Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

Chinagirl´s rebuttal to amaral leaflet

Go down

Chinagirl´s rebuttal to amaral leaflet

Post by Pedro Silva on Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:16 am

Chinagirl´s rebuttal to amaral leaflet
We set the record straight:

1. What career did Mr Amaral have before he led the Madeleine enquiry?
ANSWER: Mr Amaral was an experienced, respected, senior detective. One of his colleagues described him as ‘incorruptible’. He had many successes in bringing drug dealers to justice and in one year netted the biggest haul of illegal drugs of any detective in Portugal. His most famous case was his success in bringing the killers of 8-year-old Joana Cipriano to court and ensuring that they served long jail sentences for their appalling crimes.

The colleague who supposedly described Amaral as “incorruptible” was a figment of the imagination of a fake journalist in a Portuguese tabloid. This colleague has never been identified. Bennett has taken this information from nothing more authoritative than a pro-Amaral Portuguese blog.

2. Wasn’t Mr Amaral accused of beating and torturing Joana Cipriano’s mother into making a false confession?
ANSWER: Yes he was. And most unjustly. Joana was reported missing by her mother, only after she had apparently been missing for two days. The sad truth was that Joana had come back from the village shops to find her mother in bed with her uncle. After an intensive investigation led by Mr Amaral, both voluntarily confessed to having brutally murdered her and disposed of her body. Today they are serving 16-year-jail terms for her murder.

Amaral was not accused of the torture of Leonor Cipriano, Joana’s mother. He stood trial for, and was found guilty of, attempting to cover up this beating meted out by men under his command. In other words, he has been found guilty of perjury – the giving of false evidence – a serious crime for a police officer. He was handed an 18 month suspended sentence which he has appealed. See “Madeleine chief detective convicted of falsifying evidence,” Daily Mail, 22 May 2009

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -case.html

Neither Leonor nor her brother João “voluntarily” confessed to killing Joana. These confessions were beaten out of both of them and the confessions were rescinded in court. While they are still serving their sentences, it is clear that these convictions are unsafe and have become the subject of Amnesty International reports, and various other legal manoeuvres.
See Report on torture suffered by Leonor Cipriano

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/may ... al-sos.pdf

http://iscte.pt/~apad/ACED_juristas/tex ... 0Joana.doc

The PJ’s contention that Joana had found her mother and uncle in an incestuous relationship, thus providing the motive for her killing, was specifically repudiated by the judges who heard the case and is one of the many points marked as NOT PROVEN in the Court transcript.

3. What about the photos of her in the press showing her with black eyes?
ANSWER: Since being convicted of their crimes, both the mother and the uncle have tried to claim they were beaten by Mr Amaral and his men and forced to confess to something they had not done. However, it is clear that Leonor Cipriano suffered her injuries as a result of a beating by fellow female prisoners after being taken to Odemira Prison. During a recent court case, the Director of Odemira Prison was forced to admit to asking her Prison Medical Director to lie about the cause of Ms Cipriano’s injuries. Ms Cipriano changed her story many times.

In this point Bennett is in conflict with the official explanation given by Amaral and his fellow accused during their trial, when they contended that Leonor had come by her horrific contusions by attempting to commit suicide by throwing herself down the stairs of the police station, which contention was repudiated by the judge at trial. It is totally untrue that the Director of the Odemira prison asked anyone to lie about the cause of Leonor’s injuries.

4. Why was Mr Amaral removed from the Madeleine investigation?
ANSWER: Shortly before he was removed, he made some ‘off the record’ comments to a Portuguese journalist detailing how the British government was interfering with his investigation. A leading Portuguese newspaper published his remarks, giving the Portuguese authorities an excuse to remove him from the enquiry. As Mr Amaral has set out in a second book, ‘The English Gag’, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was told of his being removed from his post before he was. Mr Amaral has provided evidence of British government interference in his enquiries in his two books on the case. As we have shown elsewhere, the British government heavily influenced this investigation from the outset, sending several top-level people out to Portugal in the first week alone, including staff from MI5. We aim to cover this topic in more detail on our website in the coming months.

Amaral was quite rightly sacked as the co-ordinator of the Madeleine investigation for injudicious remarks about the British police co-operation in the case, and for the many leaks to the Portuguese press about aspects of the investigation, in violation of Portugal’s strict judicial secrecy laws. See Times Online of 3 Oct. 2007 re Amaral’s removal from case:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 581654.ece

There is NO credible evidence for British government interference in this case, or undue pressure brought to bear on the Portuguese authorities. The level of diplomatic assistance given to the McCann parents was no greater than that which would have been afforded to any other British subject finding themselves in a similar position in a foreign country. Bennett’s statement that MI5 were involved is one of the more ludicrous among the many outlandish claims he has made about this case.

5. Wasn’t his enquiry incompetent, as the British news media suggest?
ANSWER: No. As was clear from the interim police report of 10 September 2007, the investigation was severely hampered by overwhelming international media coverage, requiring the police to follow up literally hundreds of false ‘sightings’ of Madeleine. Despite that, the police conducted a meticulous investigation with the help of hundreds of police officers. The interim report was very thorough. We have reproduced the whole of it in our recent book on the case: ‘The Madeleine McCann case Files: Volume 1’, available for purchase from our website.

