Author Topic: Wandering Off Topic  (Read 1464894 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #840 on: May 26, 2016, 11:22:47 PM »
An error is where one gets it wrong.  A statement that is not true but is presented as the truth.

A lie is quite different.  It is when one knows the truth and deliberately and knowingly tells an untruth.

Unless you have evidence Amaral knew the truth but deliberately told an untruth, you are still in defamation territory.

The book is replete with errors.  I have yet to see any evidence of lies.
How hilarious that we may not accuse Amaral of lying in his book in which he accuses the parents of a missing child of lying!

Offline pegasus

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #841 on: May 26, 2016, 11:26:54 PM »
Maybe because he has not read my blog, but I very much doubt that is the reason.

Mr Amaral claims in his book that on the evening of Friday 4 May 2007 he criss-crossed Luz, and basically found it was shut.  Furthermore, that he was told that Luz was also shut on the evening of 3 May 2007.  That is his opinion.

After digging about on the Internet, I have come up with sufficient evidence to convince me that Luz was not shut on Thursday evening, albeit the restaurants and pubs were far from packed.

I have not specifically checked on Friday 4 May, but the general evidence leads me to believe that Luz was not shut that evening either.

So, we have a situation.  I am right, and Mr Amaral is in error.  This does not make Mr Amaral a liar.  Or Mr Amaral is right, and I am in error.  This does not make me a liar.
Hope you don't mind me using your post Shining to illustrate something about the smith sighting.
After passing the Smith group, which direction was taken by the man carrying a girl?
a) Past the large windows of the Chinese restaurant on Rua 25 Abril?
b) Past the Calheta bar (down the steps) and then past the Dolphin restaurant?
And do you agree all three were open that night?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 11:30:43 PM by pegasus »

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #842 on: May 26, 2016, 11:39:31 PM »
How hilarious that we may not accuse Amaral of lying in his book in which he accuses the parents of a missing child of lying!
Feel free to accuse Mr Amaral of lying as long as you can back it up with evidence of said lie.

If you can't, it's defamation.

Think about this.  If one was to accuse the McCanns of lying, and one could not provide supporting evidence, it would be defamation.

What works for the McCanns works for Amaral.
What's up, old man?

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #843 on: May 26, 2016, 11:49:47 PM »
Hope you don't mind me using your post Shining to illustrate something about the smith sighting.
After passing the Smith group, which direction was taken by the man carrying a girl?
a) Past the large windows of the Chinese restaurant on Rua 25 Abril?
b) Past the Calheta bar (down the steps) and then past the Dolphin restaurant?
And do you agree all three were open that night?
We know from the PJ Files that the Dolphin was open that night.  The evidence supports the idea that the Royal Garden and Fernando's aka Café bar Calhete were open that night.

I think, but cannot prove by a mile, that Tractorman aka Euclides Monteiro was in Fernando's that night.

As to where Smithman went, the evidence supports going down towards the Dolphin/Calheta, but does not prove it.

I happen to be of the opinion the Smiths could provide enough evidence to decide this issue, even to this day.  But that is just IMO.
What's up, old man?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #844 on: May 26, 2016, 11:50:57 PM »
Feel free to accuse Mr Amaral of lying as long as you can back it up with evidence of said lie.

If you can't, it's defamation.

Think about this.  If one was to accuse the McCanns of lying, and one could not provide supporting evidence, it would be defamation.

What works for the McCanns works for Amaral.

The McCanns are accused of lying on here day in.. Day out
And no action is taken

Offline Angelo222

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #845 on: May 27, 2016, 12:06:24 AM »
Hope you don't mind me using your post Shining to illustrate something about the smith sighting.
After passing the Smith group, which direction was taken by the man carrying a girl?
a) Past the large windows of the Chinese restaurant on Rua 25 Abril?
b) Past the Calheta bar (down the steps) and then past the Dolphin restaurant?
And do you agree all three were open that night?

There is no doubt he crossed the road before approaching Aoife face to face, passing on her left and going down the steps she and the rest of her family had just come up.

