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

[jassi]

Ah yes,  new interpretations of events!!   Yes,  where he accuses the McCann's of having something to do with the death of his dog,  of having mistaken his neighbours house for his during a burglary,  accusing Gerry of knowing that the person saying he had information to where Madeleine was, was a fraud,   for hinting the McCann's drugged the children,  for giving the impression Gerry was cold and calculated.   Oh yes,  new interpretations alright.

Search for the truth? Now that is where I really can't take him seriously.

I'm sure that.s fine. Nobody takes anyone else on here seriously anyway, do they?

[xtina]

Ah yes,  new interpretations of events!!   Yes,  where he accuses the McCann's of having something to do with the death of his dog,  of having mistaken his neighbours house for his during a burglary,  accusing Gerry of knowing that the person saying he had information to where Madeleine was, was a fraud,   for hinting the McCann's drugged the children,  for giving the impression Gerry was cold and calculated.   Oh yes,  new interpretations alright.

Search for the truth?  Now that is where I really can't take him seriously.

can you prove any of that was wrong ........no

same as you dont know maddie was abducted

[sadie]

can you prove any of that was wrong ........no

same as you dont know maddie was abducted

I have rarely seen a more warm and loving father than Gerry.  His relationship with his children was so touching to see.  Joining in with singing their nursery Rhymes, getting down on his hands and knees to be crawled all over and to become a donkey ride for them.  He truly loved his little ones.

What ever was Amaral going on about when he said he was cold and calculating ?  He obviously didn't know the man and father, he hadn't seen the lovely family videos that we have.

Why on earth did he nake that comment if he didn't know the man ?

[Lace]

Ok let's start with the death of his dog,  what do you make of this paragraph,  and why is it in his book at all? -

I receive a phone call from Sofia, who insists on my going home: our Shitzu dog is dead. She found it that morning, lifeless on the ground, with a head injury. She did everything to make sure the girls did not see it, but she didn’t have the courage to remove him. When I arrive, everyone is already in bed. I place the Shitzu in a plastic bag, not sure about where I am going to be able to bury him. The ground is hard here. it’s not easy to dig a hole and I hardly have the time for it. I decide to drop his remains into a bin. The animal is small, but he seems to weigh more than usual. I use my car to take her. As I am getting rid of it, I realise just how easy it is to hide a body – and how difficult it is to bury….When I get back, I discuss it with Sofia: she is afraid. She asks me to abandon the investigation and to worry about our daughters rather than other people’s. For her, the dog’s death is a bad omen. I reply that she is unfair, that her fears are irrational. Justice must be done for Madeleine, as for all other children and adults. It’s my duty as a police officer: to seek the truth so that justice may be done.

[ferryman]

My grouse with Amaral's description of what is supposed to have happened to his dog is that he appears to have used it as the springboard for his madcap and offensive theory about what the McCanns are supposed to have done with the body of their daughter.

[ShiningInLuz]

Ok let's start with the death of his dog,  what do you make of this paragraph,  and why is it in his book at all? -

I receive a phone call from Sofia, who insists on my going home: our Shitzu dog is dead. She found it that morning, lifeless on the ground, with a head injury. She did everything to make sure the girls did not see it, but she didn’t have the courage to remove him. When I arrive, everyone is already in bed. I place the Shitzu in a plastic bag, not sure about where I am going to be able to bury him. The ground is hard here. it’s not easy to dig a hole and I hardly have the time for it. I decide to drop his remains into a bin. The animal is small, but he seems to weigh more than usual. I use my car to take her. As I am getting rid of it, I realise just how easy it is to hide a body – and how difficult it is to bury….When I get back, I discuss it with Sofia: she is afraid. She asks me to abandon the investigation and to worry about our daughters rather than other people’s. For her, the dog’s death is a bad omen. I reply that she is unfair, that her fears are irrational. Justice must be done for Madeleine, as for all other children and adults. It’s my duty as a police officer: to seek the truth so that justice may be done.

Amaral ran a theme that British security services were involved.

I cannot for the life of me see how that paragraph points a finger at the McCanns, which is what was being claimed.

And if OG had read the book, they might just have ruled out grave digging in central Luz as a body disposal method.

[Lace]

Amaral ran a theme that British security services were involved.

I cannot for the life of me see how that paragraph points a finger at the McCanns, which is what was being claimed.

And if OG had read the book, they might just have ruled out grave digging in central Luz as a body disposal method.

