Madeleine McCann

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Much of the timeline etc you detail above is wrong btw.

As suggested you need to study the official files to get a grasp on what happened and when.

The facts are:

That Madeleine disappeared whilst left alone with her siblings when supposedly under the care of her parents has nothing to do with Mr Concalo.

The British poilice were working in conjunction with the Portuguese Police with Mr Concalo from the very start until the McCanns left and the investigation continued after that date afaik

Mr Concalo was on the case for only approx 4 months in 2007. He was removed after the Mcanns left portugal relating to another case. He was not a convicted perjuer' (sic) at that time. He was not sacked, nor was any book written or published by him at the time the McCanns left Portugal. His book was published much later in late 2008 after he retired from the Portuguese Police.

The investigation was taken over by other police and investigators and continued afterwards

In that timeframe between the Cipriano case with the alleged murder of that child by her mother and uncle and up until the McCanns left Portugal - it is highly unlilkley the mccanns could have known or have been made party to anything regarding to what would have been an internal police matter unless that they were psychic.

From the records it would appear the McCanns were triggered to leave Portugal by virtue of being made Arguidos.

That much of what you describe above was played out in the media in the aftermath of what happened is evident from the public record. Much of that is tabloid rubbish tbh.

It would appear that both the some of the McCanns party and some elements within Portugal leaked information to the Press. However there is little hard evidence WHO exactly was responsible for such leaks. Unfortunately we can only speculate.

If you know where Concalo admits to him divulging or leaking information whilst the case was ongoing could you provide an official link to the source eg UK police statements and not media speculation.

Afaik the issue of the case with the alleged murder and chopping up of a little Cipriano girl and what happened with the subsequent internal police matter was not made public until much later and not until after the McCanns left Portugal.

Amaral was not present during an alleged assault in the Cipriano case but was accused of having covered up for other officers which he denied; he was convicted of having falsified police documents in the case and received a suspended sentence in 2009.

This case involving Mr Concalo and the Ciprianos and the ruling on that was some two years after (2009) when the McCanns had already left Portugal and when they had been made arguidos in August 2007

The McCanns arguido status was only removed after their own case was shelved in 2008 due to an apparent lack of evidence and lack cooperation from the parties involved.

Mr Concalos role has been endlessly gone over again and again in this thread and tbh it is largely irrelevant to what I have detailed above.

Rampant speculation on what might or might not have happened is heresay and is largely the stuff of the tabloids tbh. I do not use or bother with the largrly unreliable media reports in this case.

I haven't proposed a timeline and pointed out that he was "since" convicted or perjury. That is a fact which gives insight into his character. He was only out the door of the PJ and he had published a book which means he already had his ducks in a row, most likely before he left the PJ..

Too bad that the details of his involvement in the Cipriano case were not made public at the time as it would have brought him a lot more scrutiny and when you consider that he ultimately received a conviction, at the very least the PJ could have put another lead investigator on the case who didn't have the formal title of arguido hanging over them, especially when it was related to another case of a missing child.

v638sg7k1a92bx

maebee wrote: »

GM planning an anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance .

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id302.htm

"Gerry McCann, 38, said: "One of the ideas is maybe getting all the people who have publicly supported us to come together. I don't just mean from the UK but from different parts of the world. We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing.

"We would look at high-profile people who have already pledged support. It will be some sort of focus around an anniversary, to tell people that Madeleine's still missing. I think it would be later this year, once media attention has dropped, to bring it back up, hopefully, for a short period.

Later that year?

So he knew that Madeleine wasn't going to be found until at least later that year.

Yes he knew, and he was so stupid that he posted it on his blog.

Seriously.

maebee

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Yes he knew, and he was so stupid that he posted it on his blog.

Seriously.

Yes, he knew :mad:

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

I haven't proposed a timeline and pointed out that he was "since" convicted or perjury. That is a fact which gives insight into his character. He was only out the door of the PJ and he had published a book which means he already had his ducks in a row, most likely before he left the PJ..

Too bad that the details of his involvement in the Cipriano case were not made public at the time as it would have brought him a lot more scrutiny and when you consider that he ultimately received a conviction, at the very least the PJ could have put another lead investigator on the case who didn't have the formal title of arguido hanging over them, especially when it was related to another case of a missing child.

This is what I was referring to by the timeline

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Why would they stay and expose themselves to the risk of a since convicted perjurer. Who knows what he would have said or done to implicate the McCann's, lest he might sell more books. 

I noted your use of the word 'since' however that statement makes no sense whatsoever unless the McCanns were psychic and knew all this at the time.

They McCanns left directly after they were made arguidos (which is not quite the same thing as a formal suspect btw) and returned to the UK. And that was the end of that for good or bad.

