Re: Amaral - hero or villain?

by Guest 06.01.10 7:44

You don't know the McCanns either; therefore according to your philosophy, their faults are none of your business, yet that has not precluded you and others from finding fault and nit-picking every word or gesture they have made over the past 2 1/2 years.

by Slartibartfast 06.01.10 9:53

Avery wrote:We all have faults which have nothing to do with the case. I don't pay any attention to smear campaigns because I realize the facts have been distorted and misrepresented.

OJ Simpson was acquitted of a brutal murder of two people not because he was innocent but because a jury got distracted by mud in their eyes. Attack the character of the police officers and prove they are not perfect and voila your client is free to kill again. Lovely system that.

The allegation that the McCanns left their children unattended has a direct bearing on her disappearance so it is relevant to the case. Amaral's finances have nothing to do with anything. He would have gladly stayed on the case and solved it for free if he had been allowed.

Why do I have to acknowledge Amarals faults? I don't even know the man and his faults are none of my business.

But the problem here is that his faults are completely at odds with his former career.
His faults include failing to stop people under him torture a suspect and lying about it in court.
How can anyone say that a policeman's flagrant abuse of the law and the fundamental rights of citizens does not have a bearing on their work?
I mean, seriously!!!!? Wtf?
You know....policemen.....guardians of the law and that?
How can someone who breaks the law be entrusted to uphold it, particularly the kind of crime he was convicted of?

by Guest 06.01.10 12:05

There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past that would point to them being evil or deliberately covering up a child's death. Yet they are picked at with a vengeance.

Amaral on the other hand - Well where do you start?

by Avery 06.01.10 14:59

PearlB wrote:There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past that would point to them being evil or deliberately covering up a child's death. Yet they are picked at with a vengeance.

Amaral on the other hand - Well where do you start?

There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past period. They are a blank slate. Perhaps because those who believe they may know what happened to Madeleine are not character assassins or mud slingers. They are investigating the case on facts and they have not sunk to the lows and smears the coming from the English side.

by Guest 06.01.10 15:10

The fact is the McCann are innocent law abiding people. Amaral is a CONVICTED LIAR is on a suspended sentence and is disgraced.

How many trial has Amaral hanging over him now?

by Slartibartfast 06.01.10 15:23

Avery wrote:
PearlB wrote:There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past that would point to them being evil or deliberately covering up a child's death. Yet they are picked at with a vengeance.

Amaral on the other hand - Well where do you start?

There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past period. They are a blank slate. Perhaps because those who believe they may know what happened to Madeleine are not character assassins or mud slingers. They are investigating the case on facts and they have not sunk to the lows and smears the coming from the English side.

And accusing parents of being involved in the death and/or subsequent cover-up of their child without a shred of proof is not mudslinging or character assassination?
Amaral had his chance when he had all the resources of the PJ at his disposal and came up with nothing.
Not content with abiding by the decision of the judiciary, Amaral went on to write a book based on his unproven hypothesis and make a few quid in the process.
Then he was convicted about lying about his knowledge of torture in a station under his command.
Amaral does not care about facts. If he can't beat his version out of you he'll write a book about it.
Does the fact of his involvement in the torture of witnesses not bother you one bit?

by Guest 06.01.10 15:35

Slartibartfast wrote:
Avery wrote:
PearlB wrote:There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past that would point to them being evil or deliberately covering up a child's death. Yet they are picked at with a vengeance.

Amaral on the other hand - Well where do you start?

There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past period. They are a blank slate. Perhaps because those who believe they may know what happened to Madeleine are not character assassins or mud slingers. They are investigating the case on facts and they have not sunk to the lows and smears the coming from the English side.

And accusing parents of being involved in the death and/or subsequent cover-up of their child without a shred of proof is not mudslinging or character assassination?
Amaral had his chance when he had all the resources of the PJ at his disposal and came up with nothing.
Not content with abiding by the decision of the judiciary, Amaral went on to write a book based on his unproven hypothesis and make a few quid in the process.
Then he was convicted about lying about his knowledge of torture in a station under his command.
Amaral does not care about facts. If he can't beat his version out of you he'll write a book about it.
Does the fact of his involvement in the torture of witnesses not bother you one bit?

I find it hard to believe that people will not see this man for what he is. Perhaps there has been mass brainwashing and we missed it. Or - we missed it because we don't read or believe Morais's attempted whitewashing of him.

by Guest 06.01.10 15:36

Avery wrote:
PearlB wrote:There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past that would point to them being evil or deliberately covering up a child's death. Yet they are picked at with a vengeance.

Amaral on the other hand - Well where do you start?

There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past period. They are a blank slate. Perhaps because those who believe they may know what happened to Madeleine are not character assassins or mud slingers. They are investigating the case on facts and they have not sunk to the lows and smears the coming from the English side.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was anything lurking in their past - it would have been dug out long ago.

by aliberte2 06.01.10 19:39

PearlB wrote:
Avery wrote:
PearlB wrote:There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past that would point to them being evil or deliberately covering up a child's death. Yet they are picked at with a vengeance.

