Goncalo Amaral.

[Eleanor]

La la la.  What a to do.  No evidence against anyone, it seems.  And certainly not against The McCanns.

I can't be bothered to argue the point between Evidence and Proof.  Davel has done a more than adequate job on that.

None of this bothers me at all.  But just occasionally the nastiness gets through to me.

[Wonderfulspam]

La la la.  What a to do.  No evidence against anyone, it seems.  And certainly not against The McCanns.

I can't be bothered to argue the point between Evidence and Proof.  Davel has done a more than adequate job on that.

None of this bothers me at all.  But just occasionally the nastiness gets through to me.

Yes, if you ignore the evidence against the McCanns, then there isn't any evidence against the McCanns.

[kizzy]

Its gone to the ECHR....If the ECHR rule against portugal then anything further amaral says can be the subject of a new case . Most posters dont seem to understand this. Portugal has  avery pooor record at the ECHR

IF but up to now they haven't ...so best bet is waiting to see the outcome instead of your opinion.

You could be wrong

[G-Unit]

I'll explain it simply. The SC ruling covers any statements made prior to the writ being taken out. The SC went to great lengths to show they complied with ECHR law. If the ECHR rule amarals statements were libellous ....then the M
McCanns can go back to the portuguese court armed with that ruling for any statements made after the issue of the first writ.  That is not guesswork its logic.

With respect, your explanations have no reliability imo. Particularly as you recently demonstrated your inability to understand a fairly simple piece of text in English (also imo).

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg610993#msg610993

[Venturi Swirl]

Yes, if you ignore the evidence against the McCanns, then there isn't any evidence against the McCanns.

And if you ignore the evidence against Bruckner then there isn't any evidence against Bruckner.
"What evidence?" asks Wonderfulspam
Rinse, spin and repeat ad infinitum.

[Mr Gray]

With respect, your explanations have no reliability imo. Particularly as you recently demonstrated your inability to understand a fairly simple piece of text in English (also imo).

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg610993#msg610993

and imo  your opinions and understanding of evidence has no reliability when your bias means you cannot accept that smoking causes lung cancer

[faithlilly]

I've now found a long discussion thread on it, if you're interested.

The interview with Sandra Felgueiras was a programme called Praça de Alegria, (RTP) and aired on Nov 11, 2009 (i.e., as I thought, a few days after the "ask-the-dogs" interview).

Apologies to Joana if she did in fact upload it, as promised, and do a translation of the transcript, but I've never been able to find it.

(You'll have to scroll down a bit in the comments, as it's under an article / blog entry garnering support for a petition for Amaral.)

https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/11/goncalo-amaral-receives-support-on.html

So are you saying that from July 2008 when all journalists had access to a disc with the files on them, in Portuguese so no need to translate, to the ‘ask the dogs’ interview in November 2011 SF had no clue that she had been lied to by Amaral and it was, coincidentally, just a few days later that she found out ? Really ? A journalist of the calibre of the one being praised here did not have the professional curiosity to find out ?

As to your cite, people write all sorts in comments. You have Portuguese supporters in your midst, Pedro on JATKN and Maria on Rosiepops forum, didn’t she go rogue, spring to mind....if the interview with SF was so groundbreaking why wasn’t it translated by them ?

[Wonderfulspam]

And if you ignore the evidence against Bruckner then there isn't any evidence against Bruckner.
"What evidence?" asks Wonderfulspam
Rinse, spin and repeat ad infinitum.

Yes. What evidence?
I've invited members to make a thread detailing the evidence against Brueckner & no one took me up on the offer.

[Eleanor]

Yes. What evidence?
I've invited members to make a thread detailing the evidence against Brueckner & no one took me up on the offer.

You do it.  The choice is yours.

[Lace]

Bully for you. Told ya it means more to you than me, I can't even remember the question.

I do know that Snr Amaral will now be inundated with interview requests on the back of this latest fiasco, so - EL CHERCHINGO!
And fair play to him, nice bit of karma rolling on back.

Are you a fan of Amaral?

[Carana]

So are you saying that from July 2008 when all journalists had access to a disc with the files on them, in Portuguese so no need to translate, to the ‘ask the dogs’ interview in November 2011 SF had no clue that she had been lied to by Amaral and it was, coincidentally, just a few days later that she found out ? Really ? A journalist of the calibre of the one being praised here did not have the professional curiosity to find out ?

As to your cite, people write all sorts in comments. You have Portuguese supporters in your midst, Pedro on JATKN and Maria on Rosiepops forum, didn’t she go rogue, spring to mind....if the interview with SF was so groundbreaking why wasn’t it translated by them ?

I'm not sure why you're referring to November 2011.

- The case was archived on 21 July, 2008.

- Amaral's book came out on 24 July, 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#cite_note-204

- The CD of the files was apparently released during the first week of August 2008
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/05/madeleinemccann.portugal

I don't particularly feel like wading through the entire Netflix series again, but I believe Sandra said she'd gone through the files (particularly the DNA) in October , I presume in 2008. I'm happy to stand corrected, if anyone else feels like checking.

The "ask-the-dogs" interview took place in London on 3 November 2009 and was shown on RTP on 5 Nov .
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/chronological-index-november-2009-t5162.html

- And, as I said earlier, she was interviewed on the Plaça de Alegria chat show on 11 Nov, 2009.

Numerous disapproving comments by Amaral's supporters were posted on that thread concerning that interview, which - helpfully - offered the gist.

[kizzy]

Are you a fan of Amaral?

what would that have to do with you.

[The General]

Are you a fan of Amaral?

I shouldn't answer a question with a question, but are you a fan of Coldplay?

[Mr Gray]

Martin Smiths statement is evidence, & it's also real, by way of the fact that it definitely exists.

You might not like that, & neither does Pedro for some reason. But it's still evidence.

What's this real evidence against Brueckner?

That he used a mobile phone?.............So did the McCanns.

Martin Smith's sighting is no more real evidence than the thousands of sightings of Maddie...

[The General]

Martin Smith's sighting is no more real evidence than the thousands of sightings of Maddie...

Apart from the fact that it's contemporaneous, first hand, eye witness, collectively corroborated, taken seriously, transcribed in to an official statement / witness testimony, impartial, pertinent to the investigation, robustly upheld by the witnesses and thoroughly investigated.

I now see where your skewed view of evidence originates, if you think an eye witness statement is of the same or less evidential value as a tin foil hat armchair (or dentist chair) detective's ramblings.