Gonçalo Amaral said the Maddie-case has 'ruined' him

[jassi]

Who knows ?  Perhaps he wasn't offered that and his resignation was a face saving mechanism.

[Lyall]

I don't see why the "Maddie case" has "ruined" him. What would have prevented him from going back to coordinating drug investigations back in Faro?

But you don't see the xenophobia unleashed against Portugal in 2007 either I think.

And it began within days of the disappearance.

[Lyall]

I don't see why the "Maddie case" has "ruined" him. What would have prevented him from going back to coordinating drug investigations back in Faro?

He does explain in the book what he means, Carana.

The book is as much about that as it is about what happened to Madeleine.

[Jean-Pierre]

Who knows ?  Perhaps he wasn't offered that and his resignation was a face saving mechanism.

I gather the sequence of events was: 

2nd October 2007                    Amaral removed from Madeleine McCann investigation

20 June 2008                           Amaral resigns from PJ

21 July 2008                            Final report from PP

24 August 2008                       Truth of the lie published

So given that the book was published some 65 days after resigning, I would venture to suggest that he left the PJ because he would not be able to publish his book while he was a serving police officer. 

Maybe should may be stop whining that "the McCanns have ruined him".    He is quite literally the author of his own misfortunes

[slartibartfast]

There are two things which puzzle me:

One is the many references by posters to Madeleine being declared dead because she has been missing for 7 years.  What possible reference does this have to the case?  And what would this achieve?  Utterly pointless.

The second is that the McCanns being unable to bring an action on Madeleine's behalf because she is a ward of court.  To anyone with a modicum of (real) legal knowledge this is clearly absolute nonsense - It was they who made the original application, they remain her parents, and have all of the usual parental powers - but with the added protection of the court which could be helpful if she were to be found.     Again - this line of argument is utterly pointless.

The 7 years was raised as a defence to the many posters were being vilified for suggesting the Madeleine could be dead in that she has been missing nearly long enough to be declared dead in law.

[south of the river]

to be declared " dead " without a body is quite rare - about 10 a year . In the UK the Police are the body that must file the evidence to the coroner who after holding an inquest and coming to a decision will make an application to the secretary of state to issue a death certificate . ( but the state hardly ever refuses or goes against the coroner )

I would imagine the police would have to be pretty sure that the missing person is indeed dead. In this case that is hardly the case and I doubt you will be seeing this happen any time soon - bearing in mind that SY have publically stated that madeleine could still be alive

It doesn't have to wait 7 years too - can happen sooner if the Police/Coroner are convinced. -

edit to  add too that insurance companies can make payments any time - its up to them. They  usually do wait for a death certificate - but can and do make discretionary payments if the legal stuff drags.- ie  after 911 many insurance companies paid out without a body or certificate and before 7 years too

[Estuarine]

There are two things which puzzle me:

One is the many references by posters to Madeleine being declared dead because she has been missing for 7 years.  What possible reference does this have to the case?  And what would this achieve?  Utterly pointless.

The second is that the McCanns being unable to bring an action on Madeleine's behalf because she is a ward of court.  To anyone with a modicum of (real) legal knowledge this is clearly absolute nonsense - It was they who made the original application, they remain her parents, and have all of the usual parental powers - but with the added protection of the court which could be helpful if she were to be found.     Again - this line of argument is utterly pointless.

[Jean-Pierre]

The 7 years was raised as a defence to the many posters were being vilified for suggesting the Madeleine could be dead in that she has been missing nearly long enough to be declared dead in law.

Put that way I can see your point.  Thank you. 

Sadly it seems one or two others (not, thank heavens, members of this forum) had taken it a bit too literally and were planning to apply for a death certificate back in 2010. 

[Estuarine]

There are two things which puzzle me:

One is the many references by posters to Madeleine being declared dead because she has been missing for 7 years.  What possible reference does this have to the case?  And what would this achieve?  Utterly pointless.

The second is that the McCanns being unable to bring an action on Madeleine's behalf because she is a ward of court.  To anyone with a modicum of (real) legal knowledge this is clearly absolute nonsense - It was they who made the original application, they remain her parents, and have all of the usual parental powers - but with the added protection of the court which could be helpful if she were to be found.     Again - this line of argument is utterly pointless.

One thing that springs to mind is the ability to get the public to fund a search for someone declared legally dead. That would need some really fancy footwork. But then I have a nasty suspicious mind.

[Carana]

The 7 years was raised as a defence to the many posters were being vilified for suggesting the Madeleine could be dead in that she has been missing nearly long enough to be declared dead in law.

Well, she might no longer be alive, but I see no reason for anyone to declare a child dead. I'm aware that the families of missing adults sometimes have to come to that heartbreaking decision to simply deal with mortgages or whatever. Hardly her case.

[Jean-Pierre]

One thing that springs to mind is the ability to get the public to fund a search for someone declared legally dead. That would need some really fancy footwork. But then I have a nasty suspicious mind.

I think most (but obviously not all) of us here can manage to grasp the distinction between "legally declared dead" and "actually dead in fact". 

[jassi]

One thing that springs to mind is the ability to get the public to fund a search for someone declared legally dead. That would need some really fancy footwork. But then I have a nasty suspicious mind.

Of course, now that the 'search' is being conducted by SY at public expense, there is no real justification for the fund to accept any more money.

[Estuarine]

Of course, now that the 'search' is being conducted by SY at public expense, there is no real justification for the fund to accept any more money.

I notice the "Donate" button is operative again.

[The Singularity]

He failed Madeleine, such failure will weight heavy on him. Clearly from the recent photographs it is now showing.

[Redblossom]

He failed Madeleine, such failure will weight heavy on him. Clearly from the recent photographs it is now showing.

How melodramatic and creative of you.....wow