Sargento. Opps!

This serial rapist is suing because he is furious that he was caught by the police. My take on it is that he sought out the psychologist when he thought that the police were on his tail so that they would think that he was seeking help for his condition. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the confessed rapist thought up this whole scheme and sent the film of himself going to the consultation to the television. This is a person who confessed to raping 16 women but has never showed any kind of remorse. The typical manipulator.

BTW, the news of constituting PS, the journalist and the director of TVI as arguidos is not breaking news and was done about a month ago IIRC.

Carolina wrote:This serial rapist is suing because he is furious that he was caught by the police. My take on it is that he sought out the psychologist when he thought that the police were on his tail so that they would think that he was seeking help for his condition. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the confessed rapist thought up this whole scheme and sent the film of himself going to the consultation to the television. This is a person who confessed to raping 16 women but has never showed any kind of remorse. The typical manipulator.

BTW, the news of constituting PS, the journalist and the director of TVI as arguidos is not breaking news and was done about a month ago IIRC.

16 women? So he was hardly going to stop then. The psychologist should be given an award.

Just think there are women walking around today who are safe thanks to this psychologist but would have been further victims.

Gosh sans must be FURIOUS.

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:What does it say, please.

It basically says that Sargento passed on information that has helped bring a confessed rapist to justice and there is a complaint about breach of patient confidentiality, but that someone who appears to know what they're talking about states that he was obliged to do so if a crime was suspected.

As usual the 'respected posters' here have a firm grasp of the wrong end of the stick. And I am afraid the above post is somewhat misleading.

There is little argument that Sargento should advise the police of his suspicions, and in this case it would seem that the doctor /patient confidentiality ethical issues are suspended by public interest. Whether Sargento did inform the police or not is irrelevant. The crimes for which Henrique Sotero is undergoing trial are abhorrent and it would appear that he has confessed.

The point of contention is that it seems Sargento informed TV1 of the name of the suspect and the time and location of his next consultation so that he could be filmed entering and leaving. This is the point that I have issue with, and if the newspaper report is to be believed it is difficult to see any justification for his action. It would appear that there is a suspicion that commercial considerations may have overridden his professional judgement.

If I may ask a question Sans, (Gerry) WHY on earth are you on this thread?? you are continuosly stirring up trouble, best you pop on over to a PRO site don't ya think?? you know the site where you trowls hang about trying to dispute the findings of both the PJ and the British Police!

I know it is sometimes really hard to deal with the FACTS, (which there are an abundance of in this case) but your continuous nit picking is really becoming quite boring, and your statements quite ludicrous.

A self-confessed serial rapist was exposed, named and shamed? Oh dear, what is the world coming to...

docmac wrote:A self-confessed serial rapist was exposed, named and shamed? Oh dear, what is the world coming to...

I know doc! And sans is simply exposing this awful man's part in it.

So it's OK for Sargento, as a professional, to tip off the media? And in particular the TV station who regularly employ him? Can you see nothing wrong with that?

sans_souci wrote:So it's OK for Sargento, as a professional, to tip off the media? And in particular the TV station who regularly employ him? Can you see nothing wrong with that?

Was it OK for Lori Campbell to point the finger at Robert Murat, doing that breathless interview where she related how odd she thought he was?

sans_souci wrote:So it's OK for Sargento, as a professional, to tip off the media? And in particular the TV station who regularly employ him? Can you see nothing wrong with that?

To be completely honest with you, sans - there are enormous ethical issues attached to that approach. But I think many would do the same - and I for one would applaud them for their bravery. There are ethics. And there are 'ethics'.

POPPY1 wrote:Let's try one more time Sans. I know this is difficult,but realizing how much you worship the very ground Gerry and Kate walk on, at some point in a little corner of your mind you have to accept they and they alone are responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine.

To my recollection end excuse me if I'm wrong, you have never admitted to this.

I'm really sorry, but you can't blame GM, the PJ, the Portuguese people, the priest, other holiday makers, except of course the other 'tapas' members who were doing the same thing.

Your practice is to evade the truth and like the Mccanns blame all and sundry for their incompetence as parents.
This is why many believe you are tied to them as you never blame the, for what has happened.

You also flip back and forth to the fruitcakes on Jatyk, but then of course they are completely rational as well, and they don't mind people on there with an opposing view,do they Sans.

