Re: Goncalo Amaral,"Sick and bankrupt".

by Guest 29.06.14 19:00

That's a very powerful statement. And I totally agree. It points to where we've been pointed before, but never really wanted to go sad

by Cristobell 29.06.14 19:53

comperedna wrote:Tony - Every generation someone new, often a teacher, gets fed up with 'known and trusted people' often other teachers, scout masters, swimming teachers, uncles real and 'courtesy', (rarely 'aunties' ) godparents, step-parents, Mum's boyfriends' etc molesting young children and starts up a campaign and voluntary, practical, primary school age child protection organisation to teach children not to be afraid of this horribly normal everyday hazard, but to be able to deal with it. I don't want to be alarmist but the problem is horrendously common in all areas, and is mostly, in my experience, about getting at 7-11 year olds who can be reliably sworn to silence.

Genuine paedophiles (not just creepy people who fancy underage post-pubescent youngsters) go into certain professions and relationships to access children easily. I have attended superb sessions after school for young children run by the admirable Michelle Elliot. They are fun for the children (I know that sounds odd) but they are given loud and practical physical strategies both to escape, and to choke off the unwanted attention. They are told never to keep 'bad secrets', and it is explained what that means. They are always told to tell a thoroughly trusted adult. It is made clear that this problem is ALMOST NEVER about so-called 'stranger danger', (so much for gypsies, tramps and thieves) but comes from people a child knows, and often thinks he/she knows well. Michelle Elliiot was the key organiser in my era, and another decade's organiser is named I think, Madeleine Hawes.

Adults attending the sessions with children often say: 'What are the signs to look out for?'. The most obvious is over absorption in the life and times of one particular child, and the putting of them on some kind of pedestal. They are more clever, or more beautiful than other children etc (OK we are entitled to do that for our own children :-) Bizarre use of language - often extremely over-romanticised - about them is key. On thinking back sometimes, those whose children have been got at in this nasty way have often said: 'I always thought he', and it usually is a he, 'was over the top in decribing my son or daughter and his/her characteristics.'

The McCann case is different in that the people involved may well be famous, and powerful, and rich, but the same principles apply... the over romanticised language and the over lauding of skills, or extra beauty that the normal child simply does not posess. I have been banging on about this, as I Know have others to Operation Grange. OLDER children, who are often in care and so more vulnerable, are exploited by Elm Lodge type means, child trafficking, internation rings etc. Primary age children, and I guess pre-schoolers too, are most at risk from KNOWN people. The fact that in this particular case the known people may be well-heeled and famous is neither here nor there. I wrote this because of your comment on

Brilliant post Comprenedna! I wish I could broadcast it everywhere!

The threat to children comes from within their own homes and from people who know them. I would like to use a megaphone to blast that into Jim Gamble's ears.

I went through the Catholic care home system, and weirdo's were attracted to the job like bees to honey, every dormitory and children's home had one. Those who wanted to protect us the most, abused us the most. So many kids snatched from their families and put into the hands of the most evil people in society. The entire care system was a hotbed of freaks, hiding their perversions behind good deeds. The louder and more charismatic the protector, the worse the abuse. However, this type of child abuse is reserved for vulnerable children, those caught up in the care system and without the protection of their parents.

What incenses me the most about this case and the offshoots from it, is the way in which funding and resources are being people like Jim Gamble to track down an enemy who doesn't even exist! Madeleine didn't use the internet, nor did April Jones or Millie Dowler. Other than a couple of daft girls running off to marry Romeos they met online and got caught anyway, has the multimillion pound Operation Ore saved any children at all?

Funds are desperately needed on the frontline. Government cuts have made social workers' caseloads unmanageable, and in these times of austerity there are more and more children at risk. I applaud the schemes you mentioned Contreredna, it always boils down to education. I wish there was a way to reach young mothers too, so many move creeps into their homes with their young kids, knowing little or anything about them. And we should remember too that physical abuse is far more prevalent, and far more deadly.

As for what Jon Corner said about Madeleine, I thought Tony put it very eloquently. The way in which JC described the little girl was skin crawling. Can a 3 year old be charismatic? I think Team McCann tried several times to push the 'special' idea onto us - it was another (albeit pathetic) reason why Madeleine may have been abducted, but his fawning praise of the child was just weird.

by suzyjohnson 29.06.14 19:54

ultimaThule wrote:According to Exhibit KH1 (p,53) MW's evening creche was open from 7.30pm - 11pm which, presumaby, is the same hours as the Millenium and the Tapas restaurants.

