egafd.com

Glad you agree he is a bent copper. You may believe the views of a disgraced, bent copper who is trying to make a fast buck after being kicked off the case and "took early retirement" on conviction as a bent copper. I am not convinced personally.

I prefer the innocent to proven guilty approach, which isn't always fashionable on this forum. Having said that I have absolutely no idea if the McCanns are innocent or not.

"Provide the reason why he was kicked off the McCann case please"
My understanding was that he reckoned that the British police were trying to do a coverup on behalf of the McCanns. Having said that the views of a bent copper on why he has been kicked off a case are fairly irrelevant to me.

"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".""

Really!!!! What a generous, trusting person you are.
How do you reconcile that with this
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/58408,peo ... o-tell-bbc.
Of course it could be part of a BBC conspiracy.

D

Key points
Amaral was being investigated for being a bent copper before Maddie disappeared on 3rd May 2007.
He was charged as a result of the investigation on June 11 2007.
This was in the very early stages of the Maddy investigation.

All else is fluff.

D

David Johnson wrote:


> Really!!!! What a generous, trusting person you are.
> How do you reconcile that with this
> http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/58408,peo ... o-tell-bbc.
>
> Of course it could be part of a BBC conspiracy.
>

Amaral did not say "Fuck the McCanns"
He said ?Fala com McCanns?, which translates as "Ask the McCanns".

Martin Brunt, Sky news reporter said:
"The rest of us, through our interpreters, understood perfectly what he was saying.
I think he needs a good libel lawyer."

http://blogs.news.sky.com/lifeofcrime/P ... 2e0778bf18

Of course it could be part of a BBC conspiracy.

Lets get the facts right here Peter- they did not leave their kids HOME alone- they left them alone in a strange apartment in a foreign country

Ah yes, that great supporter of the BBC, the Sky News Corporation.

Irrespective of what he did or did not say, he's still a bent copper.

David Johnson wrote:


>
> Irrespective of what he did or did not say, he's still a bent
> copper.

Yes he is.

Amaral was found guilty of "misrepresentation of evidence".

What this means is that he read statements from officers who claimed that Leonor Cipriano (a convicted child killer who cut up her daughters body and fed the pieces to pigs) had thrown herself down some stairs. The woman claimed, via a lawyer who has admitted to being paid by private detectives hired by the McCanns, that she did not fall. She claims she was tortured.

He did not alter, conceal or change any part of those statements.
He did not add to those statements.
He was not in the police station at the time of the incident.
He simply placed his signature at the bottom of those statements to signify that he read them.

When the "torture" claim came to court, the officers on trial were acquitted.
It was not proven the woman was tortured.
It was not proven the woman fell down the stairs, hence Amarals conviction for "misrepresentation of evidence" . That conviction now can be used to say that Amaral is "a bent copper".

22 May 2009:

'Target was hit, Gon?alo Amaral was convicted'... Marcos Arag?o Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer hired by Metodo3.
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.


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

I dont want to go round in circles. Maybe you do?

I asked

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


You replied

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


I have nothing else to say on this matter.

Peter as well as Jim Slip, Dylan

"Is anyone allowed to mention they left their kids home alone yet? "

"Watch out you could be sued for saying that"

This is total bollocks. The papers were full of the fact that they left their kids in the apartment and went backwards and forwards to check.

They themselves admit their guilt and regret in this matter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6692161.stm

Give it a rest for Christ's sake. Are you guys so perfect that you have never done anything wrong in your lives and regretted it afterwards?

David Johnson wrote:

> "Peter as well as Jim Slip, Dylan

> This is total bollocks. The papers were full of the fact that
> they left their kids in the apartment and went backwards and
> forwards to check."

And I haven't seen it mentioned once in the recent round of news reports since this odious couple resurfaced, hence the question 'has it been airbrushed out?"


>" Give it a rest for Christ's sake. Are you guys so perfect that
> you have never done anything wrong in your lives and regretted
> it afterwards?"

Nothing so selfish and stupid as to end up losing a child, no.

"And I haven't seen it mentioned once in the recent round of news reports since this odious couple resurfaced, hence the question 'has it been airbrushed out?"

Could that possibly be because the latest round of news reports have nothing at all to do with this event which the McCanns do not dispute i.e. they left their children unattended? That could be a factor couldn't it?
The reports are to do with a libel case, not with something that the McCanns accept.

" Give it a rest for Christ's sake. Are you guys so perfect that
> you have never done anything wrong in your lives and regretted
> it afterwards?"

Nothing so selfish and stupid as to end up losing a child, no."

Do you think that if they had known what was going to happen they would have left their children unattended? Do you think every person who uses a mobile in their car expects to knock over and kill a child in the road as a result of that? Do you think that every driver who goes close to the back of the car in front, thinks that they are going to be involved in a multiple pileup?

It may be that a stupid action does not have disastrous consequences, but I repeat few of us, if any, have not done something daft, but got away with it. That's my point. Clearly....

D