Re: Amaral - hero or villain?

by Guest 07.01.10 16:21

aiyoyo wrote:[quote=\"Slartibartfast\"]br />
Why is Amaral subject to an injunction and an imminent libel case?

Because the mccanns put him through that, because they want the process files kept in the dark and that damn Amaral has the audacity to take it out of the dark.

MAYBE BECAUSE HE TOLD A PACK OF LIES, COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE LACK OF FORENSICS AND WAS USELESS AND CORRUPT

Why did Tony Bennett capitulate when challenged by CR?

Again because the mccanns were afraid of the \'non-existent mud\' (as one poster put it) and sent the fierce dog, CR, (excuse the pun) after him, and AFAIU TB didnt want to leave his spouse \'homeless\' - fair enough imo.

BECAUSE TONY KNEW HIS LEAFLETS AND BOOKS WAS COMPILED ON A CROCK OF POO. A CROCK OF POO TAKEN MAINLY FROM AMARALS BOOK

The Portuguese Judiciary has already seen fit to sentence two of them in the Cipriano torture case and the same Judiciary also cleared the McCanns and Murat of any involvement in their daughter\'s abduction.

The former has nothing to do with Madeleine and should not be co-related to it, while the latter case is not closed - it\'s pending more or new evidence.

STRANGE HOW I AM SURE THE FORMER HAS GOT SOMETHING TO DO WITH MADELEINE, AS HE WAS THE INSPECTOR ON THE CASE...THE PJ ARE TELLING PEOPLE THE CASE IS CLOSED.

That is obviously not a criticism of the judiciary of Portugal. It is simply one small cadre of officers who also happened to be investigating this case.

The small cadre happened to form an important part of the entity of the Police judicial as an entirety who were official investigators in the first crucial months of the mccanns investigation. That fact cannot be altered whether people like the outcome or not and that was good to stand in the released process files.

Imho, the selection of Amaral as co-ordinator of this case was a bad move given his position as arguido even before he was appointed.

You did say it was YOUR opinion yeah? So no comment on it per se.
It was a pity the Public Ministry didnt seek your opinion before seeing fit to put Amaral in charge yeah? Incidentally, other opinions (including Public Ministry for example) existed as well in case your are interested.

A VERY BAD CALL AND OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE COULD SEE HOW OUT OF HIS DEPTH THE FAT DEFECTIVE WAS.

I would expect that you have more contempt for the Judiciary in Portugal since you refuse to accept that it has ruled that the officer in charge of the investigation was guilty of perjury. ie. corrupt. Unequivocally so.

Excuse me, did the Judiciary rule the officers in charge of madeleine investigation guilty of anything pertaining to the case? Not as far as I know! What has the other case got to do with Madeleine? The facts of other case are not co-related to Madeleine case are they?

How you can say that a corrupt police officer in charge of this case does not have a bearing on everything related is beyond me!!
It IS the \'Official investigator\' that is corrupt. A proven liar.
But you will accept his word simply because of his position despite the Portuguese juduciary\'s ruling on his activities.

[b]In case you are interested I didnt read Amaral Book, neither do I consider him hero or villian. He was simply an investigator with 30 years exemplary record for combating narcotics and crimes. In the Cipriano case which I must admit I am not well up on, the girl was cruelly treated and died a horrific death at the hands of her carers. I must admit I am not well up on Amaral supposed misdemeanor in the handling of it, but that poor girl deserved justice which apparently Amaral went way out and fought for it for her!

AMARAL HAS BEEN KNOWN BEFORE FOR BEING CORRUPT. HE HAS HAD DEALINGS BEFORE BUT IT IS WIDESPREAD WITHIN THE PORTUGESE SYSTEM. SEE HOW MANY DRUG DEALERS ESCAPE WHILST AMARAL INVESTIGATED THEM. STRANGE HOW A LOT GOT AWAY YET INNOCENT PEOPLE SUFFERED.
][/quote]

by preciousramotswe 07.01.10 16:26

AFAIAC, the released bits points one direction and it ain\\\'t direction abduction!

That's a very common misconception, particularly among those who haven't actually read it very carefully, if at all.
As for the 'released bit', I fear you are being led down the garden path by those who want you to believe that all the really interesting stuff has been kept secret. That's because many of those who were convinced of the Mccanns guilt and the brilliance of Amaral were so profoundly disappointed with what was in the files that they concocted the idea that they had not been shown the important bits.

by DCB1 07.01.10 16:30

I think interleaving of answers should be banned.

by DCB1 07.01.10 16:31

and it is aiyoyo formatting that screws threads up.

by Guest 07.01.10 16:33

DCB1 wrote:and it is aiyoyo formatting that screws threads up.