Amaral on the other hand - Well where do you start?

There isn't anything that has come out about the McCanns past period. They are a blank slate. Perhaps because those who believe they may know what happened to Madeleine are not character assassins or mud slingers. They are investigating the case on facts and they have not sunk to the lows and smears the coming from the English side.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was anything lurking in their past - it would have been dug out long ago.

Didn't the Papers Bring Out Kate McCann's University nickname and Yearbook Picture, etc?

by sans_souci 06.01.10 21:28

Possibly because of a resemblence to a character in MASH, and that she drank in bars. She was a medical student at university. Hardly unusual or the scandal of the century.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.01.10 21:42

PearlB wrote:You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was anything lurking in their past - it would have been dug out long ago.

You seem to be forgetting something.

Namely that the McCanns' paid public relations chief for the past two-and-a-half years or more has been Clarence Mitchell, the man who once boasted that his job at the 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit was 'to control what comes out in the media'.

by Guest 06.01.10 22:11

Tony Bennett wrote:
PearlB wrote:You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was anything lurking in their past - it would have been dug out long ago.
You seem to be forgetting something.

Namely that the McCanns' paid public relations chief for the past two-and-a-half years or more has been Clarence Mitchell, the man who once boasted that his job at the 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit was 'to control what comes out in the media'.

Oh come on Tony. You know as well as the rest of us that money talks - If there had been ANYTHING even slightly dubious someone would have "opened up".

by Guest 06.01.10 22:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
PearlB wrote:You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was anything lurking in their past - it would have been dug out long ago.
You seem to be forgetting something.

Namely that the McCanns' paid public relations chief for the past two-and-a-half years or more has been Clarence Mitchell, the man who once boasted that his job at the 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit was 'to control what comes out in the media'.

Nonsense, and you know it.
They didn't have a paid public relations chief when Madeleine went missing.
Journo's spoke to all kind of people who knew them. I'm sure (certainly when they were made arguido's) someone would have come forward if there was anything lurking in their past. Like Pearl's said : money talks.
When Mitchell started working for them, he couldn't control what was published in the papers. Else they wouldn't have won that libel case, because libelous articles wouldn't have been printed.

by Baharat 07.01.10 6:23

Avery wrote:Mr. Amarals finances are none of my business. Whenever anyone is trying to dig up dirt and discredit others I look carefully at the dirt digger not the victim. It seems to be part of PR strategy these days. Toss as much mud and try to shut up those who would question your client.

Charlie Sheen threatens his wife with a knife to her throat because she wanted a divorce. Suddenly the papers are full of reports of her past legal troubles and visits to rehab. Charlies PR team working overtime to make him look like the victim. Disgusting business.

I can assure you Amarals finances had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance. One must keep one's eye on the ball and not be distracted by the sideshows.

Excellent post. It's amazing what expensive PR can do.

by Baharat 07.01.10 6:26

Avery wrote:We all have faults which have nothing to do with the case. I don't pay any attention to smear campaigns because I realize the facts have been distorted and misrepresented.

OJ Simpson was acquitted of a brutal murder of two people not because he was innocent but because a jury got distracted by mud in their eyes. Attack the character of the police officers and prove they are not perfect and voila your client is free to kill again. Lovely system that.

The allegation that the McCanns left their children unattended has a direct bearing on her disappearance so it is relevant to the case. Amaral's finances have nothing to do with anything. He would have gladly stayed on the case and solved it for free if he had been allowed.

Why do I have to acknowledge Amarals faults? I don't even know the man and his faults are none of my business.

And another excellent post. It's a pity more people don't accept the fact that they don't actually know the people they insist on denigrating.

by Baharat 07.01.10 6:27

Chinagirl wrote:You don't know the McCanns either; therefore according to your philosophy, their faults are none of your business, yet that has not precluded you and others from finding fault and nit-picking every word or gesture they have made over the past 2 1/2 years.

And you do know them? Otherwise, why would you be defending them? By the same token, I assume you also know Amaral?

by Avery 07.01.10 6:53

Chinagirl wrote:You don't know the McCanns either; therefore according to your philosophy, their faults are none of your business, yet that has not precluded you and others from finding fault and nit-picking every word or gesture they have made over the past 2 1/2 years.

So please tell me when I have ever made any personal comment about the McCanns. I only discuss what I have direct knowledge of. One can see them on a video tape so I would suggest it is fair game to discuss what they said and their gestures and voice inflections. The same its true for anyone in the case. What is directly written and acknowleged as well as videos can be discussed. I personally do not believe much of what the newspapers say and about 80 percent of the internet forum discussion is probably rubbish.

If everyone would stick to the known facts and stop the urge to heap insults on the people involved in the case (Portuguese and English) we would have a much better chance of finding out what happened to Madeleine.

by Baharat 07.01.10 7:02

Oh how much simpler this would all be Avery, if people actually DİD stick to all the known facts.

Maybe then the insults would stop, do you think? Or perhaps I'm a little too optimistic.