And no I don't believe at that time it did give any "insight" into his character. Anymore than the same arguido status gives us any insight into the McCanbs characters at the time. It what happened afterwards which is relevant.

Amaral was an Arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law. For some reason his superiors didn't believe his arguido status in this matter warranted his removal from the job at hand and that's all we have to go on. The only scrutiny such a disclosure would have made imo would have been even more rabid tabloid headlines if that was possible.

It was only in 2009 he was handed a suspended sentence for covering up for other police officers. A charge interestingly which he strongly denies.

Tomw86

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

No skirting involved, see what the mod posted below. Anyway, child neglect is defined as a failure to meet a child’s basic needs, leaving a child alone does not fall into this category so you can type the word in caps all you want, but your understanding of it is still wrong. In Ireland, there isn’t a set legal age for leaving children alone.
I still get surprised by people who make such strong assertions with little or no knowledge of the facts only to dig their heels in more when those facts are pointed out to them.




Just because there is no evidence doesn’t mean you can fill the gaps with whatever fairy tale appeals to you the most.

I quoted the UK definition of child neglect, and they were very much guilty of that!

You are just grasping this and only quoting part of what is defined (legally) as child neglect, it is not just 'failure to meet the childs needs', failing to provide adequate supervision and meeting their safety needs is categorised as child neglect too - they are guilty and that is fact, unlike most other theories in this case.

Tomw86

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Exactly, there are those who have their "theories" about the McCann's that go into the bag along with nutritionists, psychics and astrologists and then there are the people who don't go in the bag that visit real doctors when they are sick, don't get their news from the position of the stars and accept that the McCann's had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter.

If ever there was an oxymoron, this is it :rolleyes:

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

STOP. POSTING. ABOUT. NEGLECT.


It's been done to death and has trainwrecked the thread on multiple occasions now.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

This is what I was referring to by the timeline

I noted your use of the word 'since' however that statement makes no sense whatsoever unless the McCanns were psychic and knew all this at the time.

They McCanns left directly after they were made arguidos (which is not quite the same thing as a formal suspect here btw*) and returned to the UK. And that was the end of that for good or bad.

And no I don't believe at that time his arguido status gave any "insight" into Amaral's character. Anymore than the same arguido status gives us any insight into the McCanns characters at the time. It's what happened afterwards which is relevant.

Amaral was an Arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law. For some reason his superiors didn't believe his arguido status in this matter warranted his removal from the job at hand and that's all we have to go on. The only scrutiny such a disclosure would have made imo would have been even more rabid tabloid headlines if that was possible.

It was only in 2009 he was handed a suspended sentence for covering up for other police officers. A charge interestingly which he strongly denies for what that's worth. He later stated that his desire to write his book was to set some of the false media stories straight and detail what happened in the investigation. It is what it is. Kate McCann also wrote a book doing much the same. I've quoted from both.

*https://www.definitions.net/definition/arguido[

How do you know the McCann's weren't aware that Amaral had Arguido status, it's highly likely someone made them aware of this information.

This is just a rambling distraction from the fact that Amaral has received a conviction, the McCann's have not. Why do you hold him in such high regard?

Amaral = conviction
McCann's = no conviction

Your posts is just a distraction to try and hide one of the few facts that have been established, ironically about Amaral.

Falsifying documents in relation to a child abduction case, WTF!!! Where they came up with an almost identical theory as Madeline McCann case, where the body has never been found, where the mother has retracted her confession and said it was coerced, where Amaral falsified documents, where they maintained the body was kept in a fridge and subsequently moved, where Amaral received arguido status the day after Madeline McCann went missing, does none of that seem even slightly bizarre to anyone on here?

v638sg7k1a92bx

maebee wrote: »

Yes, he knew :mad:

So why do you think he posted about it on his blog, do you think he just forgot or that nobody would notice?

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Amaral was an arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law.....

It was only in 2009 he was handed a suspended sentence for covering up for other police officers. A charge interestingly which he strongly denies for what that's worth.

Both of these also to the McCanns but you don't seem to be willing to give them the same benefit of doubt that you are applying to Amaral. Not withstanding the fact that the McCanns have never been charged or convicted whereas Amaral has.

