CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[Brietta]

May we remain with the topic of the thread please.

[G-Unit]

If Amaral is correct there was interference in the investigation from the start by the British Ambassador, who stressed the abduction theory. If Colin Sutton is correct  SY was never tasked with investigating all aspects of the case; the parents were off-limits before the investigation began.

[ferryman]

If Amaral is correct there was interference in the investigation from the start by the British Ambassador, who stressed the abduction theory. If Colin Sutton is correct  SY was never tasked with investigating all aspects of the case; the parents were off-limits before the investigation began.

Amaral was wrong.

And there was no 'interference', just support for English nationals in strife abroad.

[John]

To all posters:

I have received a number of messages of concern relating to this thread with one moderator at least suggesting I delete it.  I won't but I will edit it shortly in order to remove any silliness.

This is a unique opportunity to study Gonçalo Amaral's thinking on this case, from the horse's mouth sort of speak albeit by subtitles. By all means tear the theories apart but do it logically and sensibly without resorting to inappropriate behaviour or posting goading comments.  Alternatively, feel free to support Amaral and provide any background information which you feel does exactly that, again, please do so constructively and without the need to snipe or make disparaging remarks.

Should any poster ignore this advice, sanctions will be invoked. TY

[Alice Purjorick]

The shelved enquiry established that Kate and Gerry had/have no case to answer, and Operation Grange (is attempting to!) progress matters from there.

"But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship".

So lumping your theory in with what was writen in the Legal Summary we have the situation:
"We haven't a clue what happened or who did it but the McCanns are innocent of everything, even that which we have yet to discover."

It just says at the time of archiving the process there was no one in the frame who could be charged and successfully prosecuted.

[ferryman]

"But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship".

So lumping your theory in with what was writen in the Legal Summary we have the situation:
"We haven't a clue what happened or who did it but the McCanns are innocent of everything, even that which we have yet to discover."

It just says at the time of archiving the process there was no one in the frame who could be charged and successfully prosecuted.

It's not known whether Madeleine was abducted to order; whether she was murdered in the apartment and taken (which would not be an abduction) or whether she was taken alive and is being held somewhere (now!)

The only (tragic) act of criminality that might negate abduction is if an intruder murdered Madeleine in the apartment and took her body with her.

What was clear (to the prosecutors) was that the McCanns played no part in Madeleine's disappearance. 

[John]

It's not known whether Madeleine was abducted to order; whether she was murdered in the apartment and taken (which would not be an abduction) or whether she was taken alive and is being held somewhere (now!)

The only (tragic) act of criminality that might negate abduction is if an intruder murdered Madeleine in the apartment and took her body with her.

What was clear (to the prosecutors) was that the McCanns played no part in Madeleine's disappearance.

I believe the phrase used was that there was at that point (archive) no indication of their involvement, quite a different meaning.  Need I again remind that they added that the parents lost the opportunity to demonstrate what they had claimed by the refusal of witnesses to partake in a reconstitution (reconstruction).

[ferryman]

I believe the phrase used was that there was at that point (archive) no indication of their involvement, quite a different meaning.

Different from what?

[G-Unit]

Amaral was wrong.

And there was no 'interference', just support for English nationals in strife abroad.

I don't see how you could know what was said by John Buck when he met with Encarnacao. Amaral is far more likely to know that than you are. The British Consul is the one who provides support for UK people abroad, not the Ambassador. It is quite slow usually. If, for example, you are arrested this is what you can expect;

The British embassy, high commission or consulate will contact the arrested person within 24 hours of being told about the arrest and try to visit them as soon as possible.
https://www.gov.uk/help-if-you-are-arrested-abroad/y/portugal

[ferryman]

I don't see how you could know what was said by John Buck when he met with Encarnacao. Amaral is far more likely to know that than you are. The British Consul is the one who provides support for UK people abroad, not the Ambassador. It is quite slow usually. If, for example, you are arrested this is what you can expect;

The British embassy, high commission or consulate will contact the arrested person within 24 hours of being told about the arrest and try to visit them as soon as possible.
https://www.gov.uk/help-if-you-are-arrested-abroad/y/portugal

Your link makes the point.

It is the British way to offer consular assistance to British nationals in strife abroad.

ETA: Amaral didn't even know he was heading up a murder enquiry.

Why would you expect him to know anything else?