Well said, Poppy, and a rep to you for that. Sans has now descended to his true level. We are all McCann Haters. Next thing, he'll be telling us We Are All Jealous Of The McCanns' We Want Madeleine Dead; We Are All Perfect Prents Who Never Made A Mistake; and all sorts of other old favourites from the McCann Hymnbook. He used to actually have some credibility in my eyes but with that accusation, he now has NONE. He is as disgusting and contemptible as the rest of the McCann trolls IMHO.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

POPPY1 wrote:Let's try one more time Sans. I know this is difficult,but realizing how much you worship the very ground Gerry and Kate walk on, at some point in a little corner of your mind you have to accept they and they alone are responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine.

To my recollection end excuse me if I'm wrong, you have never admitted to this.

I'm really sorry, but you can't blame GM, the PJ, the Portuguese people, the priest, other holiday makers, except of course the other 'tapas' members who were doing the same thing.

Your practice is to evade the truth and like the Mccanns blame all and sundry for their incompetence as parents.
This is why many believe you are tied to them as you never blame the, for what has happened.

You also flip back and forth to the fruitcakes on Jatyk, but then of course they are completely rational as well, and they don't mind people on there with an opposing view,do they Sans.

Well said, Poppy, and a rep to you for that. Sans has now descended to his true level. We are all McCann Haters. Next thing, he'll be telling us We Are All Jealous Of The McCanns' We Want Madeleine Dead; We Are All Perfect Prents Who Never Made A Mistake; and all sorts of other old favourites from the McCann Hymnbook. He used to actually have some credibility in my eyes but with that accusation, he now has NONE. He is as disgusting and contemptible as the rest of the McCann trolls IMHO.

Thank you Grouse, much appreciated. It needed to be said to Sans.

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:So it's OK for Sargento, as a professional, to tip off the media? And in particular the TV station who regularly employ him? Can you see nothing wrong with that?

Was it OK for Lori Campbell to point the finger at Robert Murat, doing that breathless interview where she related how odd she thought he was?

Well said. I guess there will not be a reply about that, he'll be too busy spitting feathers

What about Clarence Mitchell talking about Robert Murat sans: ?

“An outcome similar to Holly and Jessica [Soham children murdered by Ian Huntley] is possible. I don’t want to, and I can’t, talk about Robert Murat, but some journalists who worked with me in Soham, and that were now in Portugal, saw resemblances between that case and Robert Murat. And I won’t say more”.

So are we now to believe Sans that you judge the veracity of an accusation based solely on a news article written in a tabloid ? Do you perhaps have further information that we, as yet, or unaware of that shores up this rather flimsy report ?

Of course your present stance does beg the question then why when the report is, shall we say, anti- McCann it is treated with overt scepticism by your good self ?

If this was simply a factual report then we could all have a jolly good discussion concerning ethics and the limits of doctor patient confidentiality and so forth. Unfortunately the newspaper concerned has a record of reporting favourably towards the McCanns and unfavourably towards those concerned with solving the McCann case and bringing the perpetrators to justice. So, what bearing does this particular newspaper report have on the McCann case? Personally I wouldn't have linked the two together if the report hadn't been posted as the basis for a thread on this forum by a poster, who like the newspaper's reporting, has a record of posting which is favourable towards the McCanns. Taking this into account a distinct pattern emerges reminiscent of attempts to discredit Dr Amaral using accusations fabricated against him by a convicted child murderess whose case included both incest and child abuse. Paulo Sargento is of course one of the main supporters of Dr Amaral in the quest for justice for Madeleine McCann and will no doubt be an influential witness for Dr Amaral in the forthcoming libel case brought by the McCanns. So, the pattern repeats itself. Regardless of the fact that Sargento was instrumental in stopping further activities of a self-confessed serial rapist who had already raped 16 women and who could be expected to have gone on to rape more, a point of ethics is immediately pounced upon by the McCann side as as a means of discrediting Sargento. Is this a coincidence so close to the hearing of the main libel action? It is unlikely. As in the use of the Cipriano accusations, the main objective is simply to discredit the accused as a witness for Dr Amaral and as in the Cipriano case, those working for the interests of the McCanns do not care whether this means supporting a mother convicted of participating in the murder of her child to conceal its abuse by her partner in an incestuous relationship, or a 16-fold serial rapist. For the McCanns it seems, any means are justified to achieve their ends. It really makes me pause to think just what kind of people these McCanns are and what exactly they are hiding.