Thanks NFWTD also.

So, the McCann children were always in bed before 7.30 pm ?

(Enid O'Dowd wrote:In the book madeleine Kate explains that she did not use the Mark Warner evening crèche because it was not convenient given that it did not open until her children were settled in bed).

by **Hobs** 29.06.14 20:05

GM....'I was the last to see her, I saw her and thought how beautiful she was'.

Oh dear gerry, another open mouth insert foot moment.

Surely the last person to see her was the alleged abductor.
if you are telling us you were the last person to see her, the, logic dictates there was no abductor, and, if there was no abductor and you were the last to see her, what did you do with her body?

Also why the use of past tense?

Given this was shortly after she vanished , allegedly abducted, as an innocent parent you would not be thinking past tense, you would be thinking present tense, especially as you were claiming she was abducted and there was no evidence of serious harm.

I saw her and thought how beautiful she was'.
Is she no longer beautiful gerry?

Was she no longer beautiful when you saw her last?

Dead bodies do not look beautiful.
Dead bodies that have beeen lying around for a while, even if kept chilled or possibly frozen do not look beautiful>

Kate tells us how Maddie looked, her grey and mottled body lying on a cold stone slab along with the description of her genitals.

This doesn't sound like something she would dream, dreams tend to minimise, to blur over.
Why would she dream about her perfect torn genitals?

An innocent mother wouldn't consider that, she would presume and hope her child was alive and unharmed.
This would be normal parental instinct, to assume the best.

Yet kate goes into graphic detail about what she saw.
I believe this is how she saw Maddie sometime after her death, probably just prior to her being removed.

Deleted.

Since she describes a cold stone slab it leads me to think perhaps she was stored in the crypt of the church where it would be cool.

It would be interesting to see if cadaver dogs would react in unexpected areas ( corpses would be in coffins so there is less chance of cross contamination of a body. if for example blood and cadaverine were found in the crypt on a stone slab but not other ones.
It is uncommon for a church to be searched but in this case it is warranted given the amount of time they spent there alone and the language of the priests.
Perhaps this is something they were banking on, the sanctity of the church giving them time to come up with a final dumping place.

by Guest 29.06.14 20:30

Several powerful posts this evening. They bring the focus onto MBM, poor child.

by ultimaThule 29.06.14 20:38

Hobs wrote:GM....'I was the last to see her, I saw her and thought how beautiful she was'.

Oh dear gerry, another open mouth insert foot moment.

Surely the last person to see her was the alleged abductor.
if you are telling us you were the last person to see her, the, logic dictates there was no abductor, and, if there was no abductor and you were the last to see her, what did you do with her body?

Also why the use of past tense?

Given this was shortly after she vanished , allegedly abducted, as an innocent parent you would not be thinking past tense, you would be thinking present tense, especially as you were claiming she was abducted and there was no evidence of serious harm.

I saw her and thought how beautiful she was'.
Is she no longer beautiful gerry?

Was she no longer beautiful when you saw her last?

Dead bodies do not look beautiful.
Dead bodies that have beeen lying around for a while, even if kept chilled or possibly frozen do not look beautiful>

Kate tells us how Maddie looked, her grey and mottled body lying on a cold stone slab along with the description of her genitals.

This doesn't sound like something she would dream, dreams tend to minimise, to blur over.
Why would she dream about her perfect torn genitals?

An innocent mother wouldn't consider that, she would presume and hope her child was alive and unharmed.
This would be normal parental instinct, to assume the best.

Deleted

I believe this is how she saw Maddie sometime after her death, probably just prior to her being removed.

Since she describes a cold stone slab it leads me to think perhaps she was stored in the crypt of the church where it would be cool.

It would be interesting to see if cadaver dogs would react in unexpected areas ( corpses would be in coffins so there is less chance of cross contamination of a body. if for example blood and cadaverine were found in the crypt on a stone slab but not other ones.
It is uncommon for a church to be searched but in this case it is warranted given the amount of time they spent there alone and the language of the priests.
Perhaps this is something they were banking on, the sanctity of the church giving them time to come up with a final dumping place.

You've said what I've long suspected may be the reason why it was necessary for the body to be concealed, Hobs, but, as I seem to recall reading that the church has no crypt.Deleted

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.14 21:26

comperedna wrote:Tony - Adults attending the sessions [on child sexual abuse] with children often say: 'What are the signs to look out for?'. The most obvious is over absorption in the life and times of one particular child, and the putting of them on some kind of pedestal. They are more clever, or more beautiful than other children etc...bizarre use of language - often extremely over-romanticised - about them is key...I wrote this because of your comment on a particular persons use of language.

