You mentioned the name. I did not. And you are compounding the implications you are attaching to my posts by doing so yet again in your post above.
Nor did I mention or make reference to 2012 ... YOU did that also. What I actually said was ... "I think it most certainly raises serious concerns about why Amaral did what he did ... could he really have been as stupid not to know leaks to the press such as this must compromise live investigations.
Will you please desist from adulterating my posts from what I have actually said into what you want me to have said.
It is nothing short of dishonesty.
This is the whole conversation.
Brietta : It has obviously been kept under wraps for quite some time while the investigators suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous sceptic scorn.
It was kept private for very good and valid investigative purposes.
Amaral took it upon himself to publicly raise the spectre of the "scapegoat". He did not name him. He didn't have to. He is now worldwide headline news and any associates who did not already know they might be in the frame most certainly do now and forewarned is forearmed.
I think it most certainly raises serious concerns about why Amaral did what he did ... could he really have been as stupid not to know leaks to the press such as this must compromise live investigations.”
Faith : I thought Ney had been ‘in the frame’ as far back as 2012 ? Surely any investigation would have been compromised at that point ?
Brietta : Where did I say this guy had been "in the frame" as far back as 2012 ?
If you reread the second sentence in your post and give it a moment or two of serious contemplation, perhaps you will realise how absurd it might appear to the disinterested reader.
Faith : In your rush to undermine my post you obviously didn’t notice that I didn’t say that you’d said Ney had been in the frame since 2012, the press articles already posted does.
You claimed that the release of Ney’s identity could have a detrimental effect on a live investigation....pre-warned....I think you said but with the interest in 2012 that detrimental effect would have already occurred.
Brietta : You mentioned the name. I did not. And you are compounding the implications you are attaching to my posts by doing so yet again in your post above.
Nor did I mention or make reference to 2012 ... YOU did that also. What I actually said was ... "I think it most certainly raises serious concerns about why Amaral did what he did ... could he really have been as stupid not to know leaks to the press such as this must compromise live investigations.
Will you please desist from adulterating my posts from what I have actually said into what you want me to have said.
It is nothing short of dishonesty.’
So please point out where I have altered your post or been dishonest or withdraw your accusations via forum rules ? It seems it is you who is being dishonest. If you proceed down this path I will take it further.