GONC INSULTS UK GOVERNMENT, POLICE AND MCCANNS

You´re right Sabot.

You can just about smell the fear coming off Gonc in that outburst as reality sinks in and he realises he is going to be shamed before the world.
He can kiss the little chance he had of defending the libel case goodbye; he never did have any 'standalone evidence' or Ace up his Sleeve.
Just the usual hot air and bombast.

Yes, I agree bb1.

But this is all so awful. Think of the damage he did, and the leads that were ignored during that most crucial time. Just because he wanted to write a book like his oppo, and make money.
I could cry if I allowed myself to indulge in such a wasted effort, so heaven knows how The McCanns feel.

It's pretty clear from his ill-judged remarks that Scotland Yard are not interested in anything Gonc has to say, so he must be pretty scared.
He has been saying - in the face of reality - for long enough that the UK police agreed with him - which they didn't, but we'll let that pass for now.
Don't forget what Gonc did - he drove a coach and horses through standard UK police practise; he leaked UK POLICE MATERIAL to the Portuguese tabloids to suit his own agenda, and tried to twist and spin other material out of all recognition.

He doesn't seriously think Scotland Yard are going to be interested in anything he has to say? He has shown over and over again that he cannot be trusted to behave discreetly and professionally.

You´re right bb1.

And he printed stuff in his book that he wasn't supposed to know. Although Isabel Duarte could well make something of this, IF The Libel Trial proceeds.

Thing is, Lord knows the UK police have made their fair share of messes, people have been wrongfully convicted in the UK in the past, and unfortunately, I have no doubt it will happen again.

But I have never, ever seen a UK officer behave like Gonc.

It's shameful; he is a disgrace to the PJ; and I suspect that as none of the local officers went to his leaving dinner, a fair number of the PJ feel the same way about him.

I agree with Sabot, bb1.

You know your country's laws better than me, Pedro, but - I cannot see a way out for Gonc if Scotland Yard finishes its review before the libel trial starts - or even how the libel trial CAN start with the review going on?

Oh, of course!


Gonçalo Amaral – "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened - they don't need to investigate anything. All this is now a mere ‘show off’".


That's why he was hurling insults at everyone! Scotland Yard must agree with his discredited 'thesis' and all the mummification/defrosting sh*t or he is sunk.

Well, in fact, he is already sunk; the UK police didn't agree with his trash in 2007 - remember smiffy attempting to tell everyone they did because of some remark by the Leicester police?

Smiffy left out the small detail that it was made BEFORE the McCanns were cleared.

IMO, Gonc is up the same creek as his buddy Bennett, and just as paddle-less.

bb1 my friend, this is what I think: even with the review in progress, the libel trial can start, because, there is a lot of things (due to amaral´s nasty behaviour) that can be (will be) used in the libel trial against gonçalo amaral.

Besides, there is more against gonçalo amaral:

amaral´s disgusting behaviour at the cipriano case is also more evidence against him.

All this can be used (will be used) against gonçalo amaral.

Pedro Silva wrote:bb1 my friend, this is what I think: even with the review in progress, the libel trial can start, because, there is a lot of things (due to amaral´s nasty behaviour) that can be (will be) used in the libel trial against gonçalo amaral.

Besides, there is more against gonçalo amaral:

amaral´s disgusting behaviour at the cipriano case is also more evidence against him.

All this can be used (will be used) against gonçalo amaral.

Oh My. This is going to get really nasty.

Yes, I agree with you Sabot.

Something very odd is going on - the person who is being referred to in several parts of the internet as 'the first arguido' is becoming the object of attention again.

And it all seems to have been triggered by this remark in the Express:


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/270093

Quote:

The team is currently sifting through 20,000 pages of evidence assembled by Portuguese detectives. They will review witness statements, make a fresh appeal for ­information and carefully re-check alibis.

bb1 wrote:Something very odd is going on - the person who is being referred to in several parts of the internet as 'the first arguido' is becoming the object of attention again.

And it all seems to have been triggered by this remark in the Express:


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/270093

Quote:

The team is currently sifting through 20,000 pages of evidence assembled by Portuguese detectives. They will review witness statements, make a fresh appeal for ­information and carefully re-check alibis.

Wasn't that R. M.?

It was indeed, Tony. It all adds to the puzzlement, really - why are Team Gonc always so keen to blame Jane Tanner for involving him, when it was actually Gonc himself who started that ball rolling?

