egafd.com

Hi

Lets stick to the facts rather than the looking in the tea leaves, shall we?

How about answering the questions below ECG1?

"Amaral was found guilty by a jury of falsified documents to help cover for his officers, following a seven month trial at Faro Court on the Algarve" He was given a suspended sentence of 18 months.

Is the above correct? Yes or No? My belief is that the answer is Yes.

Does this make him a "bent" copper. Yes or No? My belief is Yes.

He was kicked off the McCann case. Yes or No? My belief is Yes.

Would he be more or less likely to be hostile to the McCanns given that he is a bent copper and has been kicked off the McCann case. Yes or No? My belief is Yes

Has the fact that he is a convicted perjurer make his story highly suspect? Yes or No? My belief is Yes.

D

A few other facts about Amaral's conviction:

Marcos Arag?o Correia is the lawyer who represented convicted child murderer Leonor Cipriano in the torture case against Amaral.

Arag?o Correia confirms that his pursuit against Amaral was supported with money from Maddie's parents:

When confronted by 24horas with the suspicions about his connection to the Maddie case, Marcos Arag?o confirmed that he was already paid by persons that are connected to the McCanns. "They haven't paid me honoraries but rather expenses due to transportation, lodging and food, in order to interview Cipriano in prison", the lawyer explained, adding that the purpose of the conversation was to "analyse" the procedures of Amaral as a PJ investigator.


The private detectives agency hired by the McCann couple asked Marcos Arag?o Correia "to enter in the Joana Case". It is the lawyer, himself, who admits that Metodo3 private detectives ordered him to do "an investigation" into the outlines of the accusation of torture to Joana's mother, by the PJ - and the target, between the 5 inspectors, was evident: Gon?alo Amaral.


http://www.24horasnewspaper.com/total.p ... 83&link=08

David Johnson wrote:

> Hi
>
> Lets stick to the facts rather than the looking in the tea
> leaves, shall we?
>
> How about answering the questions below ECG1?
>
> "Amaral was found guilty by a jury of falsified documents to
> help cover for his officers, following a seven month trial at
> Faro Court on the Algarve" He was given a suspended sentence
> of 18 months.
>
> Is the above correct? Yes or No? My belief is that the answer
> is Yes.
>
> Does this make him a "bent" copper. Yes or No? My belief is
> Yes.
>
> He was kicked off the McCann case. Yes or No? My belief is
> Yes.
>
> Would he be more or less likely to be hostile to the McCanns
> given that he is a bent copper and has been kicked off the
> McCann case. Yes or No? My belief is Yes
>
> Has the fact that he is a convicted perjurer make his story
> highly suspect? Yes or No? My belief is Yes.
>

Would you like me to respond in simple "Yes" or "No" answers? Or may I respond with a few facts that have shaped my opinion?

Yes or no only please.

David Johnson wrote:

> Yes or no only please.

And if the answer is "I don't know"?

I dont know is fine

Amaral was found guilty of falsifying evidence.
That is the key point. Obviously......

Before you go off at a tangent completely into the conspiracy intergalatic system, another question for you.

Was Amaral under investigation for falsifying evidence before or after Maddy disappeared?

Okay I'll make this easy for you. Before is the correct answer. So he was already suspected to be a bent copper before Maddy even disappeared.

Bang!! Thats the sound of your McCann conspiracy theory blowing up.

D

> David Johnson wrote:
>

> > "Amaral was found guilty by a jury of falsified documents to
> > help cover for his officers, following a seven month trial at
> > Faro Court on the Algarve" He was given a suspended sentence
> > of 18 months.
> >
> > Is the above correct? Yes or No?

"No."

He was found guilty by a jury for "misrepresentation of evidence" in the case of aggressions against Leonor Cipriano".
He was given a suspended sentence of 18 months.

To clarify: Amaral's claim that Leonor Cipriano suffered injuries by falling down stairs could not be proven. This is why he was found guilty by a jury for for "misrepresentation of evidence" in the case of aggressions against Leonor Cipriano".

Likewise, Leonor Cipriano's claims of torture were neither proven.
All defendants who were accused of the crime of torture - Paulo Pereira Crist?v?o, Leonel Marques and Paulo Marques Bom - were acquitted.

