UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: TTSOFAFM on June 04, 2013, 01:54:40 PM
-
We all know that Goncalo Amaral ended up in court and convicted of a crime because of his ability to lie, and we know that Sofia Leal has mislead people into thinking those documents were false, when the truth is they were authenticated, admitted as evidence and mentioned in the court judgement; so please tell me why would five Inspectors and a Police Officer put their careers at risk, by saying NO, when asked the following question?
“Was anything said or done by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during your contacts that may have raised any suspicion that they had knowledge of what happened to Madeleine, besides the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators? “
-
Interesting question, they were obviously not willing to perjure themselves (or they're "in on it").
-
Would that be the UK liaison officers or am I thinking of something else?
-
Would that be the UK liaison officers or am I thinking of something else?
I was thinking of them too.
They are rarely mentioned, and yet they are the people who were most likely to be able to ascertain any suspicious behaviour from the McCanns. Not only would they have spent a lot of time with them but they are specificaly trained to observe. I believe it was the FLO in the Shannon Matthews case who first noticed behaviour from her mother which was not in keeping with what you would expect from the mother of an abducted child.
The FLO officers in the McCann case found nothing suspicious at all.
I also think the very experienced Trauma specialist Alan Pike, who spent a lot of time with them, counselling them, would have very quickly picked up any unusual or untoward behaviour from the McCanns. He didn't find anything suspicious either.
-
Yes Gilet it is the UK Family Liaison Officers, family liaison officers People who were with the McCanns, trained officers who did NOT think the McCanns behaviour was suspicious.
As Mrs.B said in the eyes of the anti-McCanns, they must have been 'in on it' because for the life of me I can't see why Police Officers would risk their careers, their pensions in order to commit perjury, can you?
Interesting article about the Family Liaison Officer in the Shannon Matthews case and how her suspicions were raised about Karen Matthews
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/2228957/Family-liaison-officer-tells-truth-about-Karen-Matthews-confession.html
I take it that the Officers, sent to Portugal, would have had the same training as the Officer mentioned in the Sun Article, yet they were NOT suspicious of the McCanns one little bit.
-
Yes Gilet it is the UK Family Liaison Officers, family liaison officers People who were with the McCanns, trained officers who did NOT think the McCanns behaviour was suspicious.
As Mrs.B said in the eyes of the anti-McCanns, they must have been 'in on it' because for the life of me I can't see why Police Officers would risk their careers, their pensions in order to commit perjury, can you?
Interesting article about the Family Liaison Officer in the Shannon Matthews case and how her suspicions were raised about Karen Matthews
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/2228957/Family-liaison-officer-tells-truth-about-Karen-Matthews-confession.html
I take it that the Officers, sent to Portugal, would have had the same training as the Officer mentioned in the Sun Article, yet they were NOT suspicious of the McCanns one little bit.
Yet the Portuguese FLO was. So how do we square that circle ?
-
Yet the Portuguese FLO was. So how do we square that circle ?
Is there a witness statement available fom that officer Faithlilly?
I've never seen one - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course.
TY.
-
Is there a witness statement available fom that officer Faithlilly?
I've never seen one - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course.
TY.
Just a note to Amaral, Benice.
Ricardo Paiva message to Gocalo Amaral
Processo Vol 10 Page 2641
The translation below is literal - word-for-word - as close as I can make it.
The essence of the note is that:
- information had been received - informally - by the PT authorities from the UK laboratory before 14 Sept;
- a formal, but partial, Forensic Report dated 7 August has now been received [SEE NOTE BELOW];
- differences exist between the informal and the formal information received in Portugal;
- those differences arose due to an unspecified error on the part of the laboratory, and therefore
- the English authorities suggest that the Portuguese authorities wait for the final report
- which will be delivered when all the forensic tests are completed [at some unspecified date in the future].
[NOTE that the cited report date of 7 August is impossible because the material being examined was only delivered to the laboratory in UK on that date. That date may, for that reason, have been in Paiva's mind when writing the memo.
The English report attached to the memo is dated 06 September 2007.
If there was a formal report, albeit partial, prior to this one of 6 September, it has not been found in the DVD.]
- - - - - - - - - -
Service Information dated 14 September 2007 relating to the Forensic Report from laboratory examinations.
--- In the course of the investigation running in terms of the scope of the Inquiry identified above, in which is being investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, there were made by the Forensic Laboratory of Birmingham, in England, DNA profile analyses of samples collected by this Police force.