Why has he never done anything about Gonc spreading the cat-raping story everywhere?

Why the ongoing fiction about the Murat/Tanner case? Remember Gonc saying this:

There is news of a criminal complaint by Robert Murat against Jane Tanner, one of the friends of the McCanns. She was questioned at the time of the investigation?

That process exists, yes, I was even heard as a witness. Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.

Which is not what actually happened, but when did Gonc ever bother about minor details like the truth?

A lot of questions seem to be emerging almost overnight.

bb1 wrote:It was indeed, Tony. It all adds to the puzzlement, really - why are Team Gonc always so keen to blame Jane Tanner for involving him, when it was actually Gonc himself who started that ball rolling?

Why has he never done anything about Gonc spreading the cat-raping story everywhere?

Why the ongoing fiction about the Murat/Tanner case? Remember Gonc saying this:

There is news of a criminal complaint by Robert Murat against Jane Tanner, one of the friends of the McCanns. She was questioned at the time of the investigation?

That process exists, yes, I was even heard as a witness. Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.

Which is not what actually happened, but when did Gonc ever bother about minor details like the truth?

A lot of questions seem to be emerging almost overnight.

something isn't right. We all know there was never a case against Jane; and how the hell did Amaral speak as a witness when no case has been heard?

Agree, Tony. I don't like hinky things, they unsettle me.

It is possible that Robert Murat's Lawyer made some sort of complaint to some Legal Body, due to statements made by Amaral, The PJ Coordinator, which he, The Lawyer possibly thought had some basis in fact.
If this is so, then Amaral could have been called to repeat, and or justify his statements. Which he obviously could not do. At which point The Complaint would have been dropped because Amaral was found to be twisting the truth.

I understand that there is a system in Portugal where such complaints can be made, and then considered, before proceeding or not. Probably something similar to our Crown Prosecution Service.

That doesn't unravel it, though, Sabot - Murat has no grounds at all for complaint against Jane Tanner; he never did.

He does, however, have very good reasons to complain about Gonc; it was Gonc who started suspecting Murat after he saw him, and where he lived. Not to mention the bestiality allegations being spread...

bb1 wrote:That doesn't unravel it, though, Sabot - Murat has no grounds at all for complaint against Jane Tanner; he never did.

He does, however, have very good reasons to complain about Gonc; it was Gonc who started suspecting Murat after he saw him, and where he lived. Not to mention the bestiality allegations being spread...

Why didn't Murat sue his childhood friend who accused him of bestiality?

bb1 wrote:That doesn't unravel it, though, Sabot - Murat has no grounds at all for complaint against Jane Tanner; he never did.

He does, however, have very good reasons to complain about Gonc; it was Gonc who started suspecting Murat after he saw him, and where he lived. Not to mention the bestiality allegations being spread...

I know Murat didn't have cause for complaint, Bonny, but who knows what he believed of all of the lies Amaral churned out, and bearing in mind the state he must have been in.

I tend to think that a complaint was considered, and then came to nothing when Murat and his Lawyer discovered that it was all bollox.
It would also seem that Amaral was questioned about his statements, but couldn't justify them.
It was only a small step for Amaral to suggest that he had been called as a witness.
Let us not forget that Amaral's prime intent was to discredit The McCanns and Jane Tanner to justify the Libel in his book.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:That doesn't unravel it, though, Sabot - Murat has no grounds at all for complaint against Jane Tanner; he never did.

He does, however, have very good reasons to complain about Gonc; it was Gonc who started suspecting Murat after he saw him, and where he lived. Not to mention the bestiality allegations being spread...

Why didn't Murat sue his childhood friend who accused him of bestiality?

It was a Witness Statement in a Crime, and has some protection in Law. And also it would be nigh on impossible to prove that it wasn't true.

Sabot wrote:

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:That doesn't unravel it, though, Sabot - Murat has no grounds at all for complaint against Jane Tanner; he never did.

He does, however, have very good reasons to complain about Gonc; it was Gonc who started suspecting Murat after he saw him, and where he lived. Not to mention the bestiality allegations being spread...

Why didn't Murat sue his childhood friend who accused him of bestiality?

It was a Witness Statement in a Crime, and has some protection in Law. And also it would be nigh on impossible to prove that it wasn't true.

Then why did Amaral say Jane Tanner was being sued?
Surely she had the same rights?