In another thread Ferryman posted "... Of the course the book harmed the search for Madeleine by stating, categorically, that Madeleine is dead and telling people (who read it) the McCanns knew she was dead. ... "
I asked for info about the 'categorically'.
Ferryman was kind enough to direct me to the final chapter of TOTL, which I have now re-read, so here is my response.
The final chapter, chapter 23, at least in English, would probably fall foul of current moderation re libel, as applied in this forum.
His view on Jane Tanner's statement is sailing close to the wind. "Jane Tanner's witness statement in favour of the theory of abduction is probably false: little by little it has lost all credibility because of successive modifications introduced by Jane, modifications that have ended up invalidating it." On balance, I think it would scrape through on a combo of 'probably', plus the supporting evidence.
His cherry picking re dogs and lab evidence would probably get flushed, so I will not quote it. Suffice to say he is mistakenly depicting the dogs and does not cover final lab evidence.
I'm not aware of what the actual position was when Amaral was taken off the case. Is this an 'accurate' reflection of what was known in the investigation at the time, or is it not only inaccurate but also was known to be inaccurate at the time?
Possibly the crunchiest bit starts "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:"
Without going into detail, a summary involves Madeleine dying (probably by accident) and the McCanns being involved in concealment of the body.
This happens to be a theorem. It happens to be a theorem that appears to have some public support. It happens to be one of several theories that have some public support.
So for me, the test is simple. Did Gonçalo and team arrive at such conclusions? Not, are the conclusions accurate or inaccurate. Not do they stand up to scrutiny with 2016 knowledge. Not even did they stack up at the time Mr Amaral was removed. Just does it accurately reflect the thinking of Amaral et al whenever he got hoiked in 2007?
I do not know, under Portuguese or English defamations laws, how long you can keep repeating a 2007 view without making clear it reflects a 2007 position.
I think Mr Amaral would need a minor revision of chapter 23 to get it through current libel laws, and to get it past moderation on this forum. However, I don't think the original book has any mileage left in it as a commercial product, so I think it will drift into the history of 2008.
I agree with most of that SIL, except that it's not just a single chapter that would need changing, IMO.
If he corrected his numerous "misunderstandings", there wouldn't be much left, IMO.
I still think that he could have written a best-seller in a different way. He could have moaned to his heart's content about finding himself in charge of a case that had quickly become a media frenzy and that he found himself without the resources to deal with it.
Instead, he chose to take the high road and insist that his "understanding" has to be what actually happened and has plonked himself on every matinée TV show that would accept him.
I think I lost any respect at that point.
Sorry if that offends anyone.
