Madeleine McCann found?

[Gem2626]

Every aspect of these allegations has zero to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

:waitasec:

The PJ are suspected of no wrong doing whatsoever in relation to her case so I really do not see what your point is. The criminal you speak of has been found guilty of murdering a child so who cares if she got a little tap while being questioned and Amaral looked the other way...not me.

:cow:

He committed perjury in another missing child case. If he quite happily did it in that case then IMO it's reasonable to think this could quite well have occurred in Madeleine's case? Why not?

I'm all for justice but beating someone is not on. After they've been convicted let anyone at them but not during the investigation to get a confession. It compromises the investigation.

And i'm glad l that I live in a society where the majority of people think obtaining confessions by torture is legally and morally wrong.

Perjury and fraud says a lot about his character. He has proven to be untrustworthy and corrupt and these sorts of people have no place in the police force.

ETA and BBM- The court believed that she had been beaten by the police but she could not identify who exactly as she had a bag over her head. Another police officer was also charged with perjury.

 

[brit1981]

Actually amaral has kissed goodbye to his "reputation" before madeleine disappeared. His career was ruined by the cipriano case. In my opinion he thought he was a big fish, in a small pond and came a cropper when he went too far and national attention focused on the cipriano case. Did he honestly think no-one woudl find put about the torture, and that they woudl just belive him? Thankfully no-one did and he received a criminal conviction for falsifying evidence, as well as a mention in an amnesty international report. It was this that ruined his career not the mccann case. It is just that his supporters seem to blame the mccanns for his downfall rather than his own criminal convictions.
And lets remember the criminal conviction is in addition to the tax problems etc.

Any decent person cares that the police were so pathetic the only way they could get a conviction was by torturing a woman on her own. What big brave men they were. If Amaral was such a wonderful detective then why was torture needed, why not gather the actual evidence.

During the mccann investigation amaral was an aguido in the torture case, if it had come out an abudctor wa sin the area that added weight to the false confession claim and therefore against Amaral. If amaral found evidence of an abductor he was more likely to get a criminal conviction, which ever way one slices it he benefited by claiming it was the parents.

 

[Gem2626]

Actually amaral has kissed goodbye to his "reputation" before madeleine disappeared. His career was ruined by the cipriano case. In my opinion he thought he was a big fish, in a small pond and came a cropper when he went too far and national attention focused on the cipriano case. Did he honestly think no-one woudl find put about the torture, and that they woudl just belive him? Thankfully no-one did and he received a criminal conviction for falsifying evidence, as well as a mention in an amnesty international report. It was this that ruined his career not the mccann case. It is just that his supporters seem to blame the mccanns for his downfall rather than his own criminal convictions.
And lets remember the criminal conviction is in addition to the tax problems etc.

Any decent person cares that the police were so pathetic the only way they could get a conviction was by torturing a woman on her own. What big brave men they were. If Amaral was such a wonderful detective then why was torture needed, why not gather the actual evidence.

During the mccann investigation amaral was an aguido in the torture case, if it had come out an abudctor wa sin the area that added weight to the false confession claim and therefore against Amaral. If amaral found evidence of an abductor he was more likely to get a criminal conviction, which ever way one slices it he benefited by claiming it was the parents.

Interesting as there's a fair few out there that believe the 2 cases are connected. I don't know if they are innocent or not there is lots of conflicting evidence and all from the media. I do believe there should have been a re-trial though.

Welcome back Brit

 

[SapphireSteel]

No amount of mud slinging can obscure the fact that Amaral had a long distinguished career of some 30 years, and a reputation for incorruptability, before the McCann case came along.

I would also like to point out that he has never served so much as one minute's jail time. He was found guilty and given a suspended sentence, essentially guilt without punishment, in itself an extraordinary outcome and indicative of the trifling nature of the charges.

To dismiss a man's entire career is biased and unfair.

Further, we know that Goncalo Amaral is not the only officer in the PJ. The entire force and the Portugese Home Department, and the British Police, all felt the McCanns were guilty. They just didn't speak out then lose their jobs over it.

:cow:

 

[Gem2626]

No amount of mud slinging can obscure the fact that Amaral had a long distinguished career of some 30 years, and a reputation for incorruptability, before the McCann case came along.

I would also like to point out that he has never served so much as one minute's jail time. He was found guilty and given a suspended sentence, essentially guilt without punishment, in itself an extraordinary outcome and indicative of the trifling nature of the charges.

To dismiss a man's entire career is biased and unfair.