Also, you highlight how Amaral was an arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law but make a song and dance about the McCann's arguido status. So which is it, the arguido status has significance or it doesn't.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

How do you know the McCann's weren't aware that Amaral had Arguido status, it's highly likely someone made them aware of this information. This is just a rambling distraction from the fact that Amaral has received a conviction, the McCann's have not. Why do you hold him in such high regard?
Amaral = convictionMcCann's = no conviction
Your posts is just a distraction to try and hide one of the few facts that have been established, ironically about Amaral.Falsifying documents in relation to a child abduction case, Where they came up with an almost identical theory as Madeline McCann case, where the body has never been found, where the mother has retracted her confession and said it was coerced, where Amaral falsified documents, where they maintained the body was kept in a fridge and subsequently moved, where Amaral received arguido status the day after Madeline McCann went missing, does none of that seem even slightly bizarre to anyone on here?

Nope - not stated. I reckon the McCanns most likely did know tabout Amarals status through their police and most likley through their government and private investigator contacts. But strangely they at the time they didnt make an issue of it - why is that?

Btw If you wish to live in world where everything is black or white then that is up to you - but it does not show much use of logic tbh.

And yes once again your off on your standard adiatribe about Amaral Goncalo. Your absolutly obsessed with that guy and for sone strange reason he appears in nearly all your posting with the samething endlessly dragging on and on and on. It's been done to death at this stage and that's my point! It's like having a discussion with a talking clock :rolleyes:

The facts are that Amaral was only part of the investigation for a short time but before he was moved off the case for criticising the British police. But you dont seem to get that...

Also and this is very important for you to understand.

The McCanns have never been cleared of their involvement by the Portuguese investigation and that was after Goncalo left.

Secondly a single charge and conviction for covering up documentation does not compare to the issue of a young child who was left alone with her siblings whilst allegedly under the care of her parents and yet strangely those parents refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Very very bizarre indeed...

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Both of these also to the McCanns but you don't seem to be willing to give them the same benefit of doubt that you are applying to Amaral. Not withstanding the fact that the McCanns have never been charged or convicted whereas Amaral has.

Also, you highlight how Amaral was an arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law but make a song and dance about the McCann's arguido status. So which is it, the arguido status has significance or it doesn't.

You deliberatly missed bit then?

And no I don't believe at that time his arguido status gave any "insight" into Amaral's character. Anymore than the same arguido status gives us any insight into the McCanns characters at the time. It's what happened afterwards which is relevant.[/quite]

Now could we try and progress the discussion tonwhere it is not an endless rehash of the nasty mr Gongalo - which on the face of appears to be your answer to everything

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Btw the two quotes you abstracted are facts taken from the case - ie they happened. Not my opinion or 'benefit of the doubt (sic)

Anyway you've also obviously / deliberatly missed this bit then?

Ironically and bizarrely in the previous posts I was obliged to point out that you were demonising the investigator but not the the McCanns for being an arguido etc etc

But christ on a bike you managed to completely miss that and then bandwagon that very point despite evidence to the contrary as quoted above!

Now could we try and progress the discussion of the case to where it is not an endless rehash of the nasty Mr Amaral and the random fridge references - which on the face of appears to be your answer to everything. It's getting just a little bit repetitive tbh ...

As repetitive as the endless rehash of the nasty McCann's who killed their daughter and hid the body based on zero evidence with the random references DNA, cadaver dogs and MI5 etc etc??? Not to mention the timelines and logistics contradict one another but you managed to completely or deliberately miss those points.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

As repetitive as the endless rehash of the nasty McCann's who killed their daughter and hid the body based on zero evidence with the random references DNA, cadaver dogs and MI5 etc etc??? Not to mention the timelines and logistics contradict one another but you managed to completely or deliberately miss those points.

We are discussing the McCann case just in case its slipped your mind! So yeah different theories on the McCanns and the missing child will most likley be discussed

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

We are discussing the McCann case just in case its slipped your mind! So yeah different theories on the McCanns and the missing child will most likley be discussed

But there is a clear co-relation between the two cases!

1. Missing child
2. Never found
3. Same place
4. Same lead investigator
5. Same police theory implicating the parents based on dodgy DNA evidence, a fridge (and alleged coerced confession)
6. Lead investigator in the McCann case is made a formal suspect in relation to the Ciprano case, the day after the McCann child goes missing!!!

Don't you find this even the tiniest bit unusual, not even the slightest?