Once proven that Leonor Cipriano was tortured, then you have a "Yes" to "of falsified documents".


> > Does this make him a "bent" copper. Yes or No? My belief is
> > Yes.

"Yes."
On the basis of his conviction for "misrepresentation of evidence".


> > He was kicked off the McCann case. Yes or No? My belief is
> > Yes.

"Yes."
Provide the reason why he was kicked off the McCann case please.


> > Would he be more or less likely to be hostile to the McCanns
> > given that he is a bent copper and has been kicked off the
> > McCann case. Yes or No? My belief is Yes

"More likely?": "I don't know".
"Less likely?": "I don't know".
Once again, why was he kicked off the Mccann case?


> > Has the fact that he is a convicted perjurer make his story
> > highly suspect? Yes or No? My belief is Yes.
> >

"I don't know".
Since the claims presented in the book are not just "his" story but claims of others related to the case.
The result of the current trial should provide you with a definitive answer.

David Johnson wrote:

> Amaral was found guilty of falsifying evidence.
> That is the key point. Obviously......
>
> Before you go off at a tangent completely into the conspiracy
> intergalatic system, another question for you.
>
> Was Amaral under investigation for falsifying evidence before
> or after Maddy disappeared?
>
> Okay I'll make this easy for you. Before is the correct
> answer. So he was already suspected to be a bent copper before
> Maddy even disappeared.
>
> Bang!! Thats the sound of your McCann conspiracy theory
> blowing up.
>


Shit! You totally Pwned me there!
Oh well, I tried my hardest.

> > Was Amaral under investigation for falsifying evidence before
> > or after Maddy disappeared?


A total of five police detectives from Portugal's elite Pol?cia Judici?ria (PJ) detective unit were charged on 11 June 2007 for physically attacking and torturing Leonor Cipriano.

Madeleine McCann disappeared on 3 May 2007.



> > Okay I'll make this easy for you. Before is the correct
> > answer. So he was already suspected to be a bent copper
> before
> > Maddy even disappeared.
> >
> > Bang!! Thats the sound of your McCann conspiracy theory
> > blowing up.

The "McCann conspiracy theory"? What?

Marcos Arag?o Correia appointed as the new lawyer for Leonor Cipriano on 9 October 2008, replacing existing lawyer Jo?o Grade.

When confronted by the news paper 24horas on 30 October 2008 with the suspicions about his connection to the McCann case, Marcos Arag?o confirmed that he was already paid by persons that are connected to the McCanns. "They haven't paid me honoraries but rather expenses due to transportation, lodging and food, in order to interview Jo?o Cipriano in prison", the lawyer explained, adding that the purpose of the conversation was to "analyse" the procedures of Amaral as a PJ investigator.

The private detectives agency (Metodo 3) hired by the McCann couple asked Marcos Arag?o Correia "to enter in the Joana Case". It is the lawyer, himself, who admits that Metodo3 ordered him to do "an investigation" into the outlines of the accusation of torture to Joana's mother, by the PJ - and the target, between the 5 inspectors, was evident: Gon?alo Amaral.

On 4 November 2008 Marcos Arag?o Correia suggested a deal to the lawyer of the PJ inspectors that stand accused of torturing Leonor Cipriano, in order to frame Gon?alo Amaral and to get the other policemen off the hook. Marcos Arag?o Correia was ready to request a reduction of the penalty for four of the arguidos if they would assume in court that they tortured Joana's mother under the orders of Gon?alo Amaral.

This idea was brought to the president of the Association of Criminal Investigation Employees (ASFIC), who immediately rejected it. "The proposal was clearly directed towards solving the problem of the four arguidos by accusing Gon?alo Amaral", confirmed Carlos Anjos, who represents the criminal investigators. The response was immediate: "I refused straight away because I don't cut deals", he said.

22 May 2009:

'Target was hit, Gon?alo Amaral was convicted'... Marcos Arag?o Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer.

'I still don't understand how there is a false statement' ... Ant?nio Cabrita, Gon?alo Amaral's lawyer