disputing a version of events is not a defamation.

[stephen25000]

If Amaral had personally observed them then IMO he would have explained how he did that.    But not a word.    He certainly did his best in his book to disguise the fact that he'd never met them, also during TV interviews etc when  he didn't give a straight answer when asked.   Why the reluctance to reveal that info to the public if he had no problem with it?.

Common sense alone dictates that actually meeting and speaking to potential suspects face to face would be advantageous to a policeman trained to observe  - rather than relying on the words and opinions of others. 

Why he would want to deprive himself of the opportunity to make his own professional assessment of the McCanns  - I have no idea.

AIMHO

This has been gone through time and time again.

Suspects can be observed without them knowing.

In all likelihood, you can derive more about them and their behavioral patterns.

[John]

If Amaral had personally observed them then IMO he would have explained how he did that.    But not a word.    He certainly did his best in his book to disguise the fact that he'd never met them, also during TV interviews etc when  he didn't give a straight answer when asked.   Why the reluctance to reveal that info to the public if he had no problem with it?.

Common sense alone dictates that actually meeting and speaking to potential suspects face to face would be advantageous to a policeman trained to observe  - rather than relying on the words and opinions of others. 

Why he would want to deprive himself of the opportunity to make his own professional assessment of the McCanns  - I have no idea.

AIMHO

Have you not read my previous post on this, senior police officers don't normally meet suspects.

[Mr Gray]

According to the Portuguese Appeal Court the thesis was based on the investigation prior to the archive, make of that what you may.

As for impugning someone, disputing a version of events is not a defamation.

accusing someone of lying to the police....committing perjury...is defamation however much you try to pretend it isnt

[slartibartfast]

We seem to have a thread that is self proving. We have a group of people who believe an abductor took a little girl left alone in an unlocked apartment and an investigating policeman is the bad guy.

[mercury]

accusing someone of lying to the police....committing perjury...is defamation however much you try to pretend it isnt

Unless its true, non?

[Alfie]

Point to where Amaral claims this because you won't find it.  He made mention of Calpol in just two places in his book and they were general comments related to Maddie's sleeping.  If readers like ferryman want to infer something more then that is up to them.

Why mention Calpol and Madeleine's sleeping at all then? Come off it Angelo, answer my main point or are you now going to claim that Amaral did not impugn the McCanns nor firmly put them in the frame in his book?

[mercury]

Planting seeds is one thing and I do agree that happened but he did not state that the parents killed their daughter as ferryman claimed. This is not the first time he has made claims which have been found wanting yet he considers himself to be a truth teller.

Truth teller lol, thats so funny

Re calpol amaral never said or insinuated the mccanns killed madeleine by overdosing her with calpol as ferryman assertz, yet again,dishonestly

Hemade a comment in his video iirc that Madeleine may have felt groggy /sleepy after waking up and climbed on sofa and fell off injuring herself.....this is a million miles away from ferrymans accusation that amaral said they drugged her to death!

[Alfie]

I have read it several times, it is neutral as expected.

In any event, we are discussing Amaral, not the Prosecutor or the AG.  Until such time as Maddie's fate is known Amaral's thesis is as good as anyone else's imho.

Maybe you or Alfie will be good enough to post where you claim Amaral has stated that the parents killed her?

maybe you would be so good as to quote the post where I made that claim?

[Alfie]

The insinuations Amaral made in his book re Calpol are  unmistakeable IMO.    Why would he even  mention Calpol if it wasn't his intention to plant seeds in his readers' minds?    What other reason could there be?

Precisely. 

[Alfie]

According to the Portuguese Appeal Court the thesis was based on the investigation prior to the archive, make of that what you may.

As for impugning someone, disputing a version of events is not a defamation.

So can we impugn the McCanns and Robert Murat and Martin Grime on this forum and not have you dole out points for libel then??  Some clarity please.