Re: Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard

by Cath 22.12.09 17:45

JessicaPer wrote:
Avery wrote:
badmanners wrote:These witnesses that are named, are they people who have said 'yes we will testify for you old chum' or are they people that have been dragged into this against their will - named as those who he thinks will back up his claim that the contents of the book are all in the files, and that everyone shared his opinion?

No-one seems to know this, and it's pretty crucial.

Very crucial. They may know something or expressed an opinion in support of Amaral in private but to testify in court is another thing. Witnesses who are there against their will can have memory loss or can outright lie if they feel their own careers could be affected.

IMO, what is more surprising is the people that are NOT on that list, why isn't Grime there, Stuart Prior, Mr. Smith etc. All these people are mentioned in his book, and one would assume that they could back up his theories. Have they not been called, or have they had a change of heart?

Or is it because they don't speak Portuguese?

by DCB1 22.12.09 17:55

It is being commented on elsewhere that the author of the Faked Abduction book has spoken to Grime.

by Guest 22.12.09 18:04

The author of Faked Abduction has told many stories. So far I haven't seen a reference to an ISBN number or a publisher. The only thing he's shown is a photoshopped booky.

by DCB1 22.12.09 18:05

Molly wrote:The author of Faked Abduction has told many stories. So far I haven't seen a reference to an ISBN number or a publisher. The only thing he's shown is a photoshopped booky.

A lot of authors tell stories!

Fiction or non fiction. Makes a big difference.

by Guest 22.12.09 18:18

Inyx wrote:
JessicaPer wrote:
Avery wrote:
badmanners wrote:These witnesses that are named, are they people who have said 'yes we will testify for you old chum' or are they people that have been dragged into this against their will - named as those who he thinks will back up his claim that the contents of the book are all in the files, and that everyone shared his opinion?

No-one seems to know this, and it's pretty crucial.

Very crucial. They may know something or expressed an opinion in support of Amaral in private but to testify in court is another thing. Witnesses who are there against their will can have memory loss or can outright lie if they feel their own careers could be affected.

IMO, what is more surprising is the people that are NOT on that list, why isn't Grime there, Stuart Prior, Mr. Smith etc. All these people are mentioned in his book, and one would assume that they could back up his theories. Have they not been called, or have they had a change of heart?

Or is it because they don't speak Portuguese?

Mmm, don't think so, all courts in Portugal have official translators if you need them.

by Guest 22.12.09 18:19

DCB1 wrote:
Molly wrote:The author of Faked Abduction has told many stories. So far I haven't seen a reference to an ISBN number or a publisher. The only thing he's shown is a photoshopped booky.

A lot of authors tell stories!

Fiction or non fiction. Makes a big difference.

As long as she isn't found or someone charged and convicted it's fiction. Or the title doesn't match the contents.
IF there's a book that is.

by Guest 26.12.09 1:38

He is a senior officer of the Leicestershire Police. Not from New Scotland Yard.
It would superise me if he supports Amaral.

by Ruby 26.12.09 4:06

He was SECONDED to Leicester police, for the Madeleine investigation, by New Scotland Yard.
You can be as superised as you like, but get it right.
never mind

by Autumn 26.12.09 4:37

tyra wrote:An abduction would be almost impossible to 'prove' until the victim is found, but when other options are ruled out it is common sense to accept that this is the most probable crime, sadly.

All other options have not been ruled out and, as yet, not one shred of evidence to suggest that Madeleine was abducted. Even the tabloids usually say that she 'disappeared' as opposed to 'abducted'.

by Guest 26.12.09 13:12

Ruby wrote:Jose de Freitas, senior officer at New Scotland Yard

Ruby wrote:He was SECONDED to Leicester police, for the Madeleine investigation, by New Scotland Yard.
You can be as superised as you like, but get it right.

YOU are the one who causes confusion. thinking

Like Amaral who can't get the name of Stuart Prior right, calling him Prior Stuart, you've got the wrong José, so I end up confused. It is José Freitas and not José DE Freitas!!

The one and only José was not seconded to Leicester police.

If you can't get your facts right, I will do it for you:

From Amarals book, because for once he got the name right big grin

Chapter 11, page 141. I can't give you a link, because the book is in front of me, but I am sure you can find this on Internet.

