A Good, Bad or Average Theory What's The Difference?

[Eleanor]

I think the difference between a good ~ bad ~ or indifferent theory is to start at the very beginning and base thinking entirely on the truth as it is known at the time and to take a reasonable time to consider and debate all the facts prior to jumping in.

There is no evidence that Amaral carried out any brainstorming exercises with his team or his superiors prior to formulating theories; there is evidence that he had made his mind up about the path his theory was to take him "right from the word go"; I think Robert Murat was never a serious contender as far as Amaral was concerned although he did make a case for investigating him in his book and it would have tied the case up in jig time if Jane Tanner had only played ball.

I believe that Amaral was interested in Robert Murat because he knew that The McCanns would have needed local help.

[Brietta]

I believe that Amaral was interested in Robert Murat because he knew that The McCanns would have needed local help.

Probably all part of the learning curve;  unfortunately he learned all the wrong lessons from Joana's case.

I would have thought that he would have realised there was no grand conspiracy when Jane didn't identify Murat.  Or in his mind was that to protect a supposed fellow conspirator ... I would never presume to understand Amaral's bizarre thought processes except much must have been driven by his new found arguido status and the best wriggle for escaping the consequences of that being another successfully concluded prosecution.

Unfortunately for him and his career the McCanns were determined to find Madeleine which rather upset his chosen theory.

[barrier]

Probably all part of the learning curve;  unfortunately he learned all the wrong lessons from Joana's case.

I would have thought that he would have realised there was no grand conspiracy when Jane didn't identify Murat.  Or in his mind was that to protect a supposed fellow conspirator ... I would never presume to understand Amaral's bizarre thought processes except much must have been driven by his new found arguido status and the best wriggle for escaping the consequences of that being another successfully concluded prosecution.

Unfortunately for him and his career the McCanns were determined to find Madeleine which rather upset his chosen theory.

Well with an embarrassment of riches,OG can't ,just can't find anything to prove his theory is wrong.
Supporting evidence to the contary wouldn't go amiss considering the PJ in 2017 said in relation to the abduction theory,"we have to be prepared for different scenario's".

[Mr Gray]

Well with an embarrassment of riches,OG can't ,just can't find anything to prove his theory is wrong.
Supporting evidence to the contary wouldn't go amiss considering the PJ in 2017 said in relation to the abduction theory,"we have to be prepared for different scenario's".

That's a celestial teapot argument... Just as no one can prove Maddie wasn't abducted by an alien spacecraft

[G-Unit]

Perhaps, he was, just incredibly gullible

We, need to look at what's, possible.  According to the, court Cipriano was, beaten by members, if the, PJ.  Was, amaral really unaware if this... Did his colleagues, feel they had, to lie, to him to cover it up.
Far more likely... Based on other, cases, too... This, was, almost standard practice, in the, pj imo.
Beat, a, suspect to get a, confession.  That's, why I'm convinced, amaral lied

So your opinion is that it was 'almost standard practice' for the PJ to beat confessions out of suspects. (but can you prove that?)

If you can't prove it then you can't be convinced that Amaral lied, surely?

[G-Unit]

I think the difference between a good ~ bad ~ or indifferent theory is to start at the very beginning and base thinking entirely on the truth as it is known at the time and to take a reasonable time to consider and debate all the facts prior to jumping in.

There is no evidence that Amaral carried out any brainstorming exercises with his team or his superiors prior to formulating theories; there is evidence that he had made his mind up about the path his theory was to take him "right from the word go"; I think Robert Murat was never a serious contender as far as Amaral was concerned although he did make a case for investigating him in his book and it would have tied the case up in jig time if Jane Tanner had only played ball.

Reading Amaral's book he mentions discussions and meetings within the PJ team and between the PJ and UK police also. You really should accept that he didn't he didn't think or act alone.

[Eleanor]

This is getting laughable.  If only it were funny.

[Mr Gray]

So your opinion is that it was 'almost standard practice' for the PJ to beat confessions out of suspects. (but can you prove that?)

If you can't prove it then you can't be convinced that Amaral lied, surely?

I can't prove it to you... Because imo you are biased and don't accept evidence even when it's overwhelming.. Remember smoking and cancer.

Almeida was found guilty of torture.... I think it was Michael Cook who claimed to have been beaten.. Then other cases I've seen where suspects have confessed to the pj.

Are you really trying to claim amaral didn't know about the beating.. I find that absurd

[Eleanor]

I can't prove it to you... Because imo you are biased and don't accept evidence even when it's overwhelming.. Remember smoking and cancer.

Almeida was found guilty of torture.... I think it was Michael Cook who claimed to have been beaten.. Then other cases I've seen where suspects have confessed to the pj.

Are you really trying to claim amaral didn't know about the beating.. I find that absurd

Amaral seems to have been present in The Police Station for some of the time while the beating was going on.  I simply do not believe that he didn't know.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Strangely or maybe not when Amaral purported his theory he was the devil incarnate in some eye's, now he's linking some geezer in a prison to the investigation his word is his bond,go figure.

Nope.  You got that wrong.  The question is - is he lying or has he been tipped off by the PJ? Which do you think?

[Vertigo Swirl]

So your opinion is that it was 'almost standard practice' for the PJ to beat confessions out of suspects. (but can you prove that?)

If you can't prove it then you can't be convinced that Amaral lied, surely?

Did he appeal his conviction?

[G-Unit]

Did he appeal his conviction?

I expect that information can be found if someone wants to find it.

[ShiningInLuz]

Did he appeal his conviction?

Why bother?

[Mr Gray]

I expect that information can be found if someone wants to find it.

It's been discussed before... He appealed

[Robittybob1]

This is getting laughable.  If only it were funny.

That was rather humorous but deadly serious.