[Brietta]

I have at last managed to struggle through to its conclusion.  "Dreadful" does not come even close to my thinking.

That this is the current account given ten years after the event by the coordinator of Madeleine McCann's case shamelessly promoting one baseless innuendo after another is extraordinary.

Ten years have passed yet the video consisted solely of the thinking of the coordinator ... much of which appears to have become distorted and corrupted by the passage of time ... which led nowhere at the time and has been relegated by further investigation.

It was actually very embarrassing to watch.  Particularly having watched documentaries in which Madeleine McCann was the central figure and in which law enforcement officers retired and current gave up to date views which reflected progressions in Madeleine's case over the years.

Instead 'O Enigma' portrayed a view through the prism of one man's view of his own importance.  Much of which was flawed if not totally wrong.
It served no purpose for Madeleine ... and if truth be told it served no purpose for the former coordinator ... because in my opinion it laid many of his flawed approaches appallingly bare.

[John]

It was known by an English local that the patio door was unlocked & the reason for that by the time an article was published in the Express on 5th May 2007 - and Kate & Gerry spent most of 4th May at the police station.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic247.html

*snipped*
Praia da Luz resident Mark McCarrick said the girl might have simply walked out of her room.

“The parents left the door ajar so they could keep going over and looking at her,” he said. “We are hoping that because the door was open, she just walked out.”

I missed this post on the first pass but it raises an interesting issue, was the patio door not only unlocked but 'ajar' as reported by Mr McCarrick?   How did he come by this knowledge?

[Mr Gray]

I have at last managed to struggle through to its conclusion.  "Dreadful" does not come even close to my thinking.

That this is the current account given ten years after the event by the coordinator of Madeleine McCann's case shamelessly promoting one baseless innuendo after another is extraordinary.

Ten years have passed yet the video consisted solely of the thinking of the coordinator ... much of which appears to have become distorted and corrupted by the passage of time ... which led nowhere at the time and has been relegated by further investigation.

It was actually very embarrassing to watch.  Particularly having watched documentaries in which Madeleine McCann was the central figure and in which law enforcement officers retired and current gave up to date views which reflected progressions in Madeleine's case over the years.

Instead 'O Enigma' portrayed a view through the prism of one man's view of his own importance.  Much of which was flawed if not totally wrong.
It served no purpose for Madeleine ... and if truth be told it served no purpose for the former coordinator ... because in my opinion it laid many of his flawed approaches appallingly bare.

A view I share for which no one seems to have a reply too

[ferryman]

I have at last managed to struggle through to its conclusion.  "Dreadful" does not come even close to my thinking.

That this is the current account given ten years after the event by the coordinator of Madeleine McCann's case shamelessly promoting one baseless innuendo after another is extraordinary.

Ten years have passed yet the video consisted solely of the thinking of the coordinator ... much of which appears to have become distorted and corrupted by the passage of time ... which led nowhere at the time and has been relegated by further investigation.

It was actually very embarrassing to watch.  Particularly having watched documentaries in which Madeleine McCann was the central figure and in which law enforcement officers retired and current gave up to date views which reflected progressions in Madeleine's case over the years.

Instead 'O Enigma' portrayed a view through the prism of one man's view of his own importance.  Much of which was flawed if not totally wrong.
It served no purpose for Madeleine ... and if truth be told it served no purpose for the former coordinator ... because in my opinion it laid many of his flawed approaches appallingly bare.

Trouble is that because the Supreme Court has given Amaral licence to continue pouring out this bilge, it probably does serve Amaral.  As (far too much!) comment on this board makes plain, so much of the flawed analysis of Amaral is either supported or nodded through as 'acceptable' by those who, despite insisting that the McCanns are guilty, have their own theories of how the McCannsdunit at variance with Amaral's theory.

But all instances (among those in the category I refer to) supporting Amaral's 'right' to say what he does.

So while I wholly agree with Brietta that no useful purpose has been served for Madeleine (or the McCanns!) I fear that Amaral's purposes have been served very well.

[misty]

I missed this post on the first pass but it raises an interesting issue, was the patio door not only unlocked but 'ajar' as reported by Mr McCarrick?   How did he come by this knowledge?

Mark was involved with the searches but one explanation is his wife was a business partner of Bridget O'Donnell (wife of Jez) who knew of the McCanns child checking arrangements on the Wednesday night.
http://portugalresident.com/making-property-purchase-an-enjoyable-experience