It is quite obvious that he is hinting that someone killed his dog, an omen, a sign.    He says his wife didn't want him to continue because it was dangerous she was fearing for her children[for some reason]  then Amaral goes on to say, he has to continue for justice for Madeleine.

If not an accusation then why put it in his book?

[ferryman]

With all this cr*p about what is supposed to have happened to his dog, Amaral was plagiarising the work of Harrison.

Harrison explored the possibility that Madeleine might have been buried on the beach, and ruled out that option.

Amaral (as I say), plagiarising Harrison, wrote this sob-sob story of his wife pleading with him to quit the investigation after finding the body of their pet dog with head injuries, and she is scared (poor lamb!).

Why would a pet dog be out and roaming alone at night?

A pet cat, maybe, but a pet dog?

Surely not!

[ShiningInLuz]

It is quite obvious that he is hinting that someone killed his dog, an omen, a sign.    He says his wife didn't want him to continue because it was dangerous she was fearing for her children[for some reason]  then Amaral goes on to say, he has to continue for justice for Madeleine.

If not an accusation then why put it in his book?

I would agree with Xtina on this.  That your interpretation of this is not supported by what is written in the book.

I simply took it to mean that despite some odd events, he was going to fulfil his duty.  To interpret this as the work of the McCanns requires that they could foresee they were to be made arguidos, or that having left Portugal, they had such vast reach that they could get dirty deeds done on their behalf.  That is stretching it too far, IMO.

[ferryman]

http://amaralfiction.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/poirot-holmes-and-plagiarism.html

[Lace]

I would agree with Xtina on this.  That your interpretation of this is not supported by what is written in the book.

I simply took it to mean that despite some odd events, he was going to fulfil his duty.  To interpret this as the work of the McCanns requires that they could foresee they were to be made arguidos, or that having left Portugal, they had such vast reach that they could get dirty deeds done on their behalf.  That is stretching it too far, IMO.

You are entitled to your opinion.    Why put it in his book?   Why mention getting justice for Madeleine?

You must remember he is writing this book AFTER the McCann's were made arguidos.   He is in my opinion,  trying to say he was up against strange forces led by the McCann's,  that he had to battle through the threats.

[Lace]

Now the burglary.   He says his dog was barking and howling.   Then he explains about his temper saying that the British police should concentrate on the Portuguese investigation.   Then you get this -

At last, I get home. It’s when I visit my neighbours that I finally understand the reason for my dog’s agitation the previous night. Their house has been burgled. The thieves left behind lots of valuable objects but snatched a briefcase containing personal documents. Deep down, I can’t help thinking that perhaps they mistook their target.

So what is he insinuating this time?

[ShiningInLuz]

You are entitled to your opinion.    Why put it in his book?   Why mention getting justice for Madeleine?

You must remember he is writing this book AFTER the McCann's were made arguidos.   He is in my opinion,  trying to say he was up against strange forces led by the McCann's,  that he had to battle through the threats.

I've covered why it entered the book.  It portrays him in a good light, a man of courage and integrity.

When the book was written is not pertinent.

The important dates are when the dog incident occurred and when the McCanns were made arguidos.  If before arguidodom, the McCanns could predict the future.  If after arguidodom, the allegedly disgraced McCanns still had supporters in Portugal trying to scare Amaral.

Neither fits.

[ShiningInLuz]

Now the burglary.   He says his dog was barking and howling.   Then he explains about his temper saying that the British police should concentrate on the Portuguese investigation.   Then you get this -

At last, I get home. It’s when I visit my neighbours that I finally understand the reason for my dog’s agitation the previous night. Their house has been burgled. The thieves left behind lots of valuable objects but snatched a briefcase containing personal documents. Deep down, I can’t help thinking that perhaps they mistook their target.

So what is he insinuating this time?

Again, it depends on the date of this incident.  Pre-arguido?  Post-arguido? Pre removal from the case?  Post removal from the case?

[Lace]

I've covered why it entered the book.  It portrays him in a good light, a man of courage and integrity.

When the book was written is not pertinent.

The important dates are when the dog incident occurred and when the McCanns were made arguidos.  If before arguidodom, the McCanns could predict the future.  If after arguidodom, the allegedly disgraced McCanns still had supporters in Portugal trying to scare Amaral.

Neither fits.

That is if you believe what he says.    He could be fitting those written paragraphs with the incidents that occurred in order for the reader to think the McCann's were responsible.

For instance,  maybe his dog did die,  but did Sophia actually say what she did