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

[Alfie]

You do know what impugn means?  It isn't always to do with integrity.

impugn
ɪmˈpjuːn/
verb

to dispute the truth, validity, or honesty of (a statement or motive); call into question.

What???  I know what impugn means thank you, and if you dispute the truth, validity or honesty of a persons actions or deeds then what is that, if not to question their integrity?  So, I'll ask again:

Can we impugn people on this forum and not have you dole out points for libel then??  Some clarity please.

[G-Unit]

Is a detective's role to then write a book  and promote it vigorously in the media it to promulgate his theory, thereby impugning and accusing his victims / suspects in print and on air for the rest of his life?

He was no longer a detective, I believe, hence plenty of time on his hands to appear in the media.

[Alfie]

He was no longer a detective, I believe, hence plenty of time on his hands to appear in the media.

The question wasn't about how much time he had on his hands.

[pathfinder73]

Dated 10 September 2007

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Goncalo Amaral

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

[John]

You are shocking me, John.  The McCanns really do seem to have had their right to the presumption of innocence forfeited for them mainly through the efforts of this one man.

I don't agree, events which followed the disappearance are extremely concerning.

[Alfie]

I don't agree, events which followed the disappearance are extremely concerning.

What events are you talking about?

[John]

As there's been no trial they still enjoy the presumption of innocence in law. It means they wouldn't have to prove their innocence if charged with an offence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their guilt.

It's a fact that the McCanns came under suspicion and were therefore made arguidos. That clearly wasn't through the efforts of one man, that would be ridiculous.

Amaral gets the blame because he stuck his head up above the parapet but you are correct, the decision to designate Murat and the parents as arguidos was a joint decision by many others including the English police.  That said, Amaral's input would have been crucial however and could not have happened without his agreement and the agreement of the PJ team under his control.

If we look at the Bamber case, a very senior officer was moved sideways when he disagreed with the investigating team below him, this isn't anything new and occurs regularly in investigations.  Had Amaral not had the unequivocable support of those below him and of his bosses he could not have made the three suspects arguidos.  And we all know what happened when that support melted away.

[G-Unit]

Amaral gets the blame because he stuck his head up above the parapet but you are correct, the decision to designate Murat and the parents as arguidos was a joint decision by many others including the English police.  That said, Amaral's input would have been crucial however and could not have happened without his agreement and the agreement of the PJ team under his control.

If we look at the Bamber case, a very senior officer was moved sideways when he disagreed with the investigating team below him, this isn't anything new and occurs regularly in investigations.  Had Amaral not had the unequivocable support of those below him and of his bosses he could not have made the three suspects arguidos.  And we all know what happened when that support melted away.

It was a legal requirement at that point in the investigation;

As they were summoned to depose again, while there was no plausible explanation for those situations and as they were to be confronted with the dogs' findings and with the lab information, which were susceptible of rendering them responsible as authors of crimes (at least, of neglectful homicide and of concealment of a cadaver), they were, obligatorily and inexorably, made arguidos, in strict obedience to article 59 nr. 1 of the Penal Process Code
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Brietta]

Amaral gets the blame because he stuck his head up above the parapet but you are correct, the decision to designate Murat and the parents as arguidos was a joint decision by many others including the English police.  That said, Amaral's input would have been crucial however and could not have happened without his agreement and the agreement of the PJ team under his control.

If we look at the Bamber case, a very senior officer was moved sideways when he disagreed with the investigating team below him, this isn't anything new and occurs regularly in investigations.  Had Amaral not had the unequivocable support of those below him and of his bosses he could not have made the three suspects arguidos.  And we all know what happened when that support melted away.

If I had had anything to do with it, based solely on the information contained in the Policia Judiciaria case against him ...   http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm  ... I would have felt fully justified in making Robert Murat an arguido and prime suspect.

Indeed, one wonders if the McCanns had packed their bags and headed back across the channel at that point, if he might not have been charged and brought to trial.

In my opinion there is no comparison between the justification for the three parties being made arguidos. 
The fact that they are all three innocent and walking free probably shows that in cases involving high profile individuals such as these three the burden of proof enabling charges to be laid in Portuguese law must be seen to be being applied.

Murat has briefly detailed the devastating and lasting effect the suspicions engendered by his arguido status had on his life.  I don't think the McCanns fared any better, but in their case I think that outcome was calculated.

[ShiningInLuz]

If I had had anything to do with it, based solely on the information contained in the Policia Judiciaria case against him ...   http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm  ... I would have felt fully justified in making Robert Murat an arguido and prime suspect.

Indeed, one wonders if the McCanns had packed their bags and headed back across the channel at that point, if he might not have been charged and brought to trial.

In my opinion there is no comparison between the justification for the three parties being made arguidos. 
The fact that they are all three innocent and walking free probably shows that in cases involving high profile individuals such as these three the burden of proof enabling charges to be laid in Portuguese law must be seen to be being applied.

Murat has briefly detailed the devastating and lasting effect the suspicions engendered by his arguido status had on his life.  I don't think the McCanns fared any better, but in their case I think that outcome was calculated.

I have to say this one bemuses me, because I can see nothing in the files other than a reporter thought his actions were suspicious.  Can you see more?

[John]

Is a detective's role to then write a book  and promote it vigorously in the media it to promulgate his theory, thereby impugning and accusing his victims / suspects in print and on air for the rest of his life?

No but many a retired detective has gone on to write books.

[John]

What???  I know what impugn means thank you, and if you dispute the truth, validity or honesty of a persons actions or deeds then what is that, if not to question their integrity?  So, I'll ask again:

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.

Doesn't that occur regularly?  Questioning someone's version of events is a normal debating activity.  Nothing to do with libel.

I think you need to realise that what passes for opinion and free speech in Portugal does not necessarily pass the test here on in the UK.

You have read the Portuguese Appeal Court ruling I take it, the book was not found defamatory.

[John]

If I had had anything to do with it, based solely on the information contained in the Policia Judiciaria case against him ...   http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm  ... I would have felt fully justified in making Robert Murat an arguido and prime suspect.

Indeed, one wonders if the McCanns had packed their bags and headed back across the channel at that point, if he might not have been charged and brought to trial.

In my opinion there is no comparison between the justification for the three parties being made arguidos. 
The fact that they are all three innocent and walking free probably shows that in cases involving high profile individuals such as these three the burden of proof enabling charges to be laid in Portuguese law must be seen to be being applied.

Murat has briefly detailed the devastating and lasting effect the suspicions engendered by his arguido status had on his life.  I don't think the McCanns fared any better, but in their case I think that outcome was calculated.

A reasonable conclusion, police tactics often involve pushing the envelope in order to get a reaction.  Investigators no doubt thought that the suspects would crack if enough pressure was put on them.

[John]

I have to say this one bemuses me, because I can see nothing in the files other than a reporter thought his actions were suspicious.  Can you see more?

Poor Murat's only crime was that he was too nosey.

[Carana]

Doesn't that occur regularly?  Questioning someone's version of events is a normal debating activity.  Nothing to do with libel.

I think you need to realise that what passes for opinion and free speech in Portugal does not necessarily pass the test here on in the UK.

You have read the Portuguese Appeal Court ruling I take it, the book was not found defamatory.

Erm...

No. I don't get it, John. Particularly not from you.