Is Aiyoyo a mod?

by vaguely 07.01.10 16:38

that was a BOLD question.

geddit???

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 16:39

DCB1 wrote:I think interleaving of answers should be banned.

Hear! Hear!

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 16:45

rockyrobin wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:[quote=\"Slartibartfast\"]br />
Why is Amaral subject to an injunction and an imminent libel case?

Because the mccanns put him through that, because they want the process files kept in the dark and that damn Amaral has the audacity to take it out of the dark.

MAYBE BECAUSE HE TOLD A PACK OF LIES, COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE LACK OF FORENSICS AND WAS USELESS AND CORRUPT

Why did Tony Bennett capitulate when challenged by CR?

Again because the mccanns were afraid of the \'non-existent mud\' (as one poster put it) and sent the fierce dog, CR, (excuse the pun) after him, and AFAIU TB didnt want to leave his spouse \'homeless\' - fair enough imo.

BECAUSE TONY KNEW HIS LEAFLETS AND BOOKS WAS COMPILED ON A CROCK OF POO. A CROCK OF POO TAKEN MAINLY FROM AMARALS BOOK

The Portuguese Judiciary has already seen fit to sentence two of them in the Cipriano torture case and the same Judiciary also cleared the McCanns and Murat of any involvement in their daughter\'s abduction.

The former has nothing to do with Madeleine and should not be co-related to it, while the latter case is not closed - it\'s pending more or new evidence.

STRANGE HOW I AM SURE THE FORMER HAS GOT SOMETHING TO DO WITH MADELEINE, AS HE WAS THE INSPECTOR ON THE CASE...THE PJ ARE TELLING PEOPLE THE CASE IS CLOSED.

That is obviously not a criticism of the judiciary of Portugal. It is simply one small cadre of officers who also happened to be investigating this case.

The small cadre happened to form an important part of the entity of the Police judicial as an entirety who were official investigators in the first crucial months of the mccanns investigation. That fact cannot be altered whether people like the outcome or not and that was good to stand in the released process files.

Imho, the selection of Amaral as co-ordinator of this case was a bad move given his position as arguido even before he was appointed.

You did say it was YOUR opinion yeah? So no comment on it per se.
It was a pity the Public Ministry didnt seek your opinion before seeing fit to put Amaral in charge yeah? Incidentally, other opinions (including Public Ministry for example) existed as well in case your are interested.

A VERY BAD CALL AND OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE COULD SEE HOW OUT OF HIS DEPTH THE FAT DEFECTIVE WAS.

I would expect that you have more contempt for the Judiciary in Portugal since you refuse to accept that it has ruled that the officer in charge of the investigation was guilty of perjury. ie. corrupt. Unequivocally so.

Excuse me, did the Judiciary rule the officers in charge of madeleine investigation guilty of anything pertaining to the case? Not as far as I know! What has the other case got to do with Madeleine? The facts of other case are not co-related to Madeleine case are they?

How you can say that a corrupt police officer in charge of this case does not have a bearing on everything related is beyond me!!
It IS the \'Official investigator\' that is corrupt. A proven liar.
But you will accept his word simply because of his position despite the Portuguese juduciary\'s ruling on his activities.

[b]In case you are interested I didnt read Amaral Book, neither do I consider him hero or villian. He was simply an investigator with 30 years exemplary record for combating narcotics and crimes. In the Cipriano case which I must admit I am not well up on, the girl was cruelly treated and died a horrific death at the hands of her carers. I must admit I am not well up on Amaral supposed misdemeanor in the handling of it, but that poor girl deserved justice which apparently Amaral went way out and fought for it for her!

AMARAL HAS BEEN KNOWN BEFORE FOR BEING CORRUPT. HE HAS HAD DEALINGS BEFORE BUT IT IS WIDESPREAD WITHIN THE PORTUGESE SYSTEM. SEE HOW MANY DRUG DEALERS ESCAPE WHILST AMARAL INVESTIGATED THEM. STRANGE HOW A LOT GOT AWAY YET INNOCENT PEOPLE SUFFERED.
]

[/quote]

You can't be more obvious can you?

Incidentally, there is NO need to shout - so how rude!

All your opinions, and all twisted for reasons known only to you, as evidenced and couldnt be made clearer in this particular sentence of yours "The PJ are telling people the case is closed". What a load of bollock!

The PP/AG clearly stated the case is shelved! In case you did not understand shelved, it ain't closed.

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 16:50

badmanners wrote:AFAIAC, the released bits points one direction and it ain\\\'t direction abduction!

That's a very common misconception, particularly among those who haven't actually read it very carefully, if at all.
As for the 'released bit', I fear you are being led down the garden path by those who want you to believe that all the really interesting stuff has been kept secret. That's because many of those who were convinced of the Mccanns guilt and the brilliance of Amaral were so profoundly disappointed with what was in the files that they concocted the idea that they had not been shown the important bits.

And, who in particular you thought has led me down the garden path may I ask?

by Guest 07.01.10 16:54

Try telling people who called the PJ to pass on new information regarding the case. They were told it was closed.

Get your facts right.

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 17:15

aliberte2 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:

No matter the veracity of Amaral's past or people's perception, what has that got to do with mccanns responsibility to Madeleine, or for that matter what they did to her according to official investigators thesis?

Is that the best you can come up with for Madeleine?

Or is this not about Madeleine, since none of the usual suspects counter the question?

Failure to Be There With Madeleine that Night is Proof of What.... Manslaughter? Do You Have Anything Else? A Theory As to How they Dumped the Body Under Amaral's Nose, Perhaps?

Failure to be with Madeleine proved they didnt think anything about endangering her.

Dont give me they didn't think - they are parents first of all, plus they are doctors at that!

Don't give me blame the abductor tosh either - because Maddie is their child and their responsibility.

I didnt know I am obliged to debate with YOU the nitty gritty of disposal and such. Perhaps you have a better idea than me in that department. Since you're of the firm belief it was abduction yeah (correct me if I am wrong), perhaps you want to share how that actually took place because without a shred of evidence in the process files, no one has any idea! Whereas there are enough inconsistences and circumstantial evidence in the files to indicate the other theory...according to the PJ of course. As to the crucial and damning bits - that is in the good hands of investigators.

As you may have noticed, certain poster been trying to rump it down people's throat the case is closed but that's distortion of the fact!

by Guest 07.01.10 17:25

In other words you have no idea what so ever how her body was dumped.

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 18:36

rockyrobin wrote:In other words you have no idea what so ever how her body was dumped.

You have any idea how she was taken?

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 18:39

rockyrobin wrote:Try telling people who called the PJ to pass on new information regarding the case. They were told it was closed.

Get your facts right.

Which people have called the PJ? You have first hand account?

Did you get the name of the PJ you spoke to?

You said they? Who's they?

Try not to twist the fact to suit yourself!

by Guest 07.01.10 18:52

aiyoyo wrote:
rockyrobin wrote:Try telling people who called the PJ to pass on new information regarding the case. They were told it was closed.

Get your facts right.

Which people have called the PJ? You have first hand account?

Did you get the name of the PJ you spoke to?

You said they? Who's they?

Try not to twist the fact to suit yourself!

No it was reported in the papers by concerned people who had contacted them. Now the papers contacted the PJ who said the same.

Get your facts right please, or let the organ grinder free.

by vaguely 07.01.10 19:08

Is there a link to any of this so it can be put to bed?

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 19:11

rockyrobin wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
rockyrobin wrote:Try telling people who called the PJ to pass on new information regarding the case. They were told it was closed.

Get your facts right.

Which people have called the PJ? You have first hand account?

Did you get the name of the PJ you spoke to?

You said they? Who's they?

Try not to twist the fact to suit yourself!

No it was reported in the papers by concerned people who had contacted them. Now the papers contacted the PJ who said the same.

Get your facts right please, or let the organ grinder free.

Concerned people? Who might those be? People who called them with false sightings or misinformation yeah? It's a no wonder they are not interested because they know better!

Who can blame PJ for being utterly fed up with people wasting police time?
Just goes to show the abduction theory is closed, but NOT the case - not according to PP/AG.

You can believe the papers all you want - papers are known to print craps and half-story for profit!

Suit yourself, but dont bully people with your distortion!

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 19:14

vaguely wrote:Is there a link to any of this so it can be put to bed?

If this link is related to papers I am not interested! Not judging from what they'd printed in the 2-1/2 year under the control of Pinkie!

by vaguely 07.01.10 19:15

aiyoyo wrote:
vaguely wrote:Is there a link to any of this so it can be put to bed?

If this link is related to papers I am not interested! Not judging from what they'd printed in the 2-1/2 year under the control of Pinkie!

judging by what they've printed FULL STOP.

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 19:22

vaguely wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
vaguely wrote:Is there a link to any of this so it can be put to bed?

If this link is related to papers I am not interested! Not judging from what they'd printed in the 2-1/2 year under the control of Pinkie!

judging by what they've printed FULL STOP.

OK dokie.

Latest topics