Thank you very much comperedna.

You have, I am sure, opened up - quite a lot more - our understanding of the perverted (I hope you agree that's the right word) attraction that certain adults have towards young children, and which arguably was raised in the case being discussed on this forum in the statements of Dr Katharina and Dr Arul Gaspar.

And I'm afraid also (I am inter alia a qualfied social worker and child care worker) I have come to see that all too often this attraction, once ignited, can become an extremely powerful - sometimes almost insatiable - addiction

by Markus 2 29.06.14 21:32

Hobs An innocent mother wouldn't consider that, she would presume and hope her child was alive and unharmed This would be normal parental instinct, to assume the best.

Yet kate goes into graphic detail about what she saw. I believe this is how she saw Maddie sometime after her death, probably just prior to her being removed.

Yes I agree and find this very hard to read, unnecessary use of words imo. Like you say why go through such a description when she has no knowledge that anything like that happened to her.

Also would anyone else be helping her write this I wonder? If we look back on this thread there is a certain person that we thought might just be writing a Mills and Boon novel. smilie

The descriptive style of this person comes to mind, so who knows.?

Inspector Minahan Makes a Stand: The Missing Girls of England [Hardcover]

quoteAccording to the dust-jacket of Inspector Minahan Makes A Stand, Bridget O’Donnell has an MA in ‘Creative Non-Fiction’. Possibly this explains her weakness for wildly overwrought phrases and hilariously inappropriate imagery.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2209919/INSPECTOR-MINAHAN-MAKES-A-STAND-BY-BRIDGET-ODONNELL.html#ixzz3648Dt1Bi

by Guest 29.06.14 22:57

Hobs wrote:GM....'I was the last to see her, I saw her and thought how beautiful she was'.

Oh dear gerry, another open mouth insert foot moment.

Surely the last person to see her was the alleged abductor.
if you are telling us you were the last person to see her, the, logic dictates there was no abductor, and, if there was no abductor and you were the last to see her, what did you do with her body?

Also why the use of past tense?

Given this was shortly after she vanished , allegedly abducted, as an innocent parent you would not be thinking past tense, you would be thinking present tense, especially as you were claiming she was abducted and there was no evidence of serious harm.

I saw her and thought how beautiful she was'.
Is she no longer beautiful gerry?

Was she no longer beautiful when you saw her last?

Dead bodies do not look beautiful.
Dead bodies that have beeen lying around for a while, even if kept chilled or possibly frozen do not look beautiful>

Kate tells us how Maddie looked, her grey and mottled body lying on a cold stone slab along with the description of her genitals.

This doesn't sound like something she would dream, dreams tend to minimise, to blur over.
Why would she dream about her perfect torn genitals?

An innocent mother wouldn't consider that, she would presume and hope her child was alive and unharmed.
This would be normal parental instinct, to assume the best.

Yet kate goes into graphic detail about what she saw.
I believe this is how she saw Maddie sometime after her death, probably just prior to her being removed.

Deleted

Since she describes a cold stone slab it leads me to think perhaps she was stored in the crypt of the church where it would be cool.

It would be interesting to see if cadaver dogs would react in unexpected areas ( corpses would be in coffins so there is less chance of cross contamination of a body. if for example blood and cadaverine were found in the crypt on a stone slab but not other ones.
It is uncommon for a church to be searched but in this case it is warranted given the amount of time they spent there alone and the language of the priests.
Perhaps this is something they were banking on, the sanctity of the church giving them time to come up with a final dumping place.

Excellent interesting posts thanks to comperedna, Cristobell and Hobbs.

It was D Payne that organised the holiday wasn't it??? A group of friends or acquaintances from different parts of the country gathered together for a one week trip to the Algarve? Seems a lot of trouble to go to only to spend a couple of hours together in the evenings, unless they had a wider agenda.
The point you make about the sanctity of hallowed ground being an ideal location for concealment of a corpse, even if only temporary, Hobbs is IMO the most likely.

by j.rob 30.06.14 10:03

Just picking out a few points from this thread. With regard to the Elizabeth Smart case, none of it stands up to scrutiny. That TM should cite the case is of interest, however.

