O Crime interview with Ameral

jean wrote:Gonçalo Amaral: "The McCanns did not oppose the archiving of the process", 25 February 2010

Gonçalo Amaral: "The McCanns did not oppose the archiving of the process" O Crime (appears in paper edition only)

Er how does he know? He was NOT present, he was nothing to do with the investigation at this point he had been sacked, thrown off of it for gross professional misconduct, so this is something he should not know! For the bent corrupt lying cop's benefit, they did actually oppose the shelving of the case, on the grounds that there would NOT be an agency officially looking for their missing daughter. As Amaral knows perfectly well, it was the removal of the arguido status they did not oppose. Amaral is such a liar!

25 February 2010


Interview: Carlos Saraiva / Oscar Queiroz

The former head of the investigation into the disappearance of Maddie considers it advantageous to reopen the process and admits that this approach may shed light on the fate of the English child.
Liar! He only said this when he was caught on the hop outside the court after the ban on his book of lies was upheld. Pity he did not conduct a proper process when he had FIVE MONTHS worth of chances, instead of stuffing cakes and coffees in two hour coffee breaks and then taking 3 and 4 hour lunches and getting drunk and blabbing off to all in the Carver restaurant ie like the Portuguese ex F1 driver and anyone else in the restaurant.

"O Crime" - During the trial of the temporary injunction of your book, the existence of a confidential report from the National Policy Investigation Agency was cited. Is it the same as mentioned in the "Maddie process"?

Gonçalo Amaral: It is. It is one of several British police agencies, but with a particularity: the NPIA, is the one which has behavioural analysts.

This is a private agency?

No, it is not a private detective agency. It's as official as Scotland Yard. Moreover, they had already said that this report existed; realized on the advice of the police.

Never heard of it! Unless you count India as Britain, yet again we have this man stating factually incorrect comments in his book, which are now deemed as libellous!

Under what circumstances and what emerges? Who commissioned the report?

No one ordered it, I think. It was their own initiative (the British), initiated as soon as they arrived, shortly after the disappearance of the girl.

And what does that report say?

It speaks of several hypotheses but, as you know, I cannot speak, I have been banned.

Perhaps he can't speak of it because the report doesn't exist? Liar! This man is nothing but a liar! One more reason to state why this "book" should remain banned!

It was annexed to the investigation based on the assumption that some of the information was relevant? Which?

I do not know if I can respond to that. I think this report is important, it concludes by saying that you cannot set aside the hypothesis of... And it is true that whilst there is no evidence of the involvement of certain people, the fact remains that there is no evidence of an abduction. And indeed, no one has ever presented proof of the abduction. I recall that the facts in the book relate to the first 6 months of the investigation, while I participated. It was a situation where we had the support of the MP [Public Ministry]. In other words, until that time, the status of the investigation was in accordance with the Public Ministry. Later there was a change of mind, so it seems from the archiving despatch. The despatch is just an opinion of the Public Ministry, not a declaration of innocence.

So let's get this straight, no one ordered this report, so the British must have done it, who paid for it then? And how come a report that no one has commissioned found its way into the liar's book and has suddenly become relevant? Amazing how him being banned from speaking does not stop him mentioning this "report". Amaral is intentionally misleading people, this is NOT an official agency in Britain.

Why do you think that the ruling banning the sale of your book was somehow unfavourable to the McCanns?

Because, basically, what the lady Judge said in her statement is that the book "The Truth of the Lie" tells facts, though, she says, out of context; they do not coincide with the final opinion of the Public Ministry. Apparently, the opinion of the Public Ministry is sacred. Though only in my case. In the "Hidden Face" case, the public prosecutor's opinion of Aveiro did not even serve to open the investigation. This country is a disgrace!

Amaral is now putting words into the judge's mouth, she did not say that it "tells facts" if it did, then she would have lifted the ban. It does NOT state facts and it cannot prove anything it states and therefor it is libellous end of story, hence why the ban was upheld and why the ban will be made permanent.

Generically, what could be argued in the appeal?

I am not going to answer that, obviously. What I can advance is that my lawyers say there is sufficient material for recourse.

Nothing can be argued, it is quite simple. Amaral has presented unsubstantiated comments as facts and he cannot prove a single thing of what he has said and written, therefor his comments are legally libellous and defame the McCanns and harm their integrity and the integrity of their family, which is nothing what-s-ever to do with "free speech" and everything to do with behaving like a spiteful fat lying corrupt ex cop, which is why he hasn't a hope in hell of winning this libel case and soon every penny he has disgustingly made off of the back of an abducted child will be taken away from him .

There is news of a criminal complaint by Robert Murat against Jane Tanner, one of the friends of the McCanns. She was questioned at the time of the investigation?

That process exists, yes, I was even heard as a witness. Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.

How would Amaral know? He wasn't there! He has never spoken to Tanner, never been present when she was questioned, too busy in the bars drinking!
If Tanner was questioned as a witness, she is giving a report of what she thought she saw and she did NOT ever say she saw Robert Murat, it was the liar Amaral who said this - again he is intentionally misleading people.

Who are they?

