Why did Goncalo Amaral feel the need to write a book at all?

[Carana]

Is it an idea that she got stuffed in a fridge as you put it or is it just put out there,the same with the burial did he actually suggest it or was it just put out there.

“The cadaver was frozen”

Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?

Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.

How can you state that?

Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk’s right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it’s the only way to explain what happened there.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/interview-with-gonalo-amaral-cadaver.html

I don't know where all his interviews have disappeared to. I can't find a media interview in which he was asked what his next steps would have been if he'd not been taken off the case. His reply was to carry on hunting for the fridge / freezer and to get the Smiths back over. (In a later amendment of that that I posted a month or two ago, in the end he was only interested getting Martin over.)

The one I have in mind dates back to around the time of his promo tour. The nearest for the moment is this (a summary of a recent interview):

Amaral believes the only possible way her body could have been in the rental car was if it was frozen. If not, that would not explain the presence of bodily fluids, as they could have occurred if the body had begun to thaw.

Upon being asked where they could have kept a supposed freezer, Amaral says the police had information from witnesses that the couple had gone several times to another apartment in the area, located near the cemetery. Amaral had been trying to find which apartment it was around October, when he was taken off the case.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/6l2n9g/unresolved_disappearance_10_years_later_former/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUHp85TyJ0Y

[Brietta]

It is in times like this that I think we could with a rule against deflection.

There is.  Perhaps the problem lies not so much with the deflection but with the fact that we mods tend to let it slide and sometimes even encourage it by joining in.  It is terribly easy to 'go with the flow'.

Speaking for myself, unless the deflection is a blatant ruse and entails deleting loads (and believe me it can), I tend to leave it to the editors because sometimes the branch becomes more productive than the tree it sprang from.

However, perhaps we mods should throw out the wheat with the chaff and consider deleting all obvious off topic posts whatever the value and allow the editors to reinstate or not as the case may be.

[Brietta]

No its a bit different for they are using it just as a way not to discuss another point.  It is a moderator's nightmare, we read it and think "should I delete that for being off topic" but it isn't off topic but another twist on it, but not arguing the point at hand - deflection in other words.

Well said, Robitty, exactly what I was trying to say but put more succinctly.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I disagree.  I don't need to discuss the possible present state state of Madeleine's remains in order to come to terms with the fact  that she is most likely dead, I just thought the remark was tasteless, just like you are of the opinion that Kate's "genitalia" comment in her book was beyond the pale. Personally I don't think it is our place to discuss in sordid detail what may actually have happened to Madeleine at the hands of a paedophile or even at the hands of her parents, nor to speculate what state her body might be in presently.  My opinion.

I was not asking you to agree with me on anything, I was asking you to acknowledge /accept that something terrible has happened to MBM. But still you took the opportunity to deflect and try to 'blame ' me for something I played no part in. You howl at me for saying certain parts in Kates book are offensive, and unnecessary, AND you do not feel I have the right to offer an opinion, as this is shot down as being a mc basher- but feel quite at liberty to opine many attributes about members here and Amaral- a man you have never met and has done no harm to you.  Refusing to accept a very bad thing has happened to MBM and the parents had responsibility for those things due to their lack of care for her -says more about you.

[Brietta]

Really?

“MADELEINE SLEEPS BADLY
One of the police officers who went to the McCanns’ home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl – and also the twins – Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a “Calpol generation.” In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.

The mother admits having taken some to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol, and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday. At the time of her disappearance, Madeleine was sleeping in the same room as the twins. The latter, in spite of the noise, the mother’s screaming and the comings and goings, did not wake up, as if they had been given sedatives. Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine’s tragic end?”

If that’s not planting the idea in the reader’s mind I don’t know what is!

Thank you for that VS.  It certainly clarifies the situation regarding inferences which have been taken on board and quite often embellished.  In my opinion it is a 'smiley face' piece of writing.

[Venturi Swirl]

I was relying to post #410 where this statement was made;

snip/

someone can write a book say parents drugged their child and hid her body. 

I pointed out that it wasn't factually correct, and the quote you provided doesn't change that. You pretty much described it as 'hinting', not 'saying'. The two things aren't the same.

Incorrect.  You replied to my post below

Re: Why did Goncalo Amaral feel the need to write a book at all?
« Reply #429 on: Today at 10:30:52 AM
Me:It’s the conclusion you would naturally come to after reading the book, despite it not being spelt out in so many words.

You:I think not. Nowhere in the book is drugging mentioned in connection to Madeleine.

I have povided proof that drugging in connection to Madeleine was in the book, it would really be most disingenuous to claim otherwise IMO.  Getting hung up on semantics is just playing games.  It is very clear from reading Amaral’s book what he thinks happened and who he thinks did what to whom.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Incorrect.  You replied to my post below

Re: Why did Goncalo Amaral feel the need to write a book at all?
« Reply #429 on: Today at 10:30:52 AM
Me:It’s the conclusion you would naturally come to after reading the book, despite it not being spelt out in so many words.

