Former McCann PI "Who is protecting Maddie's kidnapper?"

[Alfie]

Do you think Amaral was biased towards the McCanns while he was coordinator and if so why? Wasn't he simply like SY investigating are at the moment and interpreting the evidence as it presented itself ? Further if such a bias existed why make Murat an arguido if he was totally focused on the McCanns as perpetrators ?

Oh hello, it's you again, my little shadow!
Evidence from Amaral's book tends to suggest he formulated his theory on day 1 and never really veered from it.  He made Murat an arguido because there seemed to be evidence against him at the time I suppose, it doesn't mean he ever seriously discarded or doubted his theory of parental involvement though does it?

[faithlilly]

Oh hello, it's you again, my little shadow!
Evidence from Amaral's book tends to suggest he formulated his theory on day 1 and never really veered from it.  He made Murat an arguido because there seemed to be evidence against him at the time I suppose, it doesn't mean he ever seriously discarded or doubted his theory of parental involvement though does it?

However the fact that he suspected both the McCanns and Murat certainly proves there was no bias, doesn't it?

[Robittybob1]

However the fact that he suspected both the McCanns and Murat certainly proves there was no bias, doesn't it?

No bias against what exactly?

[Alfie]

However the fact that he suspected both the McCanns and Murat certainly proves there was no bias, doesn't it?

No it doesn't prove anything.

[ferryman]

What policemen do have is vast experience of dealing with people who are being deceptive. As a result they rely on evidence, not on what people tell them. There is no evidence that Madeleine McCann was abducted, despite her parent's insistence that she was. Any policeman who accepts the word of a civilian isn't doing his job.

I watch police programmes and everyone they stop for having no insurance protests that they do have it. The police never accept the word of these people, they check. Most of them don't have insurance.

Let's see.

Gerry was confirmed to be at the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

Woke and wandered ruled out by the PJ.

That just leaves abduction, with the possibility (at least, at the time of the archiving, undetermined, although of course, we know virtually nothing about the second enquiry) of other crimes besides abduction.

[stephen25000]

Let's see.

Gerry was confirmed to be at the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

Woke and wandered ruled out be the PJ.

That just leaves abduction, with the possibility (at least, at the time of the archiving, undetermined, although of course, we know virtually nothing about the second enquiry) of other crimes besides abduction.

'  In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor. '

No evidence over any other theory as regards abduction.

[ferryman]

'  In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor. '

No evidence over any other theory as regards abduction.

The prosecutors were in no doubt Madeleine was abducted. 

They said so.

They also said the parents could not, reasonably, be expected to foresee that any of their children might be abducted.

[faithlilly]

No it doesn't prove anything.

Of course it does. Or do you think Amaral made Murat an arguido just to obscure the fact that he was actually after the McCanns?

[Eleanor]

Of course it does. Or do you think Amaral made Murat an arguido just to obscure the fact that he was actually after the McCanns?

Amaral had the sense to know that The McCanns could not have disposed of a body without assistance from someone local.
Robert Murat was the perfect candidate for that.  But it didn't come off.

[ferryman]

Of course it does. Or do you think Amaral made Murat an arguido just to obscure the fact that he was actually after the McCanns?

Strange how, when we're talking about the McCanns, we are constantly being harangued that the whole investigation was a team effort; yet Amaral made Murat arguido ....

[faithlilly]

Amaral had the sense to know that The McCanns could not have disposed of a body without assistance from someone local.
Robert Murat was the perfect candidate for that.  But it didn't come off.

I agree Eleanor Murat was the perfect candidate and if Amaral could frame the McCanns he could just as easily, if not more easily, frame Murat. So why didn't he?

[faithlilly]

Strange how, when we're talking about the McCanns, we are constantly being harangued that the whole investigation was a team effort; yet Amaral made Murat arguido ....

The whole investigation was a team effort. Do I need to point that out in every post?

[Eleanor]

I agree Eleanor Murat was the perfect candidate and if Amaral could frame the McCanns he could just as easily, if not more easily, frame Murat. So why didn't he?

He needed to prove that the three were in cahoots in some way.  He wasn't able to do that because they weren't.

[faithlilly]

He needed to prove that the three were in cahoots in some way.  He wasn't able to do that because they weren't.

In cahoots? That's the first time I've heard that. Do you have a cite?

[barrier]

The prosecutors were in no doubt Madeleine was abducted. 

They said so.

They also said the parents could not, reasonably, be expected to foresee that any of their children might be abducted.

Possibly a reason why its at a stalemate then.