Those who I remember, besides Jane Tanner, were her husband and the wife of Oldfield. They faced a confrontation with Mr Murat.

And how would you evaluate her testimony [Jane Tanner]?

As I said, she, at first, said she saw him at the scene. Then she began to retract it, saying that, after all, she had recognized him through an Indentikit picture. For several months, she came to recognize a number of people, through Identikit pictures. This speaks for itself about the credibility of her statements. Yet in the investigation there is a moment, a confrontation between the people previously mentioned, who say that Murat was there at the time the alarm was raised. That, and other things, is what has motivated the libel suit that Murat has brought against Ms. Tanner.

Complete and utter waffle from a man who knows he has lost. Tanner gave an identikit description, she never said it was Murat, she could not even say what the man's face looked like because she could not see his features, so how could she say it was Murat. Liar! If Murat wants to bring a libellous suit he should bring one against Amaral for what he has written in his book about him and he should bring one against Bennett for outright accusing him of being involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. How the hell can Murat bring a libel case against someone who has said that she did NOT think the person she saw was Murat?
I believe in my opinion that Amaral has put Murat up to bringing this action, the whole thing is totally off the wall!

Do you agree with the possible reopening of the "Maddie process"?

That is what I have advocated since it was archived. Liar no you haven't. Now, they do not advocate that. Yes they do and not only that the McCanns want a complete and comprehensive review of the whole case. Why is Amaral lying? What is he hiding? If they wanted, they have ways of opposing the archiving, specifically calling for the reopening of the investigation. What they want is that the police (here) follow the leads, sightings that are sent from England. And why the hell wouldn't they? their daughter was abducted for her bed on Amaral's patch and he (Amaral) preferred to stay drinking in a bar rather than attend the scene of a serious crime! They act as if the girl was a Portuguese citizen and not a British subject. Just what the hell is that supposed to mean? You mean they have no right to ask you to do the job you were paid to do? You pathetic fat liar! If a Portuguese child went missing in the UK she/he would have received exactly the same treatment as any missing child and the lead detective would have attended the scene to organise and put in process the recognised procedure as set down by Europe, a procedure that Goncalo Amaral totally ignored and stayed drinking and getting drunk in a bar with his mates, rather than turn up and do his job! The McCanns had every right to expect that the leads and sightings were followed up you great big fat lump of lying rancid fetid lard!

Do you fear for your heritage, given the possibility of a civil conviction for 1.2 million that the English couple demand?

I do not think compensation will be paid. Anyway, what little I have is embargoed.

Sell the Jag, that's worth at least £40.000 and then there is the large house, with swimming pool and grounds, that should be worth a few bob. Have no fear compensation will be paid by Amaral.

Do you think this case will, over the years, become a mystery without being solved?

I think it can be solved. When they reopen the process and the trails which are there are investigated, I think it will be solved.

It will be solved, but not by you and your mate Ricardo Paiva, who have frustrated this investigation at every possible turn, you bet it will be solved, so Amaral had better start worrying now!

There is news of a criminal complaint by Robert Murat against Jane Tanner, one of the friends of the McCanns. She was questioned at the time of the investigation?

That process exists, yes, I was even heard as a witness. Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.

Do you agree with the possible reopening of the "Maddie process"?

What they want is that the police (here) follow the leads, sightings that are sent from England. They act as if the girl was a Portuguese citizen and not a British subject.

Pedro Silva wrote:You arrogant idiot, it is obligation from any police (PJ included) to follow any leads which helps find an innocent girl who is still out there waiting to be found, because it is PJ´s duty. It was your obligation to help find an innocent child, but for you GA, it was more important beers, shrimps, a jag, books of lies with disgusting smears, dirty money, disgusting fame, then help a family to become a complete happy family again. But, know this GA: you cannot intimidate any of us, you don´t fear us, we will not let this to slip way, no way. We are right here behind what is right, behind a lovely family who loves this little girl a lot. So, neither you GA nor any TB or any freaks / antis can intimidate us. Because, the more the antis stinks, the more determined we are in finding this little girl, the more determined we are in bringing her home. Of this you GA, TB /antis, can be certain of. I´ve said it before, I say it again: UNITY IS STRENGHT. Also. if in the middle of all this, positive actions can be done to help find other missing children / people, even better.

bluj1515 wrote:This is totally disgusting. If an American cop said this I would be enraged. A crime happened on your soil, it's your responsibility, it's your job. Isn't this what the Portuguese posters on 3As and elsewhere said forever and ever? Now Amaral says this:

Do you agree with the possible reopening of the "Maddie process"?

What they want is that the police (here) follow the leads, sightings that are sent from England. They act as if the girl was a Portuguese citizen and not a British subject.

But she's missing in YOUR country, you arrogant sack of sh!t. A crime was committed on YOUR soil under YOUR command.

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Later there was a change of mind, so it seems from the archiving despatch. The despatch is just an opinion of the Public Ministry, not a declaration of innocence.

So he assumes there was a change of mind because the case was archived. Of course it couldn't possibly be because he had lead them up a blind alley and they had nowhere left to go other than to try and save face!