sans_souci,

Where is the full translation for this article you posted:

http://aeiou.expresso.pt/psicologo-e-arguido-por-quebrar-sigilo-no-caso-do-violador-de-telheiras=f620827

And as you have a problem with believing translations why don't you provide a full translation for this as well:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21050213/Arul-and-Katherina-Gaspar-Statements


Peter Levy, Radio Humberside, interviews Clarence Mitchell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9wLELpCL_Q&feature=player_embedded

They were part of the investigation as ‘arguido’ the status that’s given to people who the police wish to speak to about incidents in Portugal. But that status was ultimately lifted and the Portuguese Attorney General made it clear there was absolutely no evidence, in any way, to implicate them in Madeleine’s disappearance which, of course, there isn’t because I know them well enough now to say with with absolute confidence to say that, of course, they weren’t involved.

Er, there were language difficulties, translation difficulties.

Above in blue bold excerpt from transcipt of interview:
http://headlines-today.co.uk/2011/01/07/2011-01-07-peter-levy-radio-humberside-interviews-clarence-mitchell/

The paid PR has told the public they were not involved that sounds like KM saying I know I was there yer know I know. IIRC they and their friends never took the opportunity to fully clear themselves and prove their innocence. They never took part in a reconstruction and KM never answered her 48 questions! As for their Arguido status being lifted. sans_souci, is the Arguido status re-instated if the case is re-opened?

Is the new mantra language difficulties, translation difficulties? I can't count how many posts and tweets I have seen with that message in them recently. Hmm are they perhaps trying to brainwash should the Gaspar statements appear in the UK press/media? Perhaps at the thought that the Mc regarding these statements may be no more!

Just for the record sans_souci:

I do not hate the McCanns I am indifferent.

T4two wrote:If this was simply a factual report then we could all have a jolly good discussion concerning ethics and the limits of doctor patient confidentiality and so forth. Unfortunately the newspaper concerned has a record of reporting favourably towards the McCanns and unfavourably towards those concerned with solving the McCann case and bringing the perpetrators to justice. So, what bearing does this particular newspaper report have on the McCann case? Personally I wouldn't have linked the two together if the report hadn't been posted as the basis for a thread on this forum by a poster, who like the newspaper's reporting, has a record of posting which is favourable towards the McCanns. Taking this into account a distinct pattern emerges reminiscent of attempts to discredit Dr Amaral using accusations fabricated against him by a convicted child murderess whose case included both incest and child abuse. Paulo Sargento is of course one of the main supporters of Dr Amaral in the quest for justice for Madeleine McCann and will no doubt be an influential witness for Dr Amaral in the forthcoming libel case brought by the McCanns. So, the pattern repeats itself. Regardless of the fact that Sargento was instrumental in stopping further activities of a self-confessed serial rapist who had already raped 16 women and who could be expected to have gone on to rape more, a point of ethics is immediately pounced upon by the McCann side as as a means of discrediting Sargento. Is this a coincidence so close to the hearing of the main libel action? It is unlikely. As in the use of the Cipriano accusations, the main objective is simply to discredit the accused as a witness for Dr Amaral and as in the Cipriano case, those working for the interests of the McCanns do not care whether this means supporting a mother convicted of participating in the murder of her child to conceal its abuse by her partner in an incestuous relationship, or a 16-fold serial rapist. For the McCanns it seems, any means are justified to achieve their ends. It really makes me pause to think just what kind of people these McCanns are and what exactly they are hiding.

Great post, T4Two. As regards the bit highlighted above I feel exactly the same way.

Should a story ever emerge of a couple - having abandoned their offspring to the uncertain whims of fate in order to go dining and boozing it up every night - actually lose those kids to an electrical fire, who would the parents' sympathisers blame? The electrician? The fireman who was off duty at the time? The fireman's friend who was fiddling his taxes? The ICU staff? The postman? The waitress with big knockers? I know who I would point a finger at. And it would be none of the above.

docmac wrote:

sans_souci wrote:So it's OK for Sargento, as a professional, to tip off the media? And in particular the TV station who regularly employ him? Can you see nothing wrong with that?

To be completely honest with you, sans - there are enormous ethical issues attached to that approach. But I think many would do the same - and I for one would applaud them for their bravery. There are ethics. And there are 'ethics'.

