McCanns Lawyer says police must take position on the lead provided by S.A Businessman

cherry1 wrote:I think GB has a lot of explaining to do, it has been reported he knew that Amaral was going
before Amaral did.

I think the British Gov lent on the Portuguese, told them who else may have been out there and needed protecting so they needed the whole affair hushed up. Perhaps exposing what may have gone on could also possibly implicate/connect to something going on in Portugal. They must have had something some leverage against Portugal to get them to get rid of Amaral, not insist on the reconstruction etc. Otherwise why didnt the Portuguese administration tell the British Government to get lost and stop interfering in its affairs.

Morning Cherry1, The Portugese Police were getting a lot of flak from the British Press , "sardine munchers"," 3 hour lunch" etc whether justified of not ,
maybe CM stirred. It became known that Amaral had a suspended 14 month sentence over his reporting on the Cipriano case so maybe it was felt that he had to go. The Tapas 9 , or the McCanns to be more specific , said they would not attend a recon unless it was like Crimewatch which is not how the Portugese Police do things..but as I have said, they left it far too late asking for a recon anyway.

Panda wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I think GB has a lot of explaining to do, it has been reported he knew that Amaral was going
before Amaral did.

I think the British Gov lent on the Portuguese, told them who else may have been out there and needed protecting so they needed the whole affair hushed up. Perhaps exposing what may have gone on could also possibly implicate/connect to something going on in Portugal. They must have had something some leverage against Portugal to get them to get rid of Amaral, not insist on the reconstruction etc. Otherwise why didnt the Portuguese administration tell the British Government to get lost and stop interfering in its affairs.

Morning Cherry1, The Portugese Police were getting a lot of flak from the British Press , "sardine munchers"," 3 hour lunch" etc whether justified of not ,
maybe CM stirred. It became known that Amaral had a suspended 14 month sentence over his reporting on the Cipriano case so maybe it was felt that he had to go. The Tapas 9 , or the McCanns to be more specific , said they would not attend a recon unless it was like Crimewatch which is not how the Portugese Police do things..but as I have said, they left it far too late asking for a recon anyway.

Panda, wasn't the Cipriano decision in 2009? I'm sure that suspended sentence does not date to before the McCann case.

Morning Panda, I think the way the Press portrayed the portuguese police was a disgrace
and some of the reporters who thought they were being so clever slagging them off made
themselves look complete fools because they seemed to forget or ignore the fact that the
UK police were over there helping with the investigation.

cherry1 wrote:I think GB has a lot of explaining to do, it has been reported he knew that Amaral was going
before Amaral did.

I think the British Gov lent on the Portuguese, told them who else may have been out there and needed protecting so they needed the whole affair hushed up. Perhaps exposing what may have gone on could also possibly implicate/connect to something going on in Portugal. They must have had something some leverage against Portugal to get them to get rid of Amaral, not insist on the reconstruction etc. Otherwise why didnt the Portuguese administration tell the British Government to get lost and stop interfering in its affairs.

I have viewed a lot videos of 'cold case,' reviews recently. Many of those showed up leads that had not been followed, evidence sitting in cupboards that had never been analysed, suspects who had never been thoroughly checked out. I would say that the only slam-dunk cases are where the perp has been caught at the scene at the time or been caught on camera or committed the crime in front of witnesses who could identify him/her. Solving complicated crimes, where there is very little forensic evidence and no witnesses is probably hard enough without interference and ridicule. I'll bet the Met don't get ridiculed by the UK press every time they fail to resolve a case and I'll add to that that members of our government do not usually interfere in police enquiries on behalf of the suspects.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I think GB has a lot of explaining to do, it has been reported he knew that Amaral was going
before Amaral did.

I think the British Gov lent on the Portuguese, told them who else may have been out there and needed protecting so they needed the whole affair hushed up. Perhaps exposing what may have gone on could also possibly implicate/connect to something going on in Portugal. They must have had something some leverage against Portugal to get them to get rid of Amaral, not insist on the reconstruction etc. Otherwise why didnt the Portuguese administration tell the British Government to get lost and stop interfering in its affairs.

Morning Cherry1, The Portugese Police were getting a lot of flak from the British Press , "sardine munchers"," 3 hour lunch" etc whether justified of not ,
maybe CM stirred. It became known that Amaral had a suspended 14 month sentence over his reporting on the Cipriano case so maybe it was felt that he had to go. The Tapas 9 , or the McCanns to be more specific , said they would not attend a recon unless it was like Crimewatch which is not how the Portugese Police do things..but as I have said, they left it far too late asking for a recon anyway.

Panda, wasn't the Cipriano decision in 2009? I'm sure that suspended sentence does not date to before the McCann case.

I thought it was 2008 but you may be right .Could be Amaral's Bosses knew it was in the pipeline so decided he had to go because of the bad publicity,
although I understood he wa a Co-ordinator, not in charge .

cherry1 wrote:Morning Panda, I think the way the Press portrayed the portuguese police was a disgrace
and some of the reporters who thought they were being so clever slagging them off made
themselves look complete fools because they seemed to forget or ignore the fact that the
UK police were over there helping with the investigation.

Morning cherry1......The U.K. has too many Dailies for such a small Country and because they have to fight for readership most resort to gutter Press
reporting which is why the Tapas 9 could claim such hefty damages. It is possible amaral could have sued but he decided to write a Book and make
some money like the McCanns instead. They must have felt evil and even though his Book was not published in English decided to sue him.

Panda wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Morning Panda, I think the way the Press portrayed the portuguese police was a disgrace
and some of the reporters who thought they were being so clever slagging them off made
themselves look complete fools because they seemed to forget or ignore the fact that the
UK police were over there helping with the investigation.

Morning cherry1......The U.K. has too many Dailies for such a small Country and because they have to fight for readership most resort to gutter Press
reporting which is why the Tapas 9 could claim such hefty damages. It is possible amaral could have sued but he decided to write a Book and make
some money like the McCanns instead. They must have felt evil and even though his Book was not published in English decided to sue him.

Gonçalo Amaral decided to write a book in order to express himself. That was his primary objective, not making money.

He had to go because he wouldn't toe the line....


Problem is.....he still isnt!


He knows the truth and will carry on until the day he leave this earth, unless KM gets her way and he 'disappears' before that.

Didn't he maintain he knew something which he could not tell.? Surely now, at a Trial and because he is no longer a Police Officer he can divulge it at
the Trial in his Defence. On second thoughts he is being sued for writing a Book and as we know the McCanns are the only People allowed to make
money from Madeleine's disappearance.

duncanmac wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

duncanmac wrote:

]quote="Claudia79"]Just to clarify something, the PJ can't arrest, put under surveillance or bug anyone's phone without permission. Sadly.

Thank You Claudia, I know have the answer to why there was no covert observations

You didn't know that?

No I did not know you have to have their permission to put them under surveillance, as I have said I am not familiar with Portuguese law.
Can you clarify for me then what you mean by the PJ are unable to arrest someone without their permission.
I am just trying to imagine the scenario.
PJ : " Mr & Mrs MaCann, you are both under arrest, can I have your permission"
GM: " No "
PJ: " Never mind then"

Does not surprise me, after all it looks like the PJ had to get their permission to do a reconstruction.
They said No and the PJ accepted it, who is controlling who ?

I thought you said you had followed this case closely. Apparently not. The PJ even had to ask the PP if they agreed on making them arguidos! All was supervised by the PP. No step was taken without their knowledge and approval.
As for your other question "Can you clarify for me then what you mean by the PJ are unable to arrest someone without their permission.", I will have to ignore. To answer it I would have to question your IQ and it wouldn't be nice to do it.

Panda wrote:

"Does not surprise me, after all it looks like the PJ had to get their permission to do a reconstruction.
They said No and the PJ accepted it, who is controlling who ?"

I would agree with you there duncanmac, apparently the PJ rented 5a for a year and should have requested a recon while the Mccanns were still in
Portugal. A child goes missing , no evidence of abduction, the Parents and their Friends timelines are cause for concern by the British Ambassador, yet
over a year goes by before the recon is requested.!!! Add to this the fact that Stuart Prior said "nothing would be served" in reply to Rachel Mapilly's
question and it appears the PJ were overwhelmed by the McCanns and their friends in high places.

For the last time, Panda, the PJ NEVER rented 5A! I was sure about it but I still asked two different people related to the investigation so I was positive so please stop that forum myth. It is not true. It never happened.

You choose to ignore the question because you dont have an answer.

Of course the PJ can arrest people if they are caught committing a crime. They arrest them, they take him to a judge and then the judge decides what to do according to the crime.
Here the situation was quite different. The McCanns (and obviously Madeleine) were the victims (at first). It was only during the investigation that things changed. PJ investigations are always under control of the Public Prosecutor's Office. They decide if the suspects are put under surveillance, they decide if there's cause to bug phones, they decide if there's cause to search a property (warrants are needed), etc. In this case even making the McCanns arguidos was done with the supervision and approval of the PP. And we know requests were made that weren't allowed (re the phones). As for the reconstruction, the PJ could make the McCanns attend because they were suspects. Their friends, however, could never be forced to participate because they were only witnesses. I happen to know that Mr Amaral was of the opinion that the reconstruction should happen even if only Kate and Gerry participated but higher people decided it wasn't enough so it didn't go ahead..

duncanmac wrote:You choose to ignore the question because you dont have an answer.

No, I chose to ignore your question because it is pathetic and shows that your interpretation skills could be worked on. Anyway, Kathybelle, I think, helped you with your little 'problem'.

What problem was that ?
The fact she got the name of Mr Amarals successor wrong ?
or
The fact she said the Macs spoke with Gordon Brown the day after Madeleine disappeared,when he wasnt even Prime Minister, it was Tony Blair ?

duncanmac wrote:What problem was that ?
The fact she got the name of Mr Amarals successor wrong ?
or
The fact she said the Macs spoke with Gordon Brown the day after Madeleine disappeared,when he wasnt even Prime Minister, it was Tony Blair ?

If you read the published details from Kate McCann's diary, you will find what she said about how they came to contact Gordon Brown. Kate does not say that Gordon was Prime Minister at that time. I think the relevant extract from the diary is actually on this thread somewhere.

Gordon Brown, apart from being the Chancellor at the time, was also an MP for his constituency. And if someone has a problem it is common to go to the local MP. Who would Gordon Brown be local MP to? If it was a Scottish constituency he held then it figures he may have been contacted for help in this regard by a member of Gerry's family. I have contacted my MP on a couple of occasions because their voice is heard above all others sometimes, that's all. In fact if my child went missing (it would not be because I had left him/her alone) I more than likely would contact my local MP to see what help was available to me and whether he could push my pressing need for help to the top of the list somehow. Political help does not necessarily mean you are trying to upset a police investigation, but you just may want to be kept in the loop a bit more especially when there is a language barrier.

duncanmac wrote:What problem was that ?
The fact she got the name of Mr Amarals successor wrong ?
or
The fact she said the Macs spoke with Gordon Brown the day after Madeleine disappeared,when he wasnt even Prime Minister, it was Tony Blair ?

Your interpretation deficit, let's call it. Maybe it will be easier if I start replying to you in Portuguese and then you have it translated.

It appears I am surrounded on this forum by misandrists.

duncanmac wrote:It appears I am surrounded on this forum by misandrists.

You have a penis?
Btw, that was not an insult. I don't know why but I thought you were female!
Personally, I love men! Just not all of them, of course.

Claudia79 wrote:

duncanmac wrote:It appears I am surrounded on this forum by misandrists.

You have a penis?
Btw, that was not an insult. I don't know why but I thought you were female!
Personally, I love men! Just not all of them, of course.

duncanmac wrote:It appears I am surrounded on this forum by misandrists.

Why do you stay here then?

jd16 wrote:

duncanmac wrote:It appears I am surrounded on this forum by misandrists.

Why do you stay here then?

Masochism?

pennylane wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

duncanmac wrote:It appears I am surrounded on this forum by misandrists.

You have a penis?
Btw, that was not an insult. I don't know why but I thought you were female!
Personally, I love men! Just not all of them, of course.

Love the MJ emoticon!

LJC wrote:Gordon Brown, apart from being the Chancellor at the time, was also an MP for his constituency. And if someone has a problem it is common to go to the local MP. Who would Gordon Brown be local MP to? If it was a Scottish constituency he held then it figures he may have been contacted for help in this regard by a member of Gerry's family. I have contacted my MP on a couple of occasions because their voice is heard above all others sometimes, that's all. In fact if my child went missing (it would not be because I had left him/her alone) I more than likely would contact my local MP to see what help was available to me and whether he could push my pressing need for help to the top of the list somehow. Political help does not necessarily mean you are trying to upset a police investigation, but you just may want to be kept in the loop a bit more especially when there is a language barrier.

If your child was missing, I would hope you would phone the police straight away and then look for her/him, before you contacted your MP. The McCanns never contacted the police and they never looked for Madeleine. There was no excuse for the McCanns not to contact the police, because Gerry McCann and his mates were all holed up in the Tapas Bar when Kate "informed" them that Madeleine had been taken.

I'm sure one of the Tapas Bar staff, would have phone the police if they were asked. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the McCanns never looked for Madeleine either. When they should have been looking for Madeleine and would have been looking for her if she had disappeared without their knowledge, they were making their important phone calls to their family and friends. Their friends included their high profile media friend, John Corner, who arranged for the story of Madeleine's disappearance to be put in the newspapers and read out. by newsreaders on the radio and television.

Another of their friends was Gordon Brown and we all know what happened there, at least those of us who have followed the case from day one know what happened. The McCanns were treated as if they were Royalty, by Brown and Blair and it is no good saying they weren't because they were.

I find it absolutely appalling that the McCanns can admit to doing something, that would put a Portuguese citizen in jail, for doing the same thing and walk free thanks to the British Government. I also find it absolutely appalling that Ben Needham's mum Kerry, who along with her partner was at work when Ben disappeared, asked the British Government for help and they refused to help her.

When Kerry saw how much help the McCanns were getting, after Madeleine disappeared, she asked the Government again for help and again they refused to help her. She is now getting help although how much help she is getting I don't know. All I know is there was a campaign made by the public and celebrities such as Tom Cruise, to get Kerry help from the British Government.

What is the difference between Madeleine and Ben? They are/were both British citizens. Why should the McCanns who were 100% to blame for whatever happened to Madeleine, get treated with kid gloves, by the British Government? When Kerry and her partner, who were 100% innocent, were hung out to dry by the British Government.