Imagine if these allegations and events were hanging over Gerry McCann instead of Goncalo Amaral's. Just imagine the field day you and others on this thread would have with that information. Would you and other posters just white wash over these allegations and say "oh well the timelines are different because Gerry McCann was made arguido on a Wednesday but that information wasn't relevant until the following Thursday at 7 minutes past 4pm so therefore it's not relevant"

But for some reason posters on this thread want to completely ignore the extremely serious allegations against Amaral and his involvement in two very similar cases of missing children, who has been convicted of perjury and yet everybody wants to sling mud at the McCann's based on zero evidence.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

As repetitive as the endless rehash of the nasty McCann's who killed their daughter and hid the body based on zero evidence with the random references DNA, cadaver dogs and MI5 etc etc??? Not to mention the timelines and logistics contradict one another but you managed to completely or deliberately miss those points.

gozunda wrote: »

We are discussing the McCann case just in case its slipped your mind! And nope - none of those things mentioned by me above - just yourself btw lol. But yeah different theories on the McCanns and the missing child will most likley be discussed

In that case how do you maintain your theory that the Madeline died accidentally and her parents hid the body considering that you never mentioned the DNA or cadaver dogs? What other proof of evidence do you have to support this theory?

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

But there is a clear co-relation between the two cases!1. Missing child
2. Never found
3. Same place
4. Same lead investigator
5. Same police theory implicating the parents based on dodgy DNA evidence, a fridge (and alleged coerced confession)
6. Lead investigator in the McCann case is made a formal suspect in relation to the Ciprano case, the day after the McCann child goes missing!!!
Don't you find this even the tiniest bit unusual, not even the slightest? Imagine if these allegations and events were hanging over Gerry McCann instead of Goncalo Amaral's Just imagine the field day you and others on this thread would have with that information. Would you and other posters just white wash over these allegations and say "oh well the timelines are different because Gerry McCann was made arguido on a Wednesday but that information wasn't relevant until the following Thursday at 7 minutes past 4pm so therefore it's not relevant"
But for some reason posters on this thread want to completely ignore the extremely serious allegations against Amaral and his involvement in two very similar cases of missing children, who has been convicted of perjury and yet everybody wants to sling mud at the McCann's based on zero evidence.

*very large face palm*

If you would like to set up a separate thread and full on discussion of the Amaral and / or Cipriano cases and random fridges case please feel free as the McCann one appears to be getting seriously derailed imo. There seems to be plenty of space in the forum for a new thread or two. Meanwhile back to the McCann case ...

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

*very large face palm*

If you would like to set up a separate thread and full on discussion of the Amaral and / or Cipriano cases and random fridges case please feel free as the McCann one appears to be getting seriously derailed imo. There seems to be plenty of space in the forum for a new thread or two. Meanwhile back to the McCann case ...

Deflecting away from the facts yet again.

If you haven't mentioned the DNA or cadaver dogs then on what basis do you support the theory that Madeline McCann died accidentally and that the parents hid the body?

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Seriously If you would like to set up a separate thread and full on discussion of the Amaral and / or Cipriano cases and random fridges case please feel free as the McCann one appears to be getting seriously derailed and I'm not going to help you. There seems to be plenty of space in the forum for a new thread or two. Meanwhile back to the McCann case ...

I'm discussing Amaral in the context of being a person of interest in her Madeline McCann's disappearance. If anyone had the means to cover up a child abduction who better to do it than a high ranking police investigator who we know has been proven to falsify evidence?

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

I'm discussing Amaral in the context of being a person of interest in her Madeline McCann's disappearance. If anyone had the means to cover up a child abduction who better to do it than a high ranking police investigator who we know has been proven to falsify evidence?

This thread reminds me of the Dara O'Bhrian skit about nutritionists. Part of the skits he says that he would put nutritionists, psychics and astrologists in a sack, close it with string and hit the sack with a stick.

Anyone in answer to the McCann case says that "it's all Mr Mr Amarals fault' "he's covering up the abduction" "he's guilty of beating up the Ciprianos" "he claims there was a fridge ffs" " He knows what did it" and when I ask, do you have any evidence for that and they say "look at Amaral he wrote a book!, "he covered up some files so hes definitely guilty of covering up this case" or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" that person also need to get in the sack.

End of discussion.....

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

This thread reminds me of the Dara O'Bhrian skit about nutritionists. Part of the skits he says that he would put nutritionists, psychics and astrologists in a sack, close it with string and hit the sack with a stick.

Anyone in answer to the McCann case says that "it's all Mr Mr Amarals fault' "he's covering up the abduction" "he's guilty of beating up the Ciprianos" "he claims there was a fridge ffs" " He knows what did it" and when I ask, do you have any evidence for that and they say "look at Amaral he wrote a book!, "he covered up some files so hes definitely guilty of covering up this case" or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" that person also need to get in the sack.

End of discussion.....

Sorry but taking my post and just changing the names doesn't work because unlike your theory, Amaral has been convicted of perjury and falsifying evidence involving a very similar case of child abduction where they came up with the same theory that the parents were involved based on very shaky DNA evidence. Who else in a better position to cover up an abduction than a high ranking police officer?