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 8:34

Oh dear, this is yet another thread that has turned into a smear campaign, this time of Amaral, and all done by the usual suspects.

Can the pros mccanns (or abduction) be objective? No? Why Not?

What motivates them? Madeleine? Can't be -- because smearing Amaral has nothing to do with Madeleine. Since their objective is not Madeleine, people are left wondering what it could be!

by Ruby 07.01.10 10:37

It is frustrating aiyoyo, but given that DCB1 started it and the number of pros here, I kind of guessed where it was headed. That £180 p h PR campaign has told of GA's debts and possible infidelities, neither of which (a) matter a jot or (b) have caused even a ripple, so it has become imperative that vague, generalised slurs against him are meted out in the hope that something will shock someone somewhere.

by Guest 07.01.10 11:13

"And another excellent post. It's a pity more people don't accept the fact that they don't actually know the people they insist on denigrating.[/quote]"

How true that is.

by Guest 07.01.10 11:14

ANYONE KNOW HOW AMARAL'S FUND IS DOING,or not doing?

by Baharat 07.01.10 11:32

aiyoyo wrote:Oh dear, this is yet another thread that has turned into a smear campaign, this time of Amaral, and all done by the usual suspects.

Can the pros mccanns (or abduction) be objective? No? Why Not?

What motivates them? Madeleine? Can't be -- because smearing Amaral has nothing to do with Madeleine. Since their objective is not Madeleine, people are left wondering what it could be!

And that's really the million dollar question isn't it? Wink

by Guest 07.01.10 11:38

Baharat wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Oh dear, this is yet another thread that has turned into a smear campaign, this time of Amaral, and all done by the usual suspects.

Can the pros mccanns (or abduction) be objective? No? Why Not?

What motivates them? Madeleine? Can't be -- because smearing Amaral has nothing to do with Madeleine. Since their objective is not Madeleine, people are left wondering what it could be!

And that's really the million dollar question isn't it?

How can posting about Amaral's past demeanours be smearing him? Is it ok to drag the McCann family through non existant mud but we musn't mention Amarals lack of - Honesty,past behaviour etc?

by Perelli 07.01.10 11:40

This is from JATYK - can this really be Paolo Reis or is it someone else pretending to be him?

http://twitter.com/pjreis

#McCann Case: Stories will pop up (some already have) in blogs, with details about miscarriages of justice, following GA investigations
1:32 AM Jan 5th from TweetDeck Several former PJ inspectors cooperating with #McCann Team since October 2007 are the source of raw data about cases GA investigated

by Guest 07.01.10 11:49

Perelli wrote:This is from JATYK - can this really be Paolo Reis or is it someone else pretending to be him?

http://twitter.com/pjreis

#McCann Case: Stories will pop up (some already have) in blogs, with details about miscarriages of justice, following GA investigations
1:32 AM Jan 5th from TweetDeck Several former PJ inspectors cooperating with #McCann Team since October 2007 are the source of raw data about cases GA investigated

Which side is he on now? Its hard to tell with him!

by Baharat 07.01.10 11:51

PearlB wrote:
Perelli wrote:This is from JATYK - can this really be Paolo Reis or is it someone else pretending to be him?

http://twitter.com/pjreis

#McCann Case: Stories will pop up (some already have) in blogs, with details about miscarriages of justice, following GA investigations
1:32 AM Jan 5th from TweetDeck Several former PJ inspectors cooperating with #McCann Team since October 2007 are the source of raw data about cases GA investigated
Which side is he on now? Its hard to tell with him!

He's changed sides more times than I've had hot dinners. I started taking what he says with a pinch of salt a long time ago.

by Guest 07.01.10 11:58

Baharat wrote:
PearlB wrote:
Perelli wrote:This is from JATYK - can this really be Paolo Reis or is it someone else pretending to be him?

http://twitter.com/pjreis

#McCann Case: Stories will pop up (some already have) in blogs, with details about miscarriages of justice, following GA investigations
1:32 AM Jan 5th from TweetDeck Several former PJ inspectors cooperating with #McCann Team since October 2007 are the source of raw data about cases GA investigated
Which side is he on now? Its hard to tell with him!

He's changed sides more times than I've had hot dinners. I started taking what he says with a pinch of salt a long time ago.

Me too.

by Slartibartfast 07.01.10 12:15

aiyoyo wrote:Oh dear, this is yet another thread that has turned into a smear campaign, this time of Amaral, and all done by the usual suspects.

Can the pros mccanns (or abduction) be objective? No? Why Not?

What motivates them? Madeleine? Can't be -- because smearing Amaral has nothing to do with Madeleine. Since their objective is not Madeleine, people are left wondering what it could be!

Was it the "pros" that sacked him of the case?
Was it the "pros" that charged and convicted him of lying in court about the torture of a witness?
Was it the "pros" that have charged him with a further offense of torture?

No, it was the Portuguese authorities in ALL the above cases.
What is the motivation of people who refuse to accept these facts?
Why do people stand behind an obviously (and officially) corrupt policeman?
Since his objective is not Madeleine, people are left wondering what it could be!