Further, we know that Goncalo Amaral is not the only officer in the PJ. The entire force and the Portugese Home Department, and the British Police, all felt the McCanns were guilty. They just didn't speak out then lose their jobs over it.

:cow:

I don't understand how just because the McCanns spoke to Gordon Brown and others on the phone that this equals a huge cover up yet the fact that Amaral has a history of beating confessions out of people is not seen as anything odd because he had a 'reputation for incorruptibility'. Corrupt people in a position of power can easily go undetected.

He has been proved to be corrupt and dishonest. It's also extremely possible that he was friendly with the judge.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I don't understand how just because the McCanns spoke to Gordon Brown and others on the phone that this equals a huge cover up yet the fact that Amaral has a history of beating confessions out of people is not seen as anything odd because he had a 'reputation for incorruptibility'. Corrupt people in a position of power can easily go undetected.

He has been proved to be corrupt and dishonest. It's also extremely possible that he was friendly with the judge.

Amaral is not accused of beating anybody. ullhair:

Amaral is only accused and convicted of false testimony by not dobbing in his colleagues who were accused of accidentally on purpose nudging a convicted child killer a little bit too hard, within his hearing.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html

It makes you much more credible if you actually know your facts when you argue your position so passionately, on every single thread.

Also, it must be remembered that Amaral is not the only officer in the PJ.

The British Police also developed evidence against the McCanns.

The British Police supplied Eddie and Keela.

Just to highlight the irony of your statement...

I don't understand how just because the McCanns spoke to Gordon Brown and others on the phone that this equals a huge cover up ... Corrupt people in a position of power can easily go undetected.

:waitasec:

Kind of a mixed message there.

:cow:

 

[Gem2626]

Amaral is not accused of beating anybody. ullhair:

Amaral is only accused and convicted of false testimony by not dobbing in his colleagues who were accused of accidentally on purpose nudging a convicted child killer a little bit too hard, within his hearing.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html

It makes you much more credible if you actually know your facts when you argue your position so passionately, on every single thread.

Also, it must be remembered that Amaral is not the only officer in the PJ.

The British Police also developed evidence against the McCanns.

The British Police supplied Eddie and Keela.

Just to highlight the irony of your statement...

I don't understand how just because the McCanns spoke to Gordon Brown and others on the phone that this equals a huge cover up ... Corrupt people in a position of power can easily go undetected.

:waitasec:

Kind of a mixed message there.

:cow:

BBM

Sloppy posting because i'm tired I know he was not convicted of beating her. Before that post I hadn't claimed he was...again i'm tired.

She had not been convicted at the time. It is WRONG for anyone in a position of power to beat a confession out of someone. There was no 'accidently on purpose' nudge she was badly beaten.
It was not the police's job to play the role of jury to determine she was guilty.

Seeing as we only have what the media says about this case, and there are many conflicting reports on evidence found, we can not determine whether she is innocent or not. I'll assume she is because there hasn't been a retrial but who knows.

What I meant to say was that you seem to think that there was a huge cover up involving the McCanns yet you can't seem to fathom that there might have been a huge cover up in this case. Maybe Amaral has been doing this sort of thing for 30 years undetected. We already know that he was working with other police officers that were corrupt and he was willing to rip off his own brother.

The other stuff in your post i'm not covering tonight.

 

[SapphireSteel]

It's irrelevant what Amaral has been doing for 30 years, because Amaral is not and never has been, a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.

 

[brit1981]

It is very relevant that the one person involved in the case claiming it was the parents is a convicted criminal with a criminal conviction for falsifying evidence in a missing child case, where the mother of the child was beaten into a confession. Not only that but he was made an aguido in the torture case at the time of madeleine's disappearence, menaing aside from the actual abductor, he and the other's accused benefited from dismissing an abductor as being behind madeleine's disappearence.

Amaral was an aguido in the torture case (and it was torture not nudging someone too hard), but as the victim had a bag put over her head it was not possible to identify the torturers. However Amaral had tried to get everyone out of it by producing "evidence" the victim had fallen. His evidence was found to have been falsified by himself and for that he received his criminal conviction. So he falsifys evidence. It is also worth noting that whilst he has not a suspect in this case, neither were the mccanns. Aguido is not the same as suspect. And according to some claiming the mccanns have not been declared innocent, we could also claim the same of amaral, as he has not been declared innocent of the abduction either. But of course people who believe in innocent before being proven guilty would nto do this.
Amaral did not have a distinguised career for thirty years, he had been in an out of trouble, (accusations of beating, threats of violence, theft, tax evasion etc) before madeleine was even born.

