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

[Brietta]

The dictionary definition of coordinator is an easy one.

What are the actual responsibilities of a Portuguese police coordinator in a criminal investigation ... or if preferred ... what is the job description?

To evaluate Goncalo Amaral's role in Madeleine McCann's case it is necessary to know exactly the responsibilities assigned to him and the parameters he was expected to work within.

 

[Alfie]

Now if I changed Amaral to the McCanns what would the reaction be. Let me know when you want it removing.

I don't want it removing.  It would totally be in the McCanns' interests for Madeleine to turn up alive, the opposite is the case in Amaral.  Not really sure what your point is tbh.

[John]

I don't want it removing.  It would totally be in the McCanns' interests for Madeleine to turn up alive, the opposite is the case in Amaral.  Not really sure what your point is tbh.

I think if Madeleine were to turn up alive and well that Mr Amaral would become media shy overnight.

There is no doubt that former Portuguese police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has formed a view as to what befell Madeleine McCann and has not been shy in speaking his mind on the disappearance whenever the opportunity arises.  He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame.

His theory is based on the knowledge he accrued as coordinator of the investigation prior to his removal from the case in August 2007 and allows him certain advantages over the rest of us. As coordinator he was at the centre of the investigation with all the detectives involved in the case answering directly to him. He was also central to the involvement of the English police and was extremely cognisant of their thoughts on the investigation.  Indeed, it was the involvement and actions of the English police which indirectly brought about his own demise and eventual removal from the investigation when he complained to the Press about said involvement.

Amaral might well have promoted the thesis that Madeleine died in apartment 5a but proving it is another matter.

[Alfie]

I think if Madeleine were to turn up alive and well that Mr Amaral would become media shy overnight.

There is no doubt that former Portuguese police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has formed a view as to what befell Madeleine McCann and has not been shy in speaking his mind on the disappearance whenever the opportunity arises. He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame.

His theory is based on the knowledge he accrued as coordinator of the investigation prior to his removal from the case in August 2007 and allows him certain advantages over the rest of us. As coordinator he was at the centre of the investigation with all the detectives involved in the case answering directly to him. He was also central to the involvement of the English police and was extremely cognisant of their thoughts on the investigation.  Indeed, it was the involvement and actions of the English police which indirectly brought about his own demise and eventual removal from the investigation when he complained to the Press about said involvement.

Amaral might well have promoted the thesis that Madeleine died in apartment 5a but proving it is another matter.

I don't really understand the bit I have bolded above.  How do you espouse a theory and impugn others without defaming them?  You are incandescent with rage that the Met have espoused a theory and impugned others in the Ben Needham case for example.  What's the difference?

[ferryman]

I don't really understand the bit I have bolded above.  How do you espouse a theory and impugn others without defaming them?  You are incandescent with rage that the Met have espoused a theory and impugned others in the Ben Needham case for example.  What's the difference?

Your thinking, like mine, is shaped by the anglicised interpretation of what amounts to libel.

I think the Portuguese one is very different.

I also think Amaral is handed much more licence than he would otherwise have because he quit the PJ before his book was published, rendering him free of liability for breach of judicial secrecy in getting his book onto the shelves so soon after the archiving, and entering into the public domain an account (of an event) that competes with Kate's account.

Under those conditions, by Portuguese law, you can say (almost) what you want, with scant regard to such considerations as truth or accuracy, and get away with it.

[Alfie]

Your thinking, like mine, is shaped by the anglicised interpretation of what amounts to libel.

I think the Portuguese one is very different.

I also think Amaral is handed much more licence than he would otherwise have because he quit the PJ before his book was published, rendering him free of liability for breach of judicial secrecy in getting his book onto the shelves so soon after the archiving, and entering into the public domain an account (of an event) that competes with Kate's account.

Under those conditions, by Portuguese law, you can say (almost) what you want, with scant regard to such considerations as truth or accuracy, and get away with it.

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?

[Benice]

I think if Madeleine were to turn up alive and well that Mr Amaral would become media shy overnight.

There is no doubt that former Portuguese police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has formed a view as to what befell Madeleine McCann and has not been shy in speaking his mind on the disappearance whenever the opportunity arises.  He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame.

His theory is based on the knowledge he accrued as coordinator of the investigation prior to his removal from the case in August 2007 and allows him certain advantages over the rest of us. As coordinator he was at the centre of the investigation with all the detectives involved in the case answering directly to him. He was also central to the involvement of the English police and was extremely cognisant of their thoughts on the investigation.  Indeed, it was the involvement and actions of the English police which indirectly brought about his own demise and eventual removal from the investigation when he complained to the Press about said involvement.

Amaral might well have promoted the thesis that Madeleine died in apartment 5a but proving it is another matter.

As he never personally spoke to or met with the McCanns  - its difficult to see how he could form some of the derogatory opinions he did of them - from what was only ever 2nd hand information from other people.

To this day I do not understand why he chose to put himself at such an obvious disadvantage by taking that approach.

IMO

[Angelo222]

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?

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.

[ferryman]

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?

It ought to boil down to a question of to what extent Amaral can bend and distort the facts/offer an interpretation of the facts that can't be contradicted (but neither confirmed) because there is, simply, no evidence (to confirm or contradict) either way ...

His scope to do those things ought to be limited.

It is extended (considerably) because, even though it is beyond dispute Amaral breached judicial secrecy to get his book on the shelves soon after the archiving, he quit the PJ to do that without incurring sanction by Portuguese law for doing so.

But how extended?

Surely not unlimited?

[Angelo222]

As he never personally spoke to or met with the McCanns  - its difficult to see how he could form some of the derogatory opinions he did of them - from what was only ever 2nd hand information from other people.

To this day I do not understand why he chose to put himself at such an obvious disadvantage by taking that approach.

IMO

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.

[Angelo222]

Your thinking, like mine, is shaped by the anglicised interpretation of what amounts to libel.

I think the Portuguese one is very different.

I also think Amaral is handed much more licence than he would otherwise have because he quit the PJ before his book was published, rendering him free of liability for breach of judicial secrecy in getting his book onto the shelves so soon after the archiving, and entering into the public domain an account (of an event) that competes with Kate's account.

Under those conditions, by Portuguese law, you can say (almost) what you want, with scant regard to such considerations as truth or accuracy, and get away with it.

You have no way of knowing if Amaral is wrong so your claim that he libelled anyone is pure dribble.  For all we know he could be right on the money. (oops unintended pun)   

[ferryman]

You have no way of knowing if Amaral is wrong so your claim that he libelled anyone is just nonsense.  For all we know he could be right on the money. (oops pun)

Have you read the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch?

[Angelo222]

Have you read the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch?

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?

[G-Unit]

As he never personally spoke to or met with the McCanns  - its difficult to see how he could form some of the derogatory opinions he did of them - from what was only ever 2nd hand information from other people.

To this day I do not understand why he chose to put himself at such an obvious disadvantage by taking that approach.

IMO

Lots of people who have never met the McCanns have formed opinions of them.

[John]

As he never personally spoke to or met with the McCanns  - its difficult to see how he could form some of the derogatory opinions he did of them - from what was only ever 2nd hand information from other people.

To this day I do not understand why he chose to put himself at such an obvious disadvantage by taking that approach.

That's how the police work Benice, the constable reports to the sergeant who in turn reports to the inspector and on and on.  Amaral was roughly equivalent to our Det Supt and would have had more going on than just one case.  In the UK any senior officer with such a rank is mainly a paper pusher and rarely comes into contact with offenders.  I would say the only time that Amaral got closely involved was when the arguidos were being interviewed.