The Book in question

by MaryB 02.12.09 15:03

I wonder what exact parts of the book the McCanns object to. A policeman in charge of the case gave his opinion on what he thinks might have happened. Isn't that what policeman are suppposed to do. Study the case, look at the clues, interview the witnesses and solve the crime. And when there is little or no evidence and conflicting evidence it is difficult sometimes seemingly impossible. But would it be true to say the police thought they had enough evidence for prosecution but the prosecutor didn't. Not sure about that fact. But from what I appear to have read at the time it did seem to be the case. So G Amaral wasn't the only one who thought the way he did. Or was he? Strange how the press are silent on a lot of this.

by **Jill Havern** 02.12.09 15:19

I'm moving this topic into the McCann case forum...

by Guest 02.12.09 15:24

Amaral was sacked five months into an investigation which went on for the best part of another year after he left.

After he left, the full DNA results came in.
After he left, the rogatories were carried out.

I don't think he has the right to write a book based on his understanding - limited as it has been proven to be - and then promote that book through a series of interviews which became increasingly bizarre and more outrageous as time went on, and claim that it is 'The Truth'.

The family have every right to prosecute him if they think he has overstepped the mark, and he has every right to defend himself. I dont agree that his rights have been squashed, and I'm amazed that a man with an income of well over 35 grand a year, who has made a lot extra from the book and his media activities over the last 12 months, needs to rely on charity to stump up 5 grandsworth of court fees.

He was like Bennett, all happy to mouth off about how he would love to give the Mccanns their day in court and argue it out in front of the bench, until he actually got the chance.

Then he claimed poverty as the reason for not being able to do so. They should BOTH have thought about that before, they both claim to be trained in law and neither, supposedly, are idiots.

by Guest 02.12.09 15:54

MaryB wrote:I wonder what exact parts of the book the McCanns object to. A policeman in charge of the case gave his opinion on what he thinks might have happened. Isn't that what policeman are suppposed to do. Study the case, look at the clues, interview the witnesses and solve the crime. And when there is little or no evidence and conflicting evidence it is difficult sometimes seemingly impossible. But would it be true to say the police thought they had enough evidence for prosecution but the prosecutor didn't. Not sure about that fact. But from what I appear to have read at the time it did seem to be the case. So G Amaral wasn't the only one who thought the way he did. Or was he? Strange how the press are silent on a lot of this.

Not quite, the issue is that at one point it was suspected that there might be parental involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, this is normal in a case such as this, what is abnormal is that this suspicion came 5 months into the investigation rather than right at the start as would be expected. However, this is not the main problem, as long as they get investigated and ruled out at some point then that's good practice, of sorts, and that's exactly what happened, this line of investigation was followed up, checked and examined from every angle, the interviews completed, final statements redone, forensic evidence examined in detail and they were ruled out, as was Mr Murat, so far all is well but since then Mr Amaral appears to have some sort of high profile mental breakdown which leads him to believe it is appropriate behaviour to kick and yell and scream that the rest of his colleagues are crap and/or willing to say to hell with justice and cover up some massive fraud that he can't prove.

This was for some bizarre reason appealing to folks such as Mr Bennett and Ms Butler and they decided to hitch their wagons to his public insanity.

This has little to do with the Mccanns, absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine and everything to do with men who are happy to lie for some purpose.

by MaryB 02.12.09 16:25

Do we know for a fact that none of G Amaral's colleagues or other policeman on the case agreed with him. If a case isn't solved I for one can't see how anything can be ruled out.

by Guest 02.12.09 16:43

We know for a fact that Tavares did agree with him.
It was largely Amaral's ideas that featured so heavily in his interim report written in September. He was an old chum of Amaral's and asked to be 'let go' just after Amaral was removed.

by ROCKY 02.12.09 17:24

Sousa gave a lot of live interviews on SKY...in fact at one point he was annoyed with Brunt for claiming he had said things he did not say. Sousa claimed the evidence was looking more toward the fact that Madeleine died in ap. 5A...Paulo rebelo also said that the investigation was still pointing in the same direction. SF questioned Kate on this and asked her did she not find it odd that even Rebelos findings were the same as Amaral. Kate did not answer., instead talked over SFs question.

by Guest 02.12.09 17:45

MaryB wrote:Do we know for a fact that none of G Amaral's colleagues or other policeman on the case agreed with him. If a case isn't solved I for one can't see how anything can be ruled out.

To be honest it doesn't matter if it was 1, 2 or all of them, the facts are that the investigation ended up ruling out involvement by either Murat or the McCanns. it is perfectly normal for many different scenarios to be considered throughout an investigation, it's just barmy to pick one that was ruled out and argue that's what happened just because he wants it to be so (and it's the version that spins the most cash).

The fact that both Amaral and in turn Mr Bennett both use an out of date report as their 'evidence' says it all, it's like they are both stuck in a time warp where we are all still in September 2007 and all the evidence collected since then doesn't exist.

by sans_souci 02.12.09 18:04

Amaral was part of the process of justice in Portugal. The case was investigated and shelved due to lack of evidence. Had the police been able to bring a case to prosecution, it would have been tried before the courts and guilt or innocence determined according to the law, with both parties properly represented.

Amaral decided, however, to write a book "proving" that Madeleine died in the apartment, and the parents were guilty at least of covering up and hiding her cadaver.

That is in effect "trying" the case in public but without due process. Amaral has had his say. The McCanns need to be able to defend themselves, hence the injunction and lible case etc etc.

by Guest 02.12.09 20:06

MaryB wrote:I wonder what exact parts of the book the McCanns object to. A policeman in charge of the case gave his opinion on what he thinks might have happened. Isn't that what policeman are suppposed to do. Study the case, look at the clues, interview the witnesses and solve the crime. And when there is little or no evidence and conflicting evidence it is difficult sometimes seemingly impossible. But would it be true to say the police thought they had enough evidence for prosecution but the prosecutor didn't. Not sure about that fact. But from what I appear to have read at the time it did seem to be the case. So G Amaral wasn't the only one who thought the way he did. Or was he? Strange how the press are silent on a lot of this.

I think Amara's best mate agreed with him. But The Public Prosecutor didn't. There wasn't any evidence.

by MaryB 02.12.09 20:43

But would it not be right to say there was not a lot of evidence (or none) to show that an abductor had entered the apartment. So really wandered off could still be a possibility. If we are talking about concrete evidence. There were a lot of road excavations in the area. And the sea wasn't too far away.

by Guest 02.12.09 21:06

MaryB wrote:But would it not be right to say there was not a lot of evidence (or none) to show that an abductor had entered the apartment. So really wandered off could still be a possibility. If we are talking about concrete evidence. There were a lot of road excavations in the area. And the sea wasn't too far away.

There is always a very small possibility that Madeleine wandered off, but she would have had some great dificulty opening doors, and she would almost certainly have gone to The Tapas Bar.

Just because an abductor didn't leave any definable evidence does not mean that there was no abductor. An abductor would have taken steps to prevent leaving any evidence.

by Guest 03.12.09 10:20

MaryB wrote:But would it not be right to say there was not a lot of evidence (or none) to show that an abductor had entered the apartment. So really wandered off could still be a possibility. If we are talking about concrete evidence. There were a lot of road excavations in the area. And the sea wasn't too far away.

At the start of an investigation there are always many possibilities and over time these are examined and ruled out or in, of course it is always possible that a child in an unlocked building could leave the premises themselves but that doesn't explain the open window and shutter (too high for Madeleine to reach), the fact that the patio door and front door were shut behind her and that nothing else was taken by her (shoes, toy, blanket), let alone that she was not discovered at some point.

If Kate did not have a clear recollection of the curtains moving, which is what drew her attention to the bedroom then it might be considered that in her shock and distress at finding Madeleine not in her bed she opened the shutter and window herself to look out the front of the building but her memories rule that possibility out.

by Guest 03.12.09 11:08

The baker says there is nuts in the cake just baked, the ingredients list states that it contains nuts but the delivery boy claims that when he dropped in for 5 minutes to drop off raisins that he only saw eggs and flour going in, of course he left before the cake was finished and baked.

Who do you believe, the baker or the delivery boy?

Mr Bennett would go with the delivery boy and stand back and wonder why you were going into anaphylactic shock.

by MaryB 03.12.09 13:35

I would reserve judgement till the cake was analysed. Only the lab might lose the results. Or the samples might get contaminated.

by Guest 03.12.09 14:21

MaryB wrote:I would reserve judgement till the cake was analysed. Only the lab might lose the results. Or the samples might get contaminated.

Not a good analogy, especially if there was no cake to analyse.

by Guest 03.12.09 14:55

MaryB wrote:I would reserve judgement till the cake was analysed. Only the lab might lose the results. Or the samples might get contaminated.

I think you might have missed the point of the analogy.

by Guest 03.12.09 15:48

clarity wrote:
MaryB wrote:I would reserve judgement till the cake was analysed. Only the lab might lose the results. Or the samples might get contaminated.

I think you might have missed the point of the analogy.

That as well, of course. But it might be a bit deep for some.

by Guest 03.12.09 15:53

Sabot wrote:
clarity wrote:
MaryB wrote:I would reserve judgement till the cake was analysed. Only the lab might lose the results. Or the samples might get contaminated.

I think you might have missed the point of the analogy.

That as well, of course. But it might be a bit deep for some.

I made it as simple as possible, oh well.

None so blind etc etc

by Finally 03.12.09 16:09

Hi

I am still sat on the fence and have not made my mind up as to what I think is likely to have happened to the little girl that night.

I just wonder that if an abductor can make sure that any evidence that he might leave behind is gone so that he cannot be traced, why couldn't Mr and Mrs McCann be just as likely to hide any evidence of any wrongdoing that they may have been involved in too had they, of course, been involved in Madeleine's disappearance in any way.

There is no absolute proof that they had a hand in whatever happened to her but likewise there is no proof that she was abducted either.

Isn't it this that has made the Portugese authorities shelve the case rather than close it completely? It simply appears to me that with the evidence obtained up to now it could still be either scenario that has caused her disappearance. I would not be surprised at all if the little girl had managed to take herself out of the apartment and something happened to her then.

Take care

by Guest 04.12.09 11:32

Of course its possible that they could hide their involvement in whatever happened to Madeleine but there is no evidence of any reason as to why they would do such a thing, you might as well assert that 'Finally' from the Right to Reply forum could have covered up their involvement in whatever happened to Madeleine only actually it is more likely that you were involved because as far as we know you have not been investigated and the Mccanns and extended friends and family have been and no evidence found.

So no reason for why they would a. hurt their child or b. cover up an accident and virtually no opportunity to do so, they were in a holiday resort, not exactly a private place and on holiday with friends who were around, popping in and out and who noticed nothing unusual?

by Finally 04.12.09 13:37

Hi

And I would be inclined to agree with you except that we are made aware that Mrs McCann was observed to be appearing to be regularly checking the two younger childrens' breathing which immediately puts me firmly back on that fence and unconvinced either way.

Take care

by Guest 04.12.09 15:52

Finally wrote:Hi

And I would be inclined to agree with you except that we are made aware that Mrs McCann was observed to be appearing to be regularly checking the two younger childrens' breathing which immediately puts me firmly back on that fence and unconvinced either way.

Take care

It is extremely likely that the abductor sedated all of the children with some sort of nose pad. He would hardly want any of them to wake up and start screaming.

Science has moved on some what since the days of chloroform so it is unlikely that there would be any smell. Or maybe that is why he opened the window.

by Guest 04.12.09 17:55

Finally wrote:Hi

And I would be inclined to agree with you except that we are made aware that Mrs McCann was observed to be appearing to be regularly checking the two younger childrens' breathing which immediately puts me firmly back on that fence and unconvinced either way.

Take care

Could you explain what you find unusual in that?

by Finally 04.12.09 21:19

Hi

If walking a mile in Mrs McCanns shoes having found your oldest child missing I believe that any of us would immediately check that the two younger children were ok.

The part that I find odd is that she checked their breathing several times. If there was such a great feeling of uncertainty why didn't she or one of the party take them to a local hospital where full tests could have been performed to check their health? Would it be that she could not afford to have any tests done that she didn't control for fear of what they might show?

Even with that question in my mind I can still consider other possibilities such as her being so distraught and not wishing to be too far away in case Madeleine was found so she made the best of the situation that she found herself in.

And the bottom line is it is easy to say what we think we would do in her situation but none of us know until we face that reality how we actually would behave. I think of that everytime a question is raised in my own mind by something about this case but that shouldn't stop us looking for answers should it. Sitting on this fence is starting to play havoc with my backside but it sure as heck feels a lot more comfy on my conscience.

Take care