Wandering Off Topic

[G-Unit]

In my opinion the forum isn't biased, but certain members are. I think it shows when people include disparaging adjectives with people's names. Not only does it demonstrate that person's bias, it appears to be an attempt to influence those reading their posts. The media had that intention when they did it, describing Amaral as 'boozy, outrageous, inept, disgraced, bungling' and much more.
http://newsoutlines.blogspot.com/2010/01/adjectives-used-by-british-press-to.html

Anyone using disparaging adjectives to describe the McCanns would, in my opinion, find their posts deleted almost immediately.

[jassi]

Amaral will always be a target so every little facet of his life has to be investigated.  I see no problem with that.

As to his retirement, he had a mostly successful 28 years in the Portuguese police rising to the level of coordinator and head of the PJ in Portimão.

Agreed, but it's hardly likely to add anything of any use, is it?
Having won his court case, he is free of legal entanglement and is able to sit back and enjoy his sardines and other pleasures of life.

Character assassination won't help rehabilitate the McCanns in the public eye or find their daughter, so it seems a futile activity to engage in, however much pleasure it might afford some.
Purely my own opinion, of course.

[Brietta]

Amaral will always be a target so every little facet of his life has to be investigated.  I see no problem with that.

As to his retirement, he had a mostly successful 28 years in the Portuguese police rising to the level of coordinator and head of the PJ in Portimão.

I think you have to look at the reasons why Amaral might be a target and not any other PJ inspector who worked on Madeleine's case.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral will always be a target so every little facet of his life has to be investigated.  I see no problem with that.

As to his retirement, he had a mostly successful 28 years in the Portuguese police rising to the level of coordinator and head of the PJ in Portimão.

Amaral is not a target but a legitimate area for discussion... But every post that is critical of him in the kadrlt few, days, has been removed

[Angelo222]

I think you have to look at the reasons why Amaral might be a target and not any other PJ inspector who worked on Madeleine's case.

That's easy imo. He dared to write a book accusing the McCanns of involvement and gave several media interviews expressing those same theories.

[Vertigo Swirl]

In my opinion the forum isn't biased, but certain members are. I think it shows when people include disparaging adjectives with people's names. Not only does it demonstrate that person's bias, it appears to be an attempt to influence those reading their posts. The media had that intention when they did it, describing Amaral as 'boozy, outrageous, inept, disgraced, bungling' and much more.
http://newsoutlines.blogspot.com/2010/01/adjectives-used-by-british-press-to.html

Anyone using disparaging adjectives to describe the McCanns would, in my opinion, find their posts deleted almost immediately.

Your last sentence is entirely inaccurate, in my opinion.

[Angelo222]

Amaral is not a target but a legitimate area for discussion... But every post that is critical of him in the kadrlt few, days, has been removed

We all know he was fired from the investigation, we don't need a thousand posts to reveal it.

[jassi]

That's easy imo. He dared to write a book accusing the McCanns of involvement and gave several media interviews expressing those same theories.

I agree. If he had accepted his removal from the case without a murmur it is unlikely that his name would have cropped up again. IMO

[Erngath]

I agree. If he had accepted his removal from the case without a murmur it is unlikely that his name would have cropped up again. IMO

If he hadn't written his accusatory book then his name would not be mentioned as often. IMO

[kizzy]

Ithink he did the right thing writing that book - why should he have been the disgraced one.

The disgrace was the children being left in the first place.

He knew more than anyone what was going on - and it has been proven he was a threat. imo

[Carana]

We all know he was fired from the investigation, we don't need a thousand posts to reveal it.

The thread that is now pushing up daisies was of the frequent was/wasn't variety, so I went off to check.

From what I've been able to find from official - publicly available - sources, the answer doesn't seem entirely clear-cut: I don't see how he could have "retired" of his own free will at 50 with a pension, as he's stated. If anyone finds evidence to the contrary from equally sound sources, or if I've misunderstood, I'm happy to stand corrected.

At the same time, it doesn't seem as if he was dismissed with immediate effect from the PJ (which the term "sacked" may imply), although he was from the investigation and his position as Portimão coordinator.

As is often the case, it seems that reality isn't always entirely black or white.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ithink he did the right thing writing that book - why should he have been the disgraced one.

The disgrace was the children being left in the first place.

He knew more than anyone what was going on - and it has been proven he was a threat. imo

Disgraced because of his conviction
Disgraced because of his remarks about the British police
Disgraced because of his misunderstanding of the evidence, particularly the DNA and dog alerts
Disgraced because he cashed in on a missing child for his own personal gain.
Disgraced for stating as fact that Madeleine is dead and her parents covered it up.

Take your pick.

[Brietta]

That's easy imo. He dared to write a book accusing the McCanns of involvement and gave several media interviews expressing those same theories.

Absolutely.
We are told he was a very small cog in the wheel and when he published his book he had been convicted of a criminal offence in relation to the cover up of the torture of the mother of another missing child.

The case was archived and among the conclusions was:
"  ... To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media – before the police – was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous."
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-pjs-final-report-the-archiving-dispatch/#adi4

What on earth gave Amaral the right to gainsay that and to publish a book which in my opinion could well be renamed The truth of "The LIE" to deliberately drag the names of two innocent people through the mire ... in my opinion partly because he had taken the hump with his employers.

[Carana]

I agree. If he had accepted his removal from the case without a murmur it is unlikely that his name would have cropped up again. IMO

I agree in part.

He might have disappeared into public oblivion in in relation to this case, but his name would still have been in the spotlight, at least in Portugal, concerning the Cipriano one.

His choice to write a book, star as the lead police officer in a documentary  numerous media interviews, including on popular matinée chat shows, and a column in CdM with unproven "conclusions" involving criminal activity... placed him in the media spotlight.

He could have made other choices.

[Carana]

I think you have to look at the reasons why Amaral might be a target and not any other PJ inspector who worked on Madeleine's case.

Hard one, that. ;)