What is the lie in Amarals book. The truth of the lie.

[Venturi Swirl]

He never commented on the first investigation, just on the one he ran. (he's gone, by the way). The judges said there was insufficient evidence  and that was why the case was archived. It was later reopened, we know not why. It is that investigation which Do Carmo commented on, assuring people that it had found no evidence against the McCanns and therefore they were not suspects.

So, there was evidence against the McCanns in the first investigation but not in the second, is that what you’re saying?

[Brietta]

Jesus wept.

Either start up a thread on your badly told story.

Or move on.

I have been offering to debate your point for a year now.

I take it you have nothing of substance to offer.

I fail to see what problem you have which prevents you from entering the debate whatever thread it may be on and whatever the topic may be.
It is an open forum where debate is encouraged and as a member the choice is yours about whether you participate or not.

At the moment we are discussing Amaral's book outlining the conduct of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance until the stage where he was sacked from the job ... so there is plenty of grist for the mill there.

Anyway ... as far as I am aware the art of debate is ...

• Person one ... makes a statement
• Person two replies either in the affirmative or the negative
• On this forum that is enough to open the debate and any who wish to join in are welcome to do so ... and any who prefer not to are equally welcome not to

This is not in my gift ... nor is it for you to make unrealistic demands of other members.  You have responded negatively to my post ... so in effect you have already entered into what I define as debate.
My point is clear and as far as I can see on topic ... you have not made any point in return you have merely insulted ... I would interpret that as your problem with my posts appearing to be an internal one which I cannot assist you with as the problem and the answer to it lies with you.

[ShiningInLuz]

I fail to see what problem you have which prevents you from entering the debate whatever thread it may be on and whatever the topic may be.
It is an open forum where debate is encouraged and as a member the choice is yours about whether you participate or not.

At the moment we are discussing Amaral's book outlining the conduct of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance until the stage where he was sacked from the job ... so there is plenty of grist for the mill there.

Anyway ... as far as I am aware the art of debate is ...

• Person one ... makes a statement
• Person two replies either in the affirmative or the negative
• On this forum that is enough to open the debate and any who wish to join in are welcome to do so ... and any who prefer not to are equally welcome not to

This is not in my gift ... nor is it for you to make unrealistic demands of other members.  You have responded negatively to my post ... so in effect you have already entered into what I define as debate.
My point is clear and as far as I can see on topic ... you have not made any point in return you have merely insulted ... I would interpret that as your problem with my posts appearing to be an internal one which I cannot assist you with as the problem and the answer to it lies with you.

So - no badly told story.

Perhaps we can move on.

[G-Unit]

He seems embarrassed by the first investigation... Are you suggesting he would ignore evidence from the first investigation... That seems a ridiculous suggestion... He said there is no evidence... That is clear

If you refuse to believe the evidence of your own ears there's no point in continuing the discussion imo.

[Mr Gray]

If you refuse to believe the evidence of your own ears there's no point in continuing the discussion imo.

Could you point out exactly where DC says he is referring Ti the present investigation... He doesn't... So what am I mishearing... No evidence us what he says. ..you are making things up

[Venturi Swirl]

If you refuse to believe the evidence of your own ears there's no point in continuing the discussion imo.

Davel has never denied the evidence of his own ears to the best of my knowledge, how else does he keep his glasses on?

[G-Unit]

So, there was evidence against the McCanns in the first investigation but not in the second, is that what you’re saying?

They aren't my words. The Supreme Court Judges said; that there was insufficient evidence in the first investigation.
According to Pedro do Carmo there was no evidence pointing to the McCanns in the second investigation.

[Mr Gray]

They aren't my words. The Supreme Court Judges said; that there was insufficient evidence in the first investigation.
According to Pedro do Carmo there was no evidence pointing to the McCanns in the second investigation.

They are your words... DC never mentioned the second investigation... So cite where he mentions the second investigation

[Venturi Swirl]

They aren't my words. The Supreme Court Judges said; that there was insufficient evidence in the first investigation.
According to Pedro do Carmo there was no evidence pointing to the McCanns in the second investigation.

Can you not see how absurd that is?  What happened to the evidence from the first investigation then?  Did the second investigation ignore it or forget about it?

[Robittybob1]

Can you not see how absurd that is?  What happened to the evidence from the first investigation then?  Did the second investigation ignore it or forget about it?

Looking at what Do Carmo says and his facial expressions he is not convincing IMO. 

[Mr Gray]

Looking at what Do Carmo says and his facial expressions he is not convincing IMO.

He is to me... He is obviously  very uncomfortable  having to accept what a pigs ear the initial  investigation  was.. Imo

[Mr Gray]

Looking at what Do Carmo says and his facial expressions he is not convincing IMO.

What's important is what he, says.. Not your opinion of it

[G-Unit]

They are your words... DC never mentioned the second investigation... So cite where he mentions the second investigation

Listen again to what he says and forget what you think he says.

[Alice Purjorick]

I was hoping that someone who had read the book would give me their opinion.
I really was commenting on the title of the book and expressing my opinion on that.
I do hope you are giving the same guidance to those who comment on the SY investigation who are also commenting from "an uniformed opinion" and should have " full knowledge" of the investigation before making any comment.

You should take heed of Bo's sound advice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lch0o4wwGyw
 or if you prefer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFrlnHMk_J8

[G-Unit]

Looking at what Do Carmo says and his facial expressions he is not convincing IMO.

He is being asked questions he doesn't want to answer.