There are numerous incidents depicting the incompetence of the investigation under Amaral – far too many to detail here. The interim report is just that – interim. Of far greater importance is the conclusion reached by the two prosecutors in the final report which states, inter alia:

Written by public prosecutors in Portimao and dated July 21 – the day the case was officially shelved – the document said the investigation had not been able to find any proof which would allow "the formulation of any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances of the girl going missing. This includes the most dramatic thing, ascertaining whether she is still alive or dead – or which seems the most probable. The investigators are fully conscious that their work is not exempt from imperfections. They worked with an enormous margin of error and they achieved very little in terms of conclusive results, especially about the fate of the unfortunate child.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/0 ... n.portugal

6. But isn’t it true that the police failed to secure the crime scene properly?
ANSWER: This is one of many false stories about the Madeleine McCann investigation put about in the British media. What most people do not know is that despite the McCanns and their friends apparently genuinely believing that an abductor had taken Madeleine from her room, they themselves tramped all over the McCanns’ apartment and allowed several others to do so before the police arrived. This contaminated the crime scene, making the Portuguese police’s task much more difficult. In fact, the police sealed the crime scene later that night as soon as they were reasonably able to. The McCanns also criticised Mr Amaral, amongst other things, for never meeting them and never visiting the crime scene. But then the head of any major criminal investigation must be a good delegator. Mr Amaral’s enquiry was also hampered by many inconsistencies in the accounts given by he McCanns and their friends and by the McCanns’ refusal to disclose certain information such as their telephone, credit card and medical records.

Of course it is true that the crime scene was improperly secured – British journalists didn’t make this up. It was one of the many indications of the incompetence of the initial investigation. One British retired senior detective is on record as describing it as the worst secured crime scene he had ever come across.

Amaral was indeed a “good delegator” – so much so that he (a) never appeared at the scene of the crime in order to see for himself and direct operations and (b) never even met either of the McCanns, either to question them or to reassure them. This is unheard of behaviour on the part of the director of an investigation, particularly one of such importance. Nevertheless, there are several instances in his banned book where he gives the impression of having spoken to or observed either Kate or Gerry McCann. However, careful scrutiny of the released PJ files indicates that he is merely interpreting a second hand report – from someone else’s observations, or from what someone else said.

Further careful study of the files reveals that there are NO major inconsistencies in the accounts given by the parents or their friends, including Jane Tanner, who may have witnessed the abduction. It is also completely untrue that the McCanns refused to disclose credit cards and medical records, and telephone information. All this information is detailed in the files.

7. Is it true that Mr Amaral and his publishers have made £1 million from the sale of Mr Amaral’s book?
ANSWER: Yes. We must remember that in trying to bring us the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Mr Amaral gave up his job many years ahead of his normal retirement date, thus losing huge amounts of both salary and pension entitlement. The McCanns threatened to sue Mr Amaral and his publishers for libel when his book. ‘The Truth About A Lie’, was first published in July 2008. But they did nothing about it until over a year later, by which time his book had sold over half a million copies across Europe. The McCanns have never explained why they waited for over a year to take action, but they are now claiming the £1 million profits the book has made. As a result of the McCanns’ libel action, Mr Amaral’s book has been banned from sale in Portugal since September 2009.

Amaral VOLUNTARILY took early retirement from the Poliça Judiciaria. It was his choice to do so. The McCanns initiated proceedings for libel against Amaral, and for an injunction order against sales of his libellous book shortly after it was published. However, as Bennett is well aware, legal matters move very slowly in Portugal which is why it took nearly a year for the temporary injunction to be awarded, thus allowing the book to accrue substantial sales.

8. Was Mr Amaral convicted of filing a false report in the Cipriano case?
ANSWER: Yes. However, he has appealed, and under Portuguese law his sentence, a suspended prison term of 18 months, cannot take effect until his appeal is heard. He was found not guilty of any suggestion of being involved in the alleged beating of Leonor Cipriano and her brother. On the basis of precious little evidence, he was found guilty of ‘filing a false report’ about the case. There are many indications that Mr Amaral’s trial was politically motivated. In this connection we would commend our article on the prosecutor in this case, Mr Marcos Correia. We have a lengthy investigative article about him on our website.

It is interesting to note that Bennett is quick to approve of the court proceedings which convicted Leonor and João Cipriano on the basis of some very dubious evidence, but condemns similar court proceedings which convicted Amaral of perjury.

It should be noted that Bennett’s article referred to above on Marcos Aragão Correia is currently under threat of a libel suit to be brought by Correia.

9. What kind of help and support does Mr Amaral need?
ANSWER: His most urgent need is for financial help towards the huge costs of his legal expenses for defending the McCanns’ libel action and the various unjust criminal charges bring levelled against him. It is very easy to support him; his representative Mr Paulo Sargento has created a website to give practical help to him. You can donate by PayPal. Here is the link:

It is our contention that the best support Bennett and his group of followers could give to Amaral is to refrain from drawing further attention to his many misdeeds, and allow the Portuguese judicial system to deal with these matters After all, it is Bennett’s (and Amaral’s) contention that the McCann investigation went awry because of undue pressure being brought to bear on Portugal by “perfidious Albion.” This is patently absurd, but nevertheless, using Bennett’s own arguments, if it was wrong to bring public pressure on the Portuguese legal system in the McCann case, it is equally wrong to do so in the many Amaral matters. Bennett seems to forget that Portugal is a sovereign nation with its own legal system, as he so often demonstrates his own inability to grasp the basic legal principle common to all democracies – that of the presumption of innocence.

Amaral is entitled to mount whatever defence he deems appropriate in the several civil and criminal matters with which he is involved. Public opinion – particularly British public opinion – should be of no interest whatsoever in any legal ruling affecting Amaral. Helping Amaral financially with his considerable legal costs is one thing, which should be a matter for individual decision, but trying to sway British public opinion in favour of supporting Amaral by the publication of distorted facts and outright lies as Bennett has attempted with this leaflet is utterly inappropriate. We have tried to right this wrong.

Further information about all these matters can be found on the following two forums:


Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5585
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum