Amaral answers to the McCanns: exclusive interview to Portuguese newspaper "The Crime":

He is a police officer,25 plus years, he has instincts, these instincts which the mccanns dont know he has, how can they.

Gut feelings along with knowledge plus off course the dogs, he knows viv, he knows more than what the mccanns think he knows.

The problem i have...We have is this....IF WE CAN SEE THROUGH THE MCCANNS AND SEE THEIR LIES, WHY CANT THE BRITISH NEWSPAPERS, THE PORTUGESE LEGAL SYSTEM see WHAT WE SEE.

IF THE TRUTH IS STARING AT YOU, FALL ON, AND EVEN THAT DOESNT WORK..THEN WHAT IS THEIR LEFT...

kitti wrote:He is a police officer,25 plus years, he has instincts, these instincts which the mccanns dont know he has, how can they.

Gut feelings along with knowledge plus off course the dogs, he knows viv, he knows more than what the mccanns think he knows.

The problem i have...We have is this....IF WE CAN SEE THROUGH THE MCCANNS AND SEE THEIR LIES, WHY CANT THE BRITISH NEWSPAPERS, THE PORTUGESE LEGAL SYSTEM see WHAT WE SEE.

IF THE TRUTH IS STARING AT YOU, FALL ON, AND EVEN THAT DOESNT WORK..THEN WHAT IS THEIR LEFT...

I am sure the McCanns are well aware of his experience and gut feelings about the case, but police officers cannot stand up in court and talk about their gut feelings, they have to provide the court with hard evidence.

The British press cannot outright accuse the McCanns of anything at all they would be breaking the law. The only people who can do that are the Crown Prosecution Service and even then only when they have sufficient evidence to back those charges. The Portuguese legal system is no different to the British legal system, it is based on fairness, until there is sufficient evidence to convict someone, they cannot be prosecuted. AT the present time, thanks to the ingenuity of the McCanns there is insufficient evidence, it is not use just saying what you think they did with her, you have tobe able to prove it and that is a notoriously difficult thing to do without the slightest trace of the victim!

the more I hear from Dr Amaral the more I think he is a wonderful man

Maddie could have no better champion

The Famous Grouse wrote:I will tell you one thing, wheher GA is vindicated or not....

..he's put a stop to some of Gerry's nasty little schemes. That HAS to be a good thing.

Gerry said so himself. "The book has harmed DONATIONS..." -that was the very first thing he said.

GOOD FOR YOU, GA!

And Amen to that. From the very outset, what I kept commenting on was the repulsive way that Gerry McCann was seeking to cash in on disposing of his own little girl, reducing her to no more than a trademark or "good marketing ploy".

From a personal point of view anything at all that has stopped this couple from cashing in to achieve fame and fortune (which I think was Gerry's original big dream but has seriously gone out of the window) or to defend themselves and be able to just live happily ever after just has to be a good thing. No parent can treat their children as this despicable couple did and then cash in like some bloody celebrities and expect to just lie/ media spin their way out of it.

tabs wrote:the more I hear from Dr Amaral the more I think he is a wonderful man

Maddie could have no better champion

But he has libelled the McCanns and there is a clear possibility they will win this case. If that happens they will have shut up the biggest critic of them and succeeded in their wishes to just stop the criticism of them and get on with their lives. Will you still say Dr Amaral has done a wonderful job if that happens?

I question why he could not just stick to the hard evidence that demonstrated they were involved in her disappearance and would not have given them any legal cause of action against him. Why the insistence from both him and Tony Bennett that Madeleine died, so they could write books that were sensational enough to sell? Maddie is not a commodity for sale, that is something her parents never realised.

viv wrote:

tabs wrote:the more I hear from Dr Amaral the more I think he is a wonderful man

Maddie could have no better champion

But he has libelled the McCanns and there is a clear possibility they will win this case. If that happens they will have shut up the biggest critic of them and succeeded in their wishes to just stop the criticism of them and get on with their lives. Will you still say Dr Amaral has done a wonderful job if that happens?

I question why he could not just stick to the hard evidence that demonstrated they were involved in her disappearance and would not have given them any legal cause of action against him. Why the insistence from both him and Tony Bennett that Madeleine died, so they could write books that were sensational enough to sell? Maddie is not a commodity for sale, that is something her parents never realised.

I will ask you the same question I have asked sans-souci. Just where in the book has Gonçalo Amaral libelled the McCanns? I have read the book twice and he sticks to the facts and only the facts. There are no gut feelings in the book, no baseless fantasies. Gonçalo Amaral presents only the facts from the investigation as based on the police files. I doubt very much that you have read the book if you are able to make the statements you have been making.

Carolina wrote:

viv wrote:

tabs wrote:the more I hear from Dr Amaral the more I think he is a wonderful man

Maddie could have no better champion

But he has libelled the McCanns and there is a clear possibility they will win this case. If that happens they will have shut up the biggest critic of them and succeeded in their wishes to just stop the criticism of them and get on with their lives. Will you still say Dr Amaral has done a wonderful job if that happens?

I question why he could not just stick to the hard evidence that demonstrated they were involved in her disappearance and would not have given them any legal cause of action against him. Why the insistence from both him and Tony Bennett that Madeleine died, so they could write books that were sensational enough to sell? Maddie is not a commodity for sale, that is something her parents never realised.

I will ask you the same question I have asked sans-souci. Just where in the book has Gonçalo Amaral libelled the McCanns? I have read the book twice and he sticks to the facts and only the facts. There are no gut feelings in the book, no baseless fantasies. Gonçalo Amaral presents only the facts from the investigation as based on the police files. I doubt very much that you have read the book if you are able to make the statements you have been making.

I am with you, Carolina. First of all, Dr Amaral didn't stick to the "hard evidence," because there was very little. What he did stick to, as far as I can tell from reading the book, is the course of the investigation and the avenues being explored by the joint Portuguese/British teams. He recounts the long hours worked, the long days away from home and family, the initial "race against time," when the investigators camped out in Praia da Luz, some sleeping on sofas and floors. The arrival of the English teams, including Mark Harrison, helped to move the investigation forward and from Mark Harrison came the original proposition of having to look for a body.

and from Mark Harrison came the original proposition of having to look for a body

Quite. So why are the McScum not sueing him?

The Famous Grouse wrote:

and from Mark Harrison came the original proposition of having to look for a body

Quite. So why are the McScum not sueing him?

They really should be since the hypothesis of death originated with him. He read through the files, he tramped the streets of PDL, following the possible routes an abductor might have taken, and came to the conclusion that Madeleine was dead and the teams should be searching the environs of PDL for a body.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

and from Mark Harrison came the original proposition of having to look for a body

Quite. So why are the McScum not sueing him?

Perhaps because he hasn't put the facts into print TFG. Perhaps because they can't quite smell or see their way clear to raking in 1.2 mill from him.

Carolina wrote:

viv wrote:

tabs wrote:the more I hear from Dr Amaral the more I think he is a wonderful man

Maddie could have no better champion

But he has libelled the McCanns and there is a clear possibility they will win this case. If that happens they will have shut up the biggest critic of them and succeeded in their wishes to just stop the criticism of them and get on with their lives. Will you still say Dr Amaral has done a wonderful job if that happens?

I question why he could not just stick to the hard evidence that demonstrated they were involved in her disappearance and would not have given them any legal cause of action against him. Why the insistence from both him and Tony Bennett that Madeleine died, so they could write books that were sensational enough to sell? Maddie is not a commodity for sale, that is something her parents never realised.

I will ask you the same question I have asked sans-souci. Just where in the book has Gonçalo Amaral libelled the McCanns? I have read the book twice and he sticks to the facts and only the facts. There are no gut feelings in the book, no baseless fantasies. Gonçalo Amaral presents only the facts from the investigation as based on the police files. I doubt very much that you have read the book if you are able to make the statements you have been making.

Well maybe I could ask you the question where I have ever said Goncalo libelled the McCanns in his book. I do not think that he did and have often commented I think there would have been no action in relation to that. But he has appeared in interviews insisting that Madeleine is dead and at the start of the documentary he stated "I will prove", that is where IMO he libelled the McCanns because he cannot prove it.

Maybe I am just being unduly pessimistic but I know that Judges like to apply some pretty rigid rules. He/she will have to balance up some pretty conflicting human rights, the McCanns right to reputation to privacy to respect for their home and family (yes I know I know) against Goncalo's right to freedom of speech. It is perfectly possible that Goncalo is right, but I believe that Gerry McCann planned all this which would mean me having to swallow they deliberately killed her and that is a hard one!

I got news from Spain today. I´ll try to translate it via "systranet".
Mods, please move if you wish.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad ... isoc_6/Tes

El policía apartado en el 'caso Maddie' ratifica su versión
Batalla legal entre los McCann y el comisario que investigó el suceso

FRANCESC RELEA, - Lisboa - 27/12/2009

El caso de la desaparición de la pequeña Madeleine McCann, archivado por la justicia portuguesa en julio de 2008 sin resultado alguno, está más abierto que nunca. Sin rastro de la niña británica desde el 3 de mayo de 2007, los padres y el policía que llevó el caso libran ahora una guerra que ha llegado a los tribunales. Gonçalo Amaral (Torredeita, 1959), coordinador operativo de la investigación hasta que fue apartado del caso en una decisión inédita en la historia de la Policía Judicial, ha presentado en Lisboa el libro La mordaza inglesa (Planeta). El él, asegura ser objeto de una campaña "ultrajante" de los McCann y reivindica la libertad de expresión. Es el segundo libro que dedica al caso. El primero, La verdad de la mentira, (de julio de 2008), que defiende que la pequeña falleció y sus padres están implicados en la ocultación del cadaver, fue retirado. 14 meses después de su publicación, un juez prohibió todo tipo de expresiones y publicaciones en Portugal, que directa o indirectamente sostuvieran la tesis de Amaral.

"Tengo derecho a defenderme, ante la Justicia o escribiendo este libro", sostiene Amaral, que abandonó la Policía Judicial en junio de 2008. Los McCann, que han demandado al ex comisario Amaral por difamación, le reclaman una indemnización de 1,2 millones de euros.

The police separated in the “Maddie case” ratifies its version
Legal battle between the McCann and the commissioner whom the event investigated

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCESC REREADS, - Lisbon - 27/12/2009

The case of the disappearance of the small Madeleine McCann, filed by Portuguese justice in July of 2008 without result some, is more open than ever. Without sign of the British girl the parents and the police who took the case now wage war that has arrived at the courts. Gonçalo Amaral (Torredeita, 1959), operative coordinator of the investigation (until he was separated from the case in an unpublished decision in the history of the Judicial Police), has presented in Lisbon the book the "English jaw". It, assures to be object of “a ultrajante” campaign of the McCann and vindicates the freedom of expression. It is the second book that dedicates to the case. First,"The truth of the lie", (of July of 2008), that defends that the small one passed away and her parents are implied in the concealment of the corpse, was retired. 14 months after his publication, a judge prohibited all type of expressions and publications in Portugal, that direct or indirectly the thesis of Amaral maintained.

“I must have the right to defend to me before Justice or writing this book”, Amaral maintains, who left the Judicial Police in June of 2008. The McCann, that has demanded ex- commissioner Amaral for slander, demand an indemnification to him of 1.2 million Euros.

viv wrote:

tabs wrote:the more I hear from Dr Amaral the more I think he is a wonderful man

Maddie could have no better champion

But he has libelled the McCanns and there is a clear possibility they will win this case. If that happens they will have shut up the biggest critic of them and succeeded in their wishes to just stop the criticism of them and get on with their lives. Will you still say Dr Amaral has done a wonderful job if that happens?

I question why he could not just stick to the hard evidence that demonstrated they were involved in her disappearance and would not have given them any legal cause of action against him. Why the insistence from both him and Tony Bennett that Madeleine died, so they could write books that were sensational enough to sell? Maddie is not a commodity for sale, that is something her parents never realised.

Viv, if Amaral has not libeled the McCanns in his book, where and when has he libeled them?

malena stool wrote:

The Famous Grouse wrote:

and from Mark Harrison came the original proposition of having to look for a body

Quite. So why are the McScum not sueing him?

Perhaps because he hasn't put the facts into print TFG. Perhaps because they can't quite smell or see their way clear to raking in 1.2 mill from him.

Mark Harrison's comments that the possibility of the death of Madeleine should be checked were contained within the police inquiry and as such are subject to strict legal privilege - no one can sue an investigator or any police witness in a case. I would be very surprised if the McCanns are going to rake in £1.2M - they have to continue because they did not get a permanent injunction, only an interim one pending trial of the main action and I think they know that is going to be very expensive and very difficult for them. Goncalo's list of witnesses are very encouraging.

It would seem that the police being able to prosecute them would be a tall order in light of the lack of evidence and how well they have disposed of Madeleine. So, they want to carry on with their life, with the cloud of suspicion lifted and able to cash in. I think they want a lot more than they are realistically ever going to get.

Ana - please see my response above, I think it is his comments subsequent to the book that caused the problem. It is notable the McCanns did not immediately sue on the book, I think they would have found that very difficult on the basis of the book alone, because it is worded far more in terms of this is what the investigation thought, rather than asserting those thoughts as facts. An opinion or a hypothesis, reasonably held is not libel but accusing someone outright of a serious criminal offence when you cannot prove it is.

I would like to know who is funding the Portuguese action against Goncalo. Is it the Find Maddie Fund, because that is a bit like gambling on a very dangerous commodities market, you may make a killing with a large payoff but you may also lose everything you put into the risk. Or is Brian Kennedy funding it and if so, why?

This is completely different to a sure fire winner in the UK that Carter Ruck take on, on a no win no fee basis. Against the Daily Express they knew they were going to win. But here, those Pt lawyers are going to want to be paid upfront and ongoing. If they are telling us the fund is running dry again why are they blowing in what they have left on this action, is that not stopping the search for Madeleine altogether?