 

[Gem2626]

It's irrelevant what Amaral has been doing for 30 years, because Amaral is not and never has been, a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.

I wasn't the one who brought up his whole career.

He's been convicted of making false testimonies in a missing child case.


Anything he has claimed in his book/ statements regarding Madeleine where there is no evidence to back it up cannot be trusted IMO.

It has nothing to do with him being a suspect. He was leading the investigation. Failings happened and he has been proved a liar.

Who wants this guy looking for their missing child. Not me.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I wasn't the one who brought up his whole career.

He's been convicted of making false testimonies in a missing child case.


Anything he has claimed in his book/ statements regarding Madeleine where there is no evidence to back it up cannot be trusted IMO.

It has nothing to do with him being a suspect. He was leading the investigation. Failings happened and he has been proved a liar.

Who wants this guy looking for their missing child. Not me.

So a person can operate in a high stakes job for 30 years without a whisper of inappropriate behaviour, yet one minor (some would say justified) alleged "crime" and he's rubbish.

The judge obviously didn't think so, as he got a suspended sentence of 18 months for his dastardly deed. That is....no actual punishment, at all. A slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket.

Add in that the case is still in appeal and what do you have?

A lot of mud slinging and baseless accusation.

The fact of the matter is, until the McCann Machine came rolling along, Amaral was a highly respected investigator of 30 years. He was considered "incorruptible". He was charged for not dobbing in his colleagues, nothing more.

He sounds to me like exactly the sort of man I'd want looking for my daughter.

These "criminal charges" did not come out of the woodwork until well after May 2007 - so at the time, Amaral was still in his highly revered position.

There was no basis at the time to sling any mud at him personally, or question his investigation, at all. In fact in my opinion, there still isnt. Apparently the judge agrees with me.

All of this is fairly irrelevant anyway when you consider it was the British Police who first developed evidence of the McCann guilt.

It was the British Police who supplied Eddie and Keela.

Amaral is really just one player in an entire cast...we just don't have the names of the others.


:cow:

 

[Gem2626]

So a person can operate in a high stakes job for 30 years without a whisper of inappropriate behaviour, yet one minor (some would say justified) alleged "crime" and he's rubbish.

The judge obviously didn't think so, as he got a suspended sentence of 18 months for his dastardly deed. That is....no actual punishment, at all. A slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket.

Add in that the case is still in appeal and what do you have?

A lot of mud slinging and baseless accusation.

The fact of the matter is, until the McCann Machine came rolling along, Amaral was a highly respected investigator of 30 years. He was considered "incorruptible". He was charged for not dobbing in his colleagues, nothing more.

He sounds to me like exactly the sort of man I'd want looking for my daughter.

These "criminal charges" did not come out of the woodwork until well after May 2007 - so at the time, Amaral was still in his highly revered position.

There was no basis at the time to sling any mud at him personally, or question his investigation, at all. In fact in my opinion, there still isnt. Apparently the judge agrees with me.

All of this is fairly irrelevant anyway when you consider it was the British Police who first developed evidence of the McCann guilt.

It was the British Police who supplied Eddie and Keela.

Amaral is really just one player in an entire cast...we just don't have the names of the others.


:cow:

Wow I still can't believe that anyone can downplay this treatment. It is legally and morally wrong not to mention it could completley screw up a case.

A minor 'alleged' crime? As a social worker i've worked with abused children and women in dv relationships. The 'they fell down the stairs' is the most common excuse for a persons injuries. The jury believed she was beaten and they were at the trial not getting their information from the media. Amaral's appeal has already been rejected once.


Apparently the UK government is corrupt but it's impossible that a small town police officer and a judge he would almost certainly know couldn't possibly be corrupt :waitasec:

There was plenty of reason to question his investigation. There were huge failings right from the get go. You'd really want someone who doesn't even seal a crime scene involved in an investigation of your child? someone who has been convicted of perjury and fraud?

