Goncalo Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

Anyone who thinks Amaral's book covered the archiving report has a poor understanding of the timescale. The book was published on 24th July 2008. The archiving report was written on 21st July 2008 and released to the public on 4th August. Obviously the book didn't address the archiving report; it ceased where Amaral's involvement in the investigation ceased.

His book didnt make that clear and didnt make it clear that at the time it was released the investigation had moved on....amaarl must have known this. His book was presented as the opinion of the investigation...it wasn't

[G-Unit]

But you care about facts and “the truth”, or you purport to, that’s why I asked.  “Largely true” though presenting unproven conclusions as facts and you’re not bothered, yet you do get extremely aereated on here if anyone writes something that doesn’t meet your stringent standards of fact and truth.  How very odd IMO.

The book presented Amaral's hypothesis, but it was based on the facts of the investigation. The McCann's hypothesis was based on an open window which only they saw, and a conviction that their daughter wouldn't go out and close doors and gates after herself.

[Venturi Swirl]

The book presented Amaral's hypothesis, but it was based on the facts of the investigation. The McCann's hypothesis was based on an open window which only they saw, and a conviction that their daughter wouldn't go out and close doors and gates after herself.

Your post is factually incorrect as they were not the only people who saw an open window.  You have deliberately chosen to ignore an independent statement that the window was open - pick and choose, pick and choose.  So much for being a stickler for thr truth!

[G-Unit]

His book didnt make that clear and didnt make it clear that at the time it was released the investigation had moved on....amaarl must have known this. His book was presented as the opinion of the investigation...it wasn't

The opinion of the investigation up to when he left it. The book ends with the conclusions reached after the McCann's interrogations, on 10th September 2007. 

[G-Unit]

Your post is factually incorrect as they were not the only people who saw an open window.  You have deliberately chosen to ignore an independent statement that the window was open - pick and choose, pick and choose.  So much for being a stickler for thr truth!

Whoops, yes. The McCanns and Amy Tierney claimed to have seen the open window, but those who entered 5A with the McCanns immediately after the alarm was raised didn't. Clever Amy....

[Mr Gray]

The opinion of the investigation up to when he left it. The book ends with the conclusions reached after the McCann's interrogations, on 10th September 2007.

It's a pointless discussion...and in the hands of the ECHR now. One point we do agree on is that it will be a disaster for both Amaral and Portugal if the ECHR find in the McCanns favour

[faithlilly]

Whoops, yes. The McCanns and Amy Tierney claimed to have seen the open window, but those who entered 5A with the McCanns immediately after the alarm was raised didn't. Clever Amy....

Unless Amy was with Kate when she went to do her check her statement has no value. Between the check and Amy entering 5a there was ample time to open a window.

[Robittybob1]

Unless Amy was with Kate when she went to do her check her statement has no value. Between the check and Amy entering 5a there was ample time to open a window.

Using that logic, it is never possible to confirm an open window as Kate did her check on her own. 
" Between the check and Amy entering 5a there was ample time to open a window."  becomes:
" Between the check and anyone entering 5a there was ample time to open a window."

[Venturi Swirl]

Whoops, yes. The McCanns and Amy Tierney claimed to have seen the open window, but those who entered 5A with the McCanns immediately after the alarm was raised didn't. Clever Amy....

Observant Amy, she confirms that the McCanns were not lying and has herself no reason to lie.  Try not to forget this in future, it’s not the first time I’ve had to pull you up on it. 

[pathfinder73]

Observant Amy, she confirms that the McCanns were not lying and has herself no reason to lie.  Try not to forget this in future, it’s not the first time I’ve had to pull you up on it. 

It will be interesting to hear Amy's account of an open window when Dianne Webster found Kate alone with the twins in the apartment not long after the alarm was raised and didn't see it open. Dianne said the shutter was down and not raised. You couldn't see the window from the outside if the shutter was down. Amy would have to be in the children's bedroom to see it.

[sadie]

It will be interesting to hear Amy's account of an open window when Dianne Webster found Kate alone with the twins in the apartment not long after the alarm was raised and didn't see it open. Dianne said the shutter was down and not raised. You couldn't see the window from the outside if the shutter was down. Amy would have to be in the children's bedroom to see it.

ORLY ?

Now I thought that both the shutter was raised and the window open when Kate found it.  Amy got there very quickly and saw the shutter and window open.     She obviously beat Dianne Webster who had been left at the dining table at the groups suggestion, cos by the time Dianne got there it had been closed.

After all your time researching the statements and thinking about it, do you honestly think that I, or any of us, believe that you hadn't already worked that out ?

Do you seriously claim that you hadn't worked that out yourself ?

[Venturi Swirl]

It will be interesting to hear Amy's account of an open window when Dianne Webster found Kate alone with the twins in the apartment not long after the alarm was raised and didn't see it open. Dianne said the shutter was down and not raised. You couldn't see the window from the outside if the shutter was down. Amy would have to be in the children's bedroom to see it.

So You have decided that on this occasion the member of the Tapas group got it right and the independent witness who had no reason to lie got it wrong.  That’s interesting!

[faithlilly]

Using that logic, it is never possible to confirm an open window as Kate did her check on her own. 
" Between the check and Amy entering 5a there was ample time to open a window."  becomes:
" Between the check and anyone entering 5a there was ample time to open a window."

Exactly.

[Mr Gray]

As I’ve said unless or until we have a transcript of her interview on Portuguese TV all we have is a few comments on a blog...hardly compelling evidence of her stance before Netflix.

And as I’ve also said before if SF knew she had been lied to over the forensics, as she must have at the time of the interview if her claim is true,  then why ask about the dogs when she knew their alerts had to be corroborated by the forensics she had discovered proved nothing ?

For me her behaviour can be summed up in two, cynical opportunism. I’d guess she no more supports the parents now than she ever did...it’s just it’s not acceptable to say that now...or perhaps the threat of libel may have done the trick.

At the time of the ask the dogs interview Sandra did not know she had been lied to by Amaral. She thought it was too much of a coincidence to have something suspected to be blood and the dogs alerts in the same place

[Angelo222]

Unless Amy was with Kate when she went to do her check her statement has no value. Between the check and Amy entering 5a there was ample time to open a window.

Nobody saw any window open from the outside and we know Matt said he was there listening.