I just don't understand why you don't apply the same level of scepticism to Amaral as you do to the McCanns considering there is just as much "evidence" to support a theory that Amaral abducted Madeline McCann as there is to support your theory that the McCanns hid her body.

gozunda

Something Else

Anyone else keeping an eye on the Poll and its changes? I could be wrong but there appears to be a greater number of supporters for the theory that the parents were responsible than there was at the beginning. Its also interesting to note that the abduction theory and the other theories combined are currently on an approx 50/50 split. Anyone figure out which theory has lost some ground or has there been little change?

Theories
Poll:What do you believe happened Madeleine (679 voters)

•Abductor was watching and came in the open door 50.52%
•She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo) 6.04%
•The parents did it 10.01%
•Accident happened, parents hid body 30.93%
•Something Else 2.50%

chicorytip

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

If you haven't mentioned the DNA or cadaver dogs then on what basis do you support the theory that Madeline McCann died accidentally and that the parents hid the body?

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Sorry but taking my post and just changing the names doesn't work because unlike your theory, Amaral has been convicted of perjury and falsifying evidence involving a very similar case of child abduction where they came up with the same theory that the parents were involved based on very shaky DNA evidence. Who else in a better position to cover up an abduction than a high ranking police officer?

If they didn't do it why did they feel compelled to tell a string of blatant lies to the police at the outset of the investigation? You don't behave in this fashion if you are innocent of any wrongdoing and then, by doing so, incriminate yourself.
The only suspects in that Cipriano case you are referring to - the mother and uncle of the victim - admitted to abducting and murdering the girl, chopping up her remains and burying them at a location in southern Spain. The culprits later claimed their confessions had been beaten out of them by members of the investigating team of which Amaral was the officer in charge. An independent review established there were no substance to these allegations.

v638sg7k1a92bx

chicorytip wrote: »

If they didn't do it why did they feel compelled to tell a string of blatant lies to the police at the outset of the investigation? You don't behave in this fashion if you are innocent of any wrongdoing and then, by doing so, incriminate yourself.
The only suspects in that Cipriano case you are referring to - the mother and uncle of the victim - admitted to abducting and murdering the girl, chopping up her remains and burying them at a location in southern Spain. The culprits later claimed their confessions had been beaten out of them by members of the investigating team of which Amaral was the officer in charge. An independent review established there were no substance to these allegations.

What were these lies exactly? The only person that I'm aware of who has been convicted of perjury is Amaral, so who it the liar exactly?

MonkieSocks

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

chicorytip wrote: »

admitted to abducting and murdering the girl, chopping up her remains and burying them at a location in southern Spain. .

Did they find a body at that said location?

v638sg7k1a92bx

chicorytip wrote: »

If they didn't do it why did they feel compelled to tell a string of blatant lies to the police at the outset of the investigation? You don't behave in this fashion if you are innocent of any wrongdoing and then, by doing so, incriminate yourself.
The only suspects in that Cipriano case you are referring to - the mother and uncle of the victim - admitted to abducting and murdering the girl, chopping up her remains and burying them at a location in southern Spain. The culprits later claimed their confessions had been beaten out of them by members of the investigating team of which Amaral was the officer in charge. An independent review established there were no substance to these allegations.

Also, based on your logic. If Amaral wasn't involved in the disappearance of Joana Cipriano why he did he lie and cover up evidence for which he received a conviction?

Farawayhome

When will the McCann's come out and admit it?

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

In that case how do you maintain your theory that the Madeline died accidentally and her parents hid the body considering that you never mentioned the DNA or cadaver dogs? What other proof of evidence do you have to support this theory?

Where did I say that was my theory? Making it up now?

gozunda

Something Else

chicorytip wrote: »

If they didn't do it why did they feel compelled to tell a string of blatant lies to the police at the outset of the investigation? You don't behave in this fashion if you are innocent of any wrongdoing and then, by doing so, incriminate yourself. The only suspects in that Cipriano case you are referring to - the mother and uncle of the victim - admitted to abducting and murdering the girl, chopping up her remains and burying them at a location in southern Spain. The culprits later claimed their confessions had been beaten out of them by members of the investigating team of which Amaral was the officer in charge. An independent review established there were no substance to these allegations.

Not much point going down that road tbh.
I think we are into the realms of lulu land at the moment tbh. Supposedly not only did Amaral cover up the abduction of Madeliene. He is also was also apparently involved in the disappearance of Joana Cipriano!

And everyone else is with the conspiracy theorists? :pac:

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Where did I say that was my theory? Making it up now?

eh right here, see the part in orange, with your name, where you ticked the box and voted "Accident happened, parents hid the body"






So any evidence, proof, etc to back up that theory would be amazing.

Cheers