The UK looked for proper evidence rather than just pointing the finger. But there is no evidence
...and we're back to corruption and slating Andy Redwood

 

[Clutchbag]

amaral didnt beat her, she said he was there egging people on to beat her, its a documented fact he was not even there or in the area at the time, so she lied about that,he signed off his police officers report in his absence, hardly crime of the century to be calling him a convixt as if he murdereded or raped anyone talk about dramatics

Her confession was not taken into acccount in court as its illegal in portugal

Strange how if she didnt know who beat her she named five names, hmmmm

All her appeals were rejected, all five as she changed her accounts so many times about what happened and was found to be lying

Think its safe to say she was not innocent, her brother was also convicted

The courts accepted she was tortured but found no one guilty there is nothing to say she was not given a beating by her inmates you know thise people who hate child killers?? In fact there IS evidence this happened and was covered up to save the backside of the prison governor and the state whose duty it was to protect prisoners, and mr amaral took the flack, next

lets get back to the facts of the maddie case and what police did or didnt do instead of trying to mishmash the two casesbased on nothing well except for metodo three getting paid by the mccanns to dish dirt on mr amaral just like they tried to trash cadaver dogs and failed miserably each time, now what a strategy is that? vehemently Destroy anything that points to you? Hmmm

 

[Gem2626]

amaral didnt beat her, she said he was there egging people on to beat her, its a documented fact he was not even there or in the area at the time, so she lied about that,he signed off his police officers report in his absence, hardly crime of the century to be calling him a convixt as if he murdereded or raped anyone talk about dramatics

Her confession was not taken into acccount in court as its illegal in portugal

Strange how if she didnt know who beat her she named five names, hmmmm

All her appeals were rejected, all five as she changed her accounts so many times about what happened and was found to be lying

Think its safe to say she was not innocent, her brother was also convicted

The courts accepted she was tortured but found no one guilty there is nothing to say she was not given a beating by her inmates you know thise people who hate child killers?? In fact there IS evidence this happened and was covered up to save the backside of the prison governor and the state whose duty it was to protect prisoners, and mr amaral took the flack, next

lets get back to the facts of the maddie case and what police did or didnt do instead of trying to mishmash the two casesbased on nothing well except for metodo three getting paid by the mccanns to dish dirt on mr amaral just like they tried to trash cadaver dogs and failed miserably each time, now what a strategy is that? vehemently Destroy anything that points to you? Hmmm

I know he didn't beat her I didn't say he had. He has been convicted of a crime therefore he is a convict.

How am I being dramatic by stating that people in positions of power should not be beating people? It is against their human rights as a person and it is universally seen as immoral.

The thing with this case is that there are no official statements of either the original murder trial or the abuse case. Everything comes from the media which isn't evidence. There is no evidence there was a prison cover up. Unless you can provide a reliable source?

The jury were satisfied that she was beaten by the police and that Amaral had covered it up and they had all the evidence. Enough said.

You don't seem to understand that NONE of this so called 'evidence' would stand up in court. It can and has all be rebutted.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I know he didn't beat her I didn't say he had. .

No, you said this -

the fact that Amaral has a history of beating confessions out of people is not seen as anything odd

Which amounts to the same thing.

He has been convicted of a crime therefore he is a convict. .

The dictionary definition of "convict" -

convict
vb [kənˈvɪkt] (tr)
(Law) to pronounce (someone) guilty of an offence
n [ˈkɒnvɪkt]
1. (Law) a person found guilty of an offence against the law, esp one who is sentenced to imprisonment
2. (Law) a person serving a prison sentence

Amaral has never and will never spend one day in prison, therefore he cannot be called a "convict".

How am I being dramatic by stating that people in positions of power should not be beating people? It is against their human rights as a person and it is universally seen as immoral. .

Make up your mind - are you accusing him of beating people, or aren't you? Or are you just tired again?

The thing with this case is that there are no official statements of either the original murder trial or the abuse case. Everything comes from the media which isn't evidence. There is no evidence there was a prison cover up. Unless you can provide a reliable source?. The jury were satisfied that she was beaten by the police and that Amaral had covered it up and they had all the evidence. Enough said..

He still is not a "convict" nor a beater of innocent people. Enough said.

:banghead:

You don't seem to understand that NONE of this so called 'evidence' would stand up in court. It can and has all be rebutted.

And this is relevant to Madeleine's case....how????

:cow:

 

[Gem2626]

No, you said this -

the fact that Amaral has a history of beating confessions out of people is not seen as anything odd

Which amounts to the same thing.

I said this once and then explained that I said it in error. I have not claimed this before nor after that one post. I am able to admit when I have made a mistake



The dictionary definition of "convict" -

convict
vb [kənˈvɪkt] (tr)
(Law) to pronounce (someone) guilty of an offence
n [ˈkɒnvɪkt]
1. (Law) a person found guilty of an offence against the law, esp one who is sentenced to imprisonment
2. (Law) a person serving a prison sentence

Amaral has never and will never spend one day in prison, therefore he cannot be called a "convict".


Highlighted in red by me. Why are you choosing to ignore this? The 1st definition given says someone who is found guilty of an offence ESPECIALLY one who is sentenced to imprisonment. Not EXCLUSIVELY.

Make up your mind - are you accusing him of beating people, or aren't you? Or are you just tired again?

I said 'people in positions of power' This was a general reference.




He still is not a "convict" nor a beater of innocent people. Enough said.

I agree as far as we know he is not a beater of innovent people he just thinks it's ok to cover it up.
:banghead:



And this is relevant to Madeleine's case....how????

I was referring to what people seem to think as 'facts' in Madeleine's case

No link to a reliable source that shows evidence of a prison cover up then?

 

[SapphireSteel]

No, you said this -

the fact that Amaral has a history of beating confessions out of people is not seen as anything odd

Which amounts to the same thing.

I said this once and then explained that I said it in error. I have not claimed this before nor after that one post. I am able to admit when I have made a mistake



The dictionary definition of "convict" -

convict
vb [kənˈvɪkt] (tr)
(Law) to pronounce (someone) guilty of an offence
n [ˈkɒnvɪkt]
1. (Law) a person found guilty of an offence against the law, esp one who is sentenced to imprisonment
2. (Law) a person serving a prison sentence

Amaral has never and will never spend one day in prison, therefore he cannot be called a "convict".


Highlighted in red by me. Why are you choosing to ignore this? The 1st definition given says someone who is found guilty of an offence ESPECIALLY one who is sentenced to imprisonment. Not EXCLUSIVELY.

Make up your mind - are you accusing him of beating people, or aren't you? Or are you just tired again?

I said 'people in positions of power' This was a general reference.




He still is not a "convict" nor a beater of innocent people. Enough said.

I agree as far as we know he is not a beater of innovent people he just thinks it's ok to cover it up.
:banghead:



And this is relevant to Madeleine's case....how????

I was referring to what people seem to think as 'facts' in Madeleine's case

No link to a reliable source that shows evidence of a prison cover up then?

A prison coverup?

Who's covering up what in which prison? I've never said a word about any prison so I'm even more confused now.

:dunno:

You accused Amaral of beating a prisoner, then said you were tired and made a mistake, then repeated the accusation an hour later!

I'm afraid you lost me at "hello"...so now it's time for me to say :seeya:

I'm too tired to keep posting facts which get continually lost in a stream of spin, inaccuracy, and emotion.

 

[Gem2626]

A prison coverup?

Who's covering up what in which prison? I've never said a word about any prison so I'm even more confused now.

Wrong poster



:dunno:

You accused Amaral of beating a prisoner, then said you were tired and made a mistake, then repeated the accusation an hour later!

No I didn't. I said Amaral was convicted of beating her ONCE. The other times I am talking in general about police beatings or the fact that the jury believed that the police in this case were guilty of beating her.



I'm afraid you lost me at "hello"...so now it's time for me to say :seeya:

You've replied to everything apart from the definition of convict so i'll take that as you admitting you were wrong.

I'm too tired to keep posting facts which get continually lost in a stream of spin, inaccuracy, and emotion.

There is so much information in this case that everyone is bound to get facts wrong even you!

 

[brit1981]

Amaral did nto work for thirty years without a whisper of wrong doing. Just look at the portuguese press. there were problems with affairs, tax evasion, accusations of theft, threatening women, illegally giving infomation to the press etc. that is before we even get to the cipriano case where he was convicted of falsifying evidence, and the courts ruled that a lone woman had been tortured by a group of unidentified police officers on Amaral's watch. Sadly the big brave men covered the eyes of their female victim so the courts could not identify amaral or anyone else as the actual torturers. What a feeble pathetic group that not only can they not be bothered to actually look for evidence, but they think torturing lone females is acceptable.

he is a convicted criminal, the short for that is convict. He was in fact sentenced to prison, with the sentence suspended for eighteen months.

 

[Clutchbag]

this is all highly irrelevant and alot of it unsubstantiated and hearsay, end of the day, mr amaral didnt make the mccanns leave their kids alone, neither did he make the cadaver dog alert, or make the mccanns and their friends make contradictory statements, is not responsible for the tapas group refusing to do a reconstruction, not responsible for the portuguese investigators coming to a conclusion there was a faked abduction, not responsible for the mccanns paying out a million quid plus alledgedly to private investigators who came up with diddly squat, and the rest, its a case clearly here of dont look here look anywhere else