You:I think not. Nowhere in the book is drugging mentioned in connection to Madeleine.

I have povided proof that drugging in connection to Madeleine was in the book, it would really be most disingenuous to claim otherwise IMO.  Getting hing up in semantics is just playing games.  It is very clear from reading Amaral’s book what he thinks happened and who he thinks did what to whom.

If 10 people read the book and came to different conclusions what should we do about that? we could assume they all read it differently and came to different conclusions perhaps? and who would be the judge to decide which was the correct conclusion.

You seem to be confused about book writing and their affect.  Taking to slagging off the contents of Amarals book and the cause affect it has on its reader, but failing to afford the same set of rules to Kate's book and the affects of her content has on readers? 

Double standards not even pretending to be impartial oops.

[Venturi Swirl]

I was not asking you to agree with me on anything, I was asking you to acknowledge /accept that something terrible has happened to MBM. But still you took the opportunity to deflect and try to 'blame ' me for something I played no part in. You howl at me for saying certain parts in Kates book are offensive, and unnecessary, AND you do not feel I have the right to offer an opinion, as this is shot down as being a mc basher- but feel quite at liberty to opine many attributes about members here and Amaral- a man you have never met and has done no harm to you.  Refusing to accept a very bad thing has happened to MBM and the parents had responsibility for those things due to their lack of care for her -says more about you.

This post is mistaken on so many points, and barely relates to anything in the post of mine it is a response to.
1) My post clearly acknowledged and accepted that something bad has happened to MBM.
2) I apportioned no blame to you at any point in my post.
3) I did not howl at you.
4) I did not at any time say you have no right to an opinion.
5) I did not accuse you in my post  of being a McCann basher
6) I have never refused to accept a very bad thing happened to Madeleine

I do trust that is clear.

[Venturi Swirl]

If 10 people read the book and came to different conclusions what should we do about that? we could assume they all read it differently and came to different conclusions perhaps? and who would be the judge to decide which was the correct conclusion.

You seem to be confused about book writing and their affect.  Taking to slagging off the contents of Amarals book and the cause affect it has on its reader, but failing to afford the same set of rules to Kate's book and the affects of her content has on readers? 

Double standards not even pretending to be impartial oops.

I am neither confused about “book witing and their affect”, nor have I made any pretense of being impartial in this matter.  Amaral’s book was written to persuade anyone who read it that his theory was the only one worth considering and in so doing accused the parents of a missing child of being involved in her death and cover up.  There is no other conclusion you are invited to draw from his book.  Kate’s book answers those allegations, it does not accuse any named or specific person  of any such a heinous crime, it damages the reputation of no named individual.  Which version of events you choose to believe in is entirely up to you but kindly don’t accuse me of being confused.

[faithlilly]

I am neither confused about “book witing and their affect”, nor have I made any pretense of being impartial in this matter.  Amaral’s book was written to persuade anyone who read it that his theory was the only one worth considering and in so doing accused the parents of a missing child of being involved in her death and cover up.  There is no other conclusion you are invited to draw from his book.  Kate’s book answers those allegations, it does not accuse any named or specific person  of any such a heinous crime, it damages the reputation of no named individual.  Which version of events you choose to believe in is entirely up to you but kindly don’t accuse me of being confused.

Rather than the focussed accusation Kate uses the scattershot approach where she covers everyone she dislikes in the proverbial.

[Venturi Swirl]

Kate libels no one, defames no one, accuses no one of criminal activity, unlike Amaral. 

[G-Unit]

Incorrect.  You replied to my post below

Re: Why did Goncalo Amaral feel the need to write a book at all?
« Reply #429 on: Today at 10:30:52 AM
Me:It’s the conclusion you would naturally come to after reading the book, despite it not being spelt out in so many words.

You:I think not. Nowhere in the book is drugging mentioned in connection to Madeleine.

I have povided proof that drugging in connection to Madeleine was in the book, it would really be most disingenuous to claim otherwise IMO.  Getting hung up on semantics is just playing games.  It is very clear from reading Amaral’s book what he thinks happened and who he thinks did what to whom.

If it wasn't 'spelt out in so many words' then it wasn't said, you are agreeing with me. Then you give your opinion of the meaning and intended effect of the words he did write.

[Venturi Swirl]

If it wasn't 'spelt out in so many words' then it wasn't said, you are agreeing with me. Then you give your opinion of the meaning and intended effect of the words he did write.

Still no acknowledgement from you that the book does indeed mention drugging in connection with Madeleine I see.  Why do you think Amaral mentioned Madeleine's sleep problems, the Calpol, the possible sedation of the twins, Kate's admission that  Calpol was taken on holiday - just to pad out the book with extraneous information?

[slartibartfast]

It is important from the POV of the damages case, just because you come to a conclusion from a series of facts, doesn’t make the book defamatory.

[Venturi Swirl]

It is important from the POV of the damages case, just because you come to a conclusion from a series of facts, doesn’t make the book defamatory.

LOL.  Ever heard of libel by innuendo *innocent face*?