Had the mystery man not wanted to go down the steps he would have cut diagonally across the main road passing in front of and to the right of the Smiths.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #846 on: May 27, 2016, 12:12:28 AM »
Feel free to accuse Mr Amaral of lying as long as you can back it up with evidence of said lie.

If you can't, it's defamation.

Think about this.  If one was to accuse the McCanns of lying, and one could not provide supporting evidence, it would be defamation.

What works for the McCanns works for Amaral.

We know the McCanns lied to throw off the Press pack.  That must make them liars too according to davels philosophy.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #847 on: May 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM »
The McCanns are accused of lying on here day in.. Day out
And no action is taken

One man's lie is another man's truth!!  Fcuking tossers!!
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #848 on: May 27, 2016, 12:19:19 AM »
One man's lie is another man's truth!!  Fcuking tossers!!

that was very unladylike of kate wasnt it!!!!

Offline G-Unit

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #849 on: May 27, 2016, 06:32:51 AM »
How i like conspiracy theories!!!

Most academics accept that unsupported assertions count for nothing. It seems you can't explain why it's physically impossible for the McCanns to be involved in their daughter's disappearance. Therefore you cannot, as you have claimed, rule them out.

Similarly you assert that the alarm was raised at 10pm despite various statements by strangers which suggest it was earlier. Perhaps you should perform another 'analysis' counting the T9 statements as one statement, because it was actually agreed between them. 

PS. I have no idea what the relevance of your remark about conspiracy theories is meant to convey.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #850 on: May 27, 2016, 07:18:03 AM »
Most academics accept that unsupported assertions count for nothing. It seems you can't explain why it's physically impossible for the McCanns to be involved in their daughter's disappearance. Therefore you cannot, as you have claimed, rule them out.

Similarly you assert that the alarm was raised at 10pm despite various statements by strangers which suggest it was earlier. Perhaps you should perform another 'analysis' counting the T9 statements as one statement, because it was actually agreed between them. 

PS. I have no idea what the relevance of your remark about conspiracy theories is meant to convey.


the ruling out of the parents is not an unsupported assertion...there is a lot to support the parents being ruled out

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #851 on: May 27, 2016, 07:22:40 AM »
There are ways of phrasing ideas that explore possibilities without wandering into the libel zone.  And if it is better kept from Google, there is the members-only area.

Unless I am missing something major, Mr Amaral has never got near to explaining the logistics of his theory, with regards to what happened after Madeleine supposedly had an accident.

And that, in fact, is why I would advise the McCanns to allow the book to be published in the UK.  The book 'suggests' various logistical solutions that, frankly, are hilarious.

My favourite is the secret tunnels under Luz one.  The children of Luz allegedly use these to get to the sea, for some reason not using the roads or pavements.  Then, somehow, the tunnels seem to be forgotten as the children grow into adults, thus becoming secret, though presumably the next generation of children mysteriously is aware of them.

If the reader of the book just thinks about this idea, how did Gerry McCann, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know of them?  And how did Mr Amaral, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know about them?  And if Mr Amaral knew of these, why were they not searched during Mr Amaral's time in charge?  Why were the dogs not deployed in them?

Getting the book banned in the UK increases its appeal to those who think it must be damaging to the McCanns.  Whereas that book is such a soft target, that publishing it and exposing the weakness of its content, would show it adds very little to the case.

The book is not banned in the UK and amaral is free to publish it........giving him immunity from defamation as you are suggesting is a rather ridiculous idea for obvious reasons

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #852 on: May 27, 2016, 07:27:53 AM »
What does it say for amaral's abilities as a detective that many of his conclusions are just plainly wrong...would he have written his book and would his book have sold if his book had been truthful to the facts...the book is called the truth...yet it plainly isn't

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #853 on: May 27, 2016, 07:32:02 AM »
Take this statement...

Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred.

it simply isn't true....amaral got it wrong


I am not accusing amaral of lying....perhaps he just didn't understand

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #854 on: May 27, 2016, 07:38:01 AM »
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann.

again his conclusions are not correct...Grime makes it perfectly clear that an alert can be due to contamination