As for the Mcs stress and suffering, surely this was always self-imposed on account of their negligent child care arrangements, IMO?

As for Kate's comments about having to make child are arrangements when they go to Portugal to attend the trial, I think this is a very sensitive area indeed, especially when you take into account the above scenario.

As I have written elsewhere it would be a scandal of even greater proportions (if that is possible) if anything unexplained happened to either of the couple's surviving children. Those who have 'protected' them cannot possibly risk this. (And yes the irony of this mindset off the back of what TM are purporting to re 'missing children' etc is indeed mind blowing...)

The care and well being of children was never anything to do with this case, IMO, which is what makes it all so especially sickening and cynical.

Amaral , despite TMs best efforts is on studier foundations than the K and G show which I presume is being rather desperately propped up to avoid serious embarrassment?

IMO as always.

by Justformaddie 30.06.14 10:25

Hmm, a few words from the last few posts being mentioned on twitter last night, seems they weren't happy about it, delete if not allowed to be mentioned.

by Guest 30.06.14 10:37

Justformaddie wrote:Hmm, a few words from the last few posts being mentioned on twitter last night, seems they weren't happy about it, delete if not allowed to be mentioned.

Thanks JfM, I have deleted a paragraph and one other post. Rather unsavoury, too graphic and maybe libellous. Please members be very careful what you post.

by Justformaddie 30.06.14 10:45

candyfloss wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Hmm, a few words from the last few posts being mentioned on twitter last night, seems they weren't happy about it, delete if not allowed to be mentioned.

Thanks JfM, I have deleted a paragraph and one other post. Rather unsavoury, too graphic and maybe libellous. Please members be very careful what you post.

Annoyed now that I didn't let you know last night, was afraid but, yea strong description what they'd read!

by comperedna 30.06.14 15:28

I forgot Tony was a sometime social worker as well as a solicitor, so he would have met some harrowing cases... as I have. One thing Michelle Elliot said to the young children in the after school child protection sessions that I forgot to write on here was: 'Your body is yours and you alone are the boss of it'.

I agree that the taste for young children as sex objects must become addictive (it is difficult for parents to understand this as they see them as beautiful and charming rather than sexy - even when they are aping adults) but it also has a very big element of control... controlling a child is so much easier than controlling an adult. Sometimes a surprisingly gross emotional immaturity in the abuser is involved too, I think. I am not an expert, only someone who has seen some sad events. Others on here have themselves been victims, and so in many ways are better able to speak about it... Nowadays of course we have the Internet and still pictures and filming of exploited children for posting up there... Hmmm...

I found it very surprising from the off that GM was describing Madeleine's disappearance as 'abduction by a paedophile' - meaning by a lone stranger who had got into 5a and carried her off without noise, or protest, or waking up, and so on. Everything I had understood previously told me this was so unlikely as to be hardly worth considering... though the police seemed to be treating the case as the very very rare exception... for no good reason that I could see... particularly as there seemed to be no evidence at all of abduction.

What I so liked about Ms Elliott's approach was that she attempted to try and give some kind of power back to even young children to influence events, and whilst she never once minimised the horrible and lasting effects that can sometimes result if help is not given to victims, she tried to normalise the subject so that youngsters would preferably be able to avoid attack, and if they were molested, not to become damaged long term by the exoerience.

by Guest 30.06.14 15:59

@ comperedna Today at 2:28 pm

"What I so liked about Ms Elliott's approach was that she attempted to try and give some kind of power back to even young children to influence events, and whilst she never once minimised the horrible and lasting effects that can sometimes result if help is not given to victims, she tried to normalise the subject so that youngsters would preferably be able to avoid attack, and if they were molested, not to become damaged long term by the exoerience."

As a matter of interest, can I ask what age range your are referring to? Say for example a pre-school child, is it possible to help them understand the potential danger of an over friendly adult, to be able to recognize the signs, to take control of their own well being? Is it frightening for some very young children to be told some of the horrible things they may need to face?

What an awful world we live in that children need to be protected in this way.

by **PeterMac** 30.06.14 16:28

Gollum wrote:What an awful world we live in that children need to be protected in this way.

And on the internet are people who support the Cipriano child murderers, insisting it was a miscarriage of justice,
and who will not accept that Cipriano was NOT beaten up by the police, but by other inmates, and is serving an extra term of imprisonment for lying
And these are the very same ones who support the McCanns.

Incredible, but true.