Spot on Doc

sans souci: You are gloating about the accusations of a remorseless serial rapist who has been diagnosed as a manipulative sociopath but you ignore the fact that the McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte has not complied with a court ruling. From what Hernâni de Carvalho has said, I don't believe that he is much concerned about these accusations. In fact, he seems more amused than apprehensive about it.

You state that Paulo Sargento tipped off the media, as if that were a fact. PS has denied ever doing so and has said that he never gives out information about his patients. I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a set up because he is well known. This confessed rapist only sought out the help of a psychologist when the PJ and the press were already on to him.

Carolina,

Thank you for letting us know the content of the article -

Carolina wrote: "but you ignore the fact that the McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte has not complied with a court ruling"

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:As usual posters here are too blinded to hatred of anyone with whom the diagree actually to think about what is being said.

The point the article in expresso appears to be making is that Amarals buddy Sargento could have informed the police. However rather than that he chose to inform TV1 so that they could film the suspect and show him on TV the day before he was arrested.

This is so utterly stupid it defies belief. It is possible that this could compromise the forthcoming trial.

I cannot imagine why he did this. Surely it could not have been for the money...

The day before the man was arrested? So, either the police knew already and had enough evidence to arrest or the TV appearance led to the arrest. Anyone know which it was?

Anna, this guy was under surveillance by the Police for months... And after some time he was aware of it. That's why he stopped raping and seeked 'help'...

Carolina wrote:This serial rapist is suing because he is furious that he was caught by the police. My take on it is that he sought out the psychologist when he thought that the police were on his tail so that they would think that he was seeking help for his condition. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the confessed rapist thought up this whole scheme and sent the film of himself going to the consultation to the television. This is a person who confessed to raping 16 women but has never showed any kind of remorse. The typical manipulator.

BTW, the news of constituting PS, the journalist and the director of TVI as arguidos is not breaking news and was done about a month ago IIRC.

Should have read your post before replying to Anna, Carolina. Sorry!

this is a world news topic right?

Just to reiterate, I have no problem with Sargento doing his duty in alerting the police to this man, of course. It is clearly in the public interest.

If it wasn't a tragic case for the victims, then the unedifying spectacle of members here tying themselves in knots trying to justify Sargento promoting himself with his media buddies would be rather funny.

I gather Sargento and his buddies are arguidos. Now I had always believed that this meant that they were persons of interest to the investigation, and enjoyed protection from self incrimination as well as the right to legal representation, and nothing more. It did not suggest guilt or that charges would necessarily follow - the UK equivalent 'questionned under caution'.

However, years of posting on fora has suggested that there is a different definition that is the only one accepted by fora such as this one. A more perjoritive one. Suspects. Or even Prime Suspects.

Indeed a number of posters wrote indignantly to the BMA demanding to know why 'arguidos' were able to be employed as doctors. Interesting how a word can have so many meanings isn't it.

sans_souci wrote:Just to reiterate, I have no problem with Sargento doing his duty in alerting the police to this man, of course. It is clearly in the public interest.

If it wasn't a tragic case for the victims, then the unedifying spectacle of members here tying themselves in knots trying to justify Sargento promoting himself with his media buddies would be rather funny.

I gather Sargento and his buddies are arguidos. Now I had always believed that this meant that they were persons of interest to the investigation, and enjoyed protection from self incrimination as well as the right to legal representation, and nothing more. It did not suggest guilt or that charges would necessarily follow - the UK equivalent 'questionned under caution'.

However, years of posting on fora has suggested that there is a different definition that is the only one accepted by fora such as this one. A more perjoritive one. Suspects. Or even Prime Suspects.

Indeed a number of posters wrote indignantly to the BMA demanding to know why 'arguidos' were able to be employed as doctors. Interesting how a word can have so many meanings isn't it.

If you read Carolinas post you will see that Sargento is denying having alerted TV1.

sans_souci wrote:So it's OK for Sargento, as a professional, to tip off the media? And in particular the TV station who regularly employ him? Can you see nothing wrong with that?

I haven't read all the thread so apologies if this has been covered but I think sans may have a point

it's almost as bad as texting and giggling like a schoolgirl whilst being questioned by the police about the disapearance of your daughter, or say a doctor, as a professional who should advise patients about the dangers of leaving young children alone - leaving 3 children under 4, in a foreign country, with no supervision while they went out for 'dinner'

yes i totally see your point sans and am sure you will agree all three are disgusting and not he actions of professional people no?