"It's 10am. After dealing with everyday matters, I join the team of investigators responsible for the Madeleine case. The Leicestershire police are present at these meetings, as well as José Freitas. The latter, aged 46, is descended from Portuguese people who settled in Madeira and emigrated to the United Kingdom to find work and a better standard of living. Violent crime, abduction and illegal confinement are the speciality of this high-ranking Scotland Yard officer, who joined us eighteen days into the investigation - the English authorities consider that the presence of a man who knows Portugal and its culture could facilitate the investigation. He speaks our language with a British accent: he stayed with us until he left - at the time of the McCanns' return to England".

by **Jill Havern** 26.12.09 13:17

Here's a link for chapter 11.

http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-06-13T15%3A14%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=1

by Guest 26.12.09 14:00

Autumn wrote:

All other options have not been ruled out and, as yet, not one shred of evidence to suggest that Madeleine was abducted. Even the tabloids usually say that she 'disappeared' as opposed to 'abducted'.

Except the perpetrator, nobody knows what happened to Madeleine.
All options are open, except the one option that is officially excluded:

There is no evidence that the parents are involved in the disappearance of Madeleine or any other crime whatsoever. Period.
The same goes for Robert Murat.

Referring to the PJ files, which you have also read:
It is irrefutable that evidence is found that indicates the presence of an abductor.

* Not identified: fingerprints on the shutters of the apartment
* Not identified: hair detected on the bed of Madeleine
* Not identified: blood found in the apartment.

Two police forces investigated the world's biggest event of a missing child, it has repeatedly been said by officials, it is in the PJ files, the facts are adopted by the British/Portuguese authorities, we can continue to tell you, but like Bennett, you keep denying the facts that are presented to you. That is your choice, but that doesn't change the facts.

Statement Portugese Attorney-General Fernando Pinto Monteiro:

"Detectives found no reason to charge any of the three people named as suspects: Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat'.

"In an order issued today, ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects".

http://www.amw.com/missing_children/case.cfm?id=45127http://www.amw.com/missing_children/case.cfm?id=45127

by Ruby 26.12.09 16:50

Aristocrat - YOU, yes you have written 'high-ranking Scotland Yard officer' so you can't even read what YOU wrote correctly.
never mind

by Guest 26.12.09 17:27

Confused again??? never mind

by Ruby 26.12.09 17:53

Yes.
Yes I am.
~~Chicane~~ sorry Arsecrack

by Guest 26.12.09 20:58

I love the way you have to resort to vulgarities when your argument is lost

by Ruby 26.12.09 21:16

and I love the way you stick up for despicable child neglectors.
None so queer as folk, eh?

by Bea_Reasonable 26.12.09 21:35

Neglectors, debateable, maybe I'd say ok you are right there, but child killers, paedophiles, masons, all the nasty stupid messed in the head child killer stuff, I'd argue my view, my morality against that any day.

by Guest 26.12.09 21:39

YAWN.....

There is not a person in the world that thinks it is/was oke to leave the children alone. McCanns knew it and know it .

by Bea_Reasonable 26.12.09 22:03

Y_A_W_N! NOPE leaving little ones alone never right, never sensible, never responsible
Makes the Mccanns stupid to say the least, borderline neglectful.

Doesn't make them child kilers, paedos, masons, secret gene experimenters, green mars citizens or anything else the roids suggested.

by Slartibartfast 26.12.09 22:17

Aristocrat wrote:YAWN.....

There is not a person in the world that thinks it is/was oke to leave the children alone. McCanns knew it and know it .

Rubbish, people do it all the time.

by Guest 27.12.09 1:54

by marigold 27.12.09 1:58

Aristocrat wrote:YAWN.....

There is not a person in the world that thinks it is/was oke to leave the children alone. McCanns knew it and know it .

So why don't they say so?

by Guest 27.12.09 2:09

They did, but you were not paying attention

by Autumn 27.12.09 2:20

Aristocrat wrote:They did, but you were not paying attention

Clarence (speaking on behalf of the McCanns), said that leaving their children alone was 'well within the bounds of responsible parenting'. Doesn't appear to me that the McCanns believe that what they did was wrong.