I wonder if the Mccanns are entirely happy about the situation.
They seem to have no "normal" supporters anywhere.
The ones who seem to have read some bits out of the files simply dismiss the entire thing as lies and a plot,
The others clearly have no idea about any of the details of the case - as with most reporters.

by Cristobell 30.06.14 18:02

Gollum wrote:@ comperedna Today at 2:28 pm

"What I so liked about Ms Elliott's approach was that she attempted to try and give some kind of power back to even young children to influence events, and whilst she never once minimised the horrible and lasting effects that can sometimes result if help is not given to victims, she tried to normalise the subject so that youngsters would preferably be able to avoid attack, and if they were molested, not to become damaged long term by the exoerience."

As a matter of interest, can I ask what age range your are referring to? Say for example a pre-school child, is it possible to help them understand the potential danger of an over friendly adult, to be able to recognize the signs, to take control of their own well being? Is it frightening for some very young children to be told some of the horrible things they may need to face?

What an awful world we live in that children need to be protected in this way.

An awful world indeed Gollum. Sorry to go off on a feminist tangent, but I think one of the ways in which to tackle the problem is by empowering women - perhaps give them higher expectations than boob jobs and a desperate need to find Mr. Right. Sadly many women are too dim (and there is no other way of putting it) to realise that they do not have to tolerate male brutality towards themselves and their children. I realise in this changing world that female brutality is also on the rise, and equally, men trapped in such situations should be empowered in just the same way.

Society dictates that we should live in units of man + woman + 2.4 children. That is the accepted, the 'norm'. Knowingly and unknowingly we indoctrinate our children with the ideology of the society we live in. When we hit puberty our hormones kick in and our need to procreate takes over from our common sense. When we girls are drooling at the Yorkie bar eating Neanderthal ordering a pint and chaser at the bar, that message is coming directly from our horny little egg follicles sending out oestrogen and bypassing the brain.

Sadly, too many women move men into their homes knowing very little about them, and if it later transpires the man is violent or abusing their children physically or sexually, they are already subjugated and can see no way out. The current figures for domestic violence are, I believe, 1 in 4, but that is just the tip of the iceberg as it only represents the incidents reported. Too early in life so many kids divide into bullies and victims, both products of dysfunctional home lives and lack of education, and so the pattern continues throughout the next generation and the next.

Child abuse is a subject I fear to read about, not only because it is so distressing, but also because researching might lead to a night visit by a police hit squad! But, imo, the best way to approach the 'battle' is to teach mothers the signs to look out for and to teach mothers to have the courage to stand up to those who are abusing their children. The mothers, in most instances, are the very front line. Thankfully most are tuned into their childrens' needs, but there are far too many who put their own needs and those of their current partners above those of their children.

Some might blame the changes in society on loss of religion or even the promiscuous society of the 1960's - I know my ex-husband did winkwink

, but imo, it is simply evolution, it may be that we are evolving beyond society's man + woman + 2.4 children 'man'made rule, but that may be a whole other debate.

by plebgate 30.06.14 18:47

Too many sandal wearing liberals putting their views forward and calling anyone who disagrees a hater etc. They have had their way for too long imo and it's about time family values prevailed once again in UK.

What does amaze me is how many female children of older celebs seem to have done absoultely zilch with their lives except appear in the media either stoned or drunk falling out of nightclubs. All the money spent on their education and yet they end up with virtually no qualifications and seem only interested in being photographed with next to nothing on or carrying little dogs around in their handbags.

Poor little rich people ah diddums.

Something has gone seriously wrong and needs to be put right pronto, but who will speak up for family values these days?

by Dont Make Me Laff 30.06.14 18:53

plebgate wrote:Too many sandal wearing liberals putting their views forward and calling anyone who disagrees a hater etc. They have had their way for too long imo and it's about time family values prevailed once again in UK.

What does amaze me is how many female children of older celebs seem to have done absoultely zilch with their lives except appear in the media either stoned or drunk falling out of nightclubs. All the money spent on their education and yet they end up with virtually no qualifications and seem only interested in being photographed with next to nothing on or carrying little dogs around in their handbags.

Poor little rich people ah diddums.

Something has gone seriously wrong and needs to be put right pronto, but who will speak up for family values these days?

You only have to look at Pipa Middleton to see that

by missmar1 30.06.14 18:54

PeterMac wrote:
Gollum wrote:What an awful world we live in that children need to be protected in this way.

And on the internet are people who support the Cipriano child murderers, insisting it was a miscarriage of justice,
and who will not accept that Cipriano was NOT beaten up by the police, but by other inmates, and is serving an extra term of imprisonment for lying
And these are the very same ones who support the McCanns.

Incredible, but true.

I wonder if the Mccanns are entirely happy about the situation.
They seem to have no "normal" supporters anywhere.
The ones who seem to have read some bits out of the files simply dismiss the entire thing as lies and a plot,
The others clearly have no idea about any of the details of the case - as with most reporters.

I think they (Mccann supporters) would not be so quick to draw attention to, or believe, that monsterous woman ( Cipriano ) if it wasn't for the fact that it was Mr Amaral who was implicated in that case ..... as far as I'm aware, all he did was believe his officers when they said they didn't beat her and he signed to that effect - but it seems it suits certain people to believe he is a disgraced ex policeman who was involved in another missing child case.....

These supporters may be hoping that by " backing" that vile Cipriano woman's claims it will make the Mccann's look like they are also victims of Mr Amaral.

by Dont Make Me Laff 30.06.14 19:03

missmar1 wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Gollum wrote:What an awful world we live in that children need to be protected in this way.

And on the internet are people who support the Cipriano child murderers, insisting it was a miscarriage of justice,
and who will not accept that Cipriano was NOT beaten up by the police, but by other inmates, and is serving an extra term of imprisonment for lying
And these are the very same ones who support the McCanns.

Incredible, but true.

I wonder if the Mccanns are entirely happy about the situation.
They seem to have no "normal" supporters anywhere.
The ones who seem to have read some bits out of the files simply dismiss the entire thing as lies and a plot,
The others clearly have no idea about any of the details of the case - as with most reporters.

I think they (Mccann supporters) would not be so quick to draw attention to, or believe, that monsterous woman ( Cipriano ) if it wasn't for the fact that it was Mr Amaral who was implicated in that case ..... as far as I'm aware, all he did was believe his officers when they said they didn't beat her and he signed to that effect - but it seems it suits certain people to believe he is a disgraced ex policeman who was involved in another missing child case.....

These supporters may be hoping that by " backing" that vile Cipriano woman's claims it will make the Mccann's look like they are also victims of Mr Amaral.

GA only takes prisoners who are guilty!
He has no need to make something out of nothing
He has proved and continues to prove that he only wants the truth to be told but some A*s* likkers want him condemned
K&G are so thick that they did not realise that their efforts to silence the fella's book ACTUALLY made it SHOUT
How thick are they?
Jeeze

by Guest 30.06.14 19:04

It's the strangest of things, Missmart, that Dr. Amaral was convicted for perjury in a case, that never existed, as all detectives concerned were released as innocent...

by Justformaddie 30.06.14 19:20

Just heard sy are to question four formal suspects tomorrow and eight witnesses from itv news, hmm...

by missmar1 30.06.14 20:00

Châtelaine wrote:It's the strangest of things, Missmart, that Dr. Amaral was convicted for perjury in a case, that never existed, as all detectives concerned were released as innocent...

I know Chatelaine, its an injustice to Mr Amaral - he has a slur on his name and for what ? As you said, all the detectives concerned were released as innocent . I could be wrong but I think it was because it couldn't be established whether the beating actually took place where the Cipriano woman ( she must rate among the most cruel, vile and monstrous of mothers on this earth ) claimed it did, and also, it couldn't be established who it was who supposedly did the beating....so the ones in question were all released to get on with their lives ....but Mr Amaral has had to suffer the stigma for years.

I do so hope he wins this case - his life has been in tatters for simply doing his job, imo, at least some kind of real justice will have taken place if he does win.

by Dont Make Me Laff 30.06.14 20:08

missmar1 wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:It's the strangest of things, Missmart, that Dr. Amaral was convicted for perjury in a case, that never existed, as all detectives concerned were released as innocent...

I know Chatelaine, its an injustice to Mr Amaral - he has a slur on his name and for what ? As you said, all the detectives concerned were released as innocent . I could be wrong but I think it was because it couldn't be established whether the beating actually took place where the Cipriano woman ( she must rate among the most cruel, vile and monstrous of mothers on this earth ) claimed it did, and also, it couldn't be established who it was who supposedly did the beating....so the ones in question were all released to get on with their lives ....but Mr Amaral has had to suffer the stigma for years.

I do so hope he wins this case - his life has been in tatters for simply doing his job, imo, at least some kind of real justice will have taken place if he does win.

imo if GA does win then Justice will prevail...................