--- The partial results of those forensic analyses were being communicated to this Police force by Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior, member of the Leicestershire Police legation, through e-mails originating in that laboratory and from a partial Forensic Report dated 07 August 2007.
--- However, it was verified that due to error by that laboratory, in the cited Forensic Report there exist inconsitencies with that previously reported by a forensic specialist in the e-mails received by Superintendent Stuart Prior, the reason for which, it was by the English authorities, suggested that it is awaited for the Final Report of the laboratory, to be delivered to this Police force upon the conclusion of the laboratorial forensic analyses that presently are still in execution.
--- Hence, I remit to you, Sir, the above Forensic Report in English, accompanied by its translation, for purposes you deem appropriate.
Inspector
Ricardo Paiva.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO_PAIVA.htm
-
Are we at cross purposes here DCI ? - I was enquiring about a witness statement by the Portuguese FLO who apparently found the McCanns behaviour suspicious.
(your link doesn't work for me) 8(8-))
-
Are we at cross purposes here DCI ? - I was enquiring about a witness statement by the Portuguese FLO who apparently found the McCanns behaviour suspicious.
(your link doesn't work for me) 8(8-))
No Bernice, that is him.
Paiva, the McCanns' family liaison officer.
Bit more about him, he's the dream expert @)(++(*
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-mccann-made-a-suspect-in-maddy-194499
-
No Bernice, that is him.
Paiva, the McCanns' family liaison officer.
Bit more about him, he's the dream expert @)(++(*
And another one who, wrote a book about Madeleine.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-mccann-made-a-suspect-in-maddy-194499
Ahh I see it all now! Thanks DCI - sorry about that.
-
Paiva? A man of questionable judgment (to say the very least!)
Questionable ? How so ?
-
No Bernice, that is him.
Paiva, the McCanns' family liaison officer.
Bit more about him, he's the dream expert @)(++(*
And another one who, wrote a book about Madeleine.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-mccann-made-a-suspect-in-maddy-194499
Whats the name of the book?
-
Whats the name of the book?
My apologies, Red, I was wrong 8()-000(
Removed offending remark!
-
My apologies, Red, I was wrong 8()-000(
Removed offending remark!
No worries, I just wondered as I didnt recall that he had ever written a book
-
We all know that Goncalo Amaral ended up in court and convicted of a crime because of his ability to lie, and we know that Sofia Leal has mislead people into thinking those documents were false, when the truth is they were authenticated, admitted as evidence and mentioned in the court judgement; so please tell me why would five Inspectors and a Police Officer put their careers at risk, by saying NO, when asked the following question?
Please provide a link or evidence to substantiate this claim TTSOFAFM otherwise this thread will expire.
-
Please provide a link or evidence to substantiate this claim TTSOFAFM otherwise this thread will expire.
Madeleine chief detective is convicted of falsifying evidence in separate missing child case.
Amaral was found guilty by a jury of falsified documents to help cover for his officers, following a seven month trial at Faro Court on the Algarve.
Today the three inspectors, Leonel Marques, Pereira Cristovao and Paulo Marques Bom, were all cleared of torturing the the Ciprianos, who are serving 16 years for murder.
A fifth officer, Antonio Nunes Cardoso, was found guilty of falsifying documents and was given a two-and-a-half year suspended jail sentence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1186727/Madeleine-chief-detective-convicted-falsifying-evidence-separate-missing-child-case.html#ixzz2VLvdRQeS
If you would like the court ruling posted, please let me know!
-
DCI.
This is the claim which I require to be corroborated.
We all know that Goncalo Amaral ended up in court and convicted of a crime because of his ability to lie, and we know that Sofia Leal has mislead people into thinking those documents were false, when the truth is they were authenticated, admitted as evidence and mentioned in the court judgement; so please tell me why would five Inspectors and a Police Officer put their careers at risk, by saying NO, when asked the following question?
“Was anything said or done by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during your contacts that may have raised any suspicion that they had knowledge of what happe[/color]ned to Madeleine, besides the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators? “
-
DCI.
This is the claim which I require to be corroborated.
We all know that Goncalo Amaral ended up in court and convicted of a crime because of his ability to lie, and we know that Sofia Leal has mislead people into thinking those documents were false, when the truth is they were authenticated, admitted as evidence and mentioned in the court judgement; so please tell me why would five Inspectors and a Police Officer put their careers at risk, by saying NO, when asked the following question?
8((()*/
http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.info/family-liaison-officers-statements/
-
DCI.
This is the claim which I require to be corroborated.
We all know that Goncalo Amaral ended up in court and convicted of a crime because of his ability to lie, and we know that Sofia Leal has mislead people into thinking those documents were false, when the truth is they were authenticated, admitted as evidence and mentioned in the court judgement; so please tell me why would five Inspectors and a Police Officer put their careers at risk, by saying NO, when asked the following question?
I see the links have already been given re Amaral and perjury. The FLO statements are on McCannpjgiles.co.uk
Police inspector Caroline Burrows http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROLINE_BURROWS.htm
Police inspector Eleanor Johnson http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ELEANOR_JOHNSON.htm
Police inspector Michael Graham http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_GRAHAM.htm
Police inspector Neil Holden http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_HOLDEN.htm
Police inspector Jim McGarvey http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JIM_McGARVEY.htm
Police officer Stephen Markley http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
So again my question is why would these officers perjurer themselves by giving a false statement?
-
I see the links have already been given re Amaral and perjury. The FLO statements are on McCannpjgiles.co.uk
Police inspector Caroline Burrows http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROLINE_BURROWS.htm
Police inspector Eleanor Johnson http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ELEANOR_JOHNSON.htm
Police inspector Michael Graham http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_GRAHAM.htm
Police inspector Neil Holden http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_HOLDEN.htm
Police inspector Jim McGarvey http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JIM_McGARVEY.htm
Police officer Stephen Markley http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
So again my question is why would these officers perjurer themselves by giving a false statement?
Remind me who said they had, ta
-
So again my question is why would these officers perjurer themselves by giving a false statement?
Why did 2 of them ask to complete the statement ?
-
Remind me who said they had, ta
The Family Liaison Officers DID NOT find the McCann's actions suspicious. They made statements to that effect. So why do the anti McCanns (who were not in company of the McCann family) persist in saying that the actions of Gerry, Kate and their friends was suspicious?
-
Why did 2 of them ask to complete the statement ?
Yes they added to their statements about Kate mentioning the crying incident. But they still categorically said NO to the question put to them about whether Kate and Gerry McCann acted suspiciously in their presence.
-
The Family Liaison Officers DID NOT find the McCann's actions suspicious. They made statements to that effect. So why do the anti McCanns (who were not in company of the McCann family) persist in saying that the actions of Gerry, Kate and their friends was suspicious?
I dont recall anyone saying British FLOs said they were suspicious of the Mccanns, apart from a faint recollection that someone in an official position kept asking KM where her daughter was and she dismissed them, after a week? Who was that?
There IS evidence that some British official was suspicious of them right at the start, oh here u go
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id282.html
Link in there doesnt work but here it is
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499340/British-diplomat-warned-Foreign-Office-concerns-McCanns.html
-
It still doesn't answer my question though does it Redblossom, why would FLO categorically say NO to a question asking whether they saw any suspicious behaviour and risk committing perjury?
You can throw as many letters into the pot as you like, but surely the role of a Family Liaison Officer, apart from helping a family through a traumatic time, is to look for signs that the people they are helping are a) telling the truth and b) whether they could be involved in what has happened.
And it is clear from those statements that the Family Liaison Officers did not have any suspicions about the McCanns, so again why would they commit perjury? Doesn't that tell the [ censored word] something? Doesn't that tell the [ censored word] that officers who are trained and in contact with the McCann, family did not suspect them of a heinous crime?
-
Remind me who said they had, ta
I am not aware that anyone did say that. If they did so without proof it would be very stupid indeed as it would be libellous.
What is clear is that it is unlikely that five individual officers would perjure themselves and risk their careers in that way. I am sure you must agree with that.
And if they didn't perjure themselves as would seem highly likely then...
They are highly trained experts who are specifically tasked with looking for signs of deception as well as assisting the people involved in crimes.
Each of them was quite categorical in their belief that the McCanns exhibited no suspicious signs.
That is very powerful evidence that the McCanns were not in fact involved. It is quite baffling that those who have never even met the couple for a few seconds conversation should find it so easy to dismiss such valid evidence.
Thank you TTSOFAFM for reminding us that this group of professionals didn't suspect them. Personally I put more faith in this group of people than in people like Almeida and Amaral whose reputations are in tatters after their criminal convictions for lying and torture. Just my opinon but one which I think stands up to scrutiny.
Why the anti-McCanns prefer to believe criminals, one of whom never even met the McCanns (Amaral) till long after he had been thrown off the case over these officers is a very interesting question. One which I have never seen them try to answer. I would be interested in knowing why people do believe the liar Amaral and the torturer Almeida over these officers as such belief seems to underpin a great deal of the anti McCann agenda. Anyone care to respond?
-
Even Lee Rainbow who Amaral relied on so heavily stated that there was no evidence to implicate the family. However he did say that avenue should be explored as a matter of formality
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/158018/McCann-twins-may-hold-clues-says-criminal-profiler
In the summary of the 30-page report Mr Rainbow wrote: “The potential involvement of the family in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be discarded, and it can be considered that, when pondering the basis for research, this hypothesis deserves as much attention as the criminal with sexual motivations that has been previously prioritised.
“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.” At court last week, Mr Amaral’s lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, read out a section of 37-year-old Mr Rainbow’s report which said: “The family is a lead that should be followed.”
So we have 6 Family Liaison Officers and Lee Rainbow the profiler.
-
It still doesn't answer my question though does it Redblossom, why would FLO categorically say NO to a question asking whether they saw any suspicious behaviour and risk committing perjury?
You can throw as many letters into the pot as you like, but surely the role of a Family Liaison Officer, apart from helping a family through a traumatic time, is to look for signs that the people they are helping are a) telling the truth and b) whether they could be involved in what has happened.
And it is clear from those statements that the Family Liaison Officers did not have any suspicions about the McCanns, so again why would they commit perjury? Doesn't that tell the [ censored word] something? Doesn't that tell the [ censored word] that officers who are trained and in contact with the McCann, family did not suspect them of a heinous crime?
So what? They said NO, no one has said they said YES, so null and defunct point surely right from the start
Oh and when did these officers go out? They wouldnt have been there right at the tme that gnr and pj were would they?
-
I dont recall anyone saying British FLOs said they were suspicious of the Mccanns, apart from a faint recollection that someone in an official position kept asking KM where her daughter was and she dismissed them, after a week? Who was that?
There IS evidence that some British official was suspicious of them right at the start, oh here u go
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id282.html
Link in there doesnt work but here it is
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499340/British-diplomat-warned-Foreign-Office-concerns-McCanns.html
First this diplomat story is rather off topic in a thread about the police officers.
But it is interesting that you have cited a news article as evidence. Not only is this just a Daily Mail news article but it is one which appears to be based entirely on the claims of one Duarte Levy, that great friend of Amaral. Levy is a liar. Remember those photos? Even Joana Morais called him a cheat and a liar. :)
So to challenge the clear and unmistakeable evidence from 5 British police officers you have cited a totally uncorroborated news story which emerged from Derniere Heure (which is nothing but a blog) which the liar Levy ran.
Why am I not surprised?
What to believe? The signed and sworn statements of five British police officers or the unreliable words in a news article sourced from a liar who is a friend of Amaral who was convicted of lying?
Hard one isn't it.
-
So what? They said NO, no one has said they said YES, so null and defunct point surely right from the start
Oh and when did these officers go out? They wouldnt have been there right at the tme that gnr and pj were would they?
Why is it null and defunct? If FLO's arrived in Portugal and the McCanns did not raise suspicions in them, then it proves that they were not suspected of harming their daughter or disposing of her body, like Amaral and others want to promote.
I think those statements are of value and worth and are not null and defunct.
If you are comparing the time span between Madeleine disappearing and the FLO's arriving, how the hell can Amaral say they acted suspiciously, he never met them, in those early days? And if my memory serves me correctly he didn't meet Kate face to face until the Lisbon Court Hearing.
-
Why is it null and defunct. If FLO's arrived in Portugal and the McCanns did not raise suspicions in them, then it proves that they were not suspected of harming their daughter or disposing of her body, like Amaral and others want to promote.
I think those statements are of value and worth and are not null and defunct.
Its null and defunct because no one said the FLOS said YES and perjury never came into any discussion, ever, only when you started this thread
-
So what? They said NO, no one has said they said YES, so null and defunct point surely right from the start
Oh and when did these officers go out? They wouldnt have been there right at the tme that gnr and pj were would they?
Five UK police say yes.
Remind us please who says NO?
Is there any evidence this person even exists or could it just be a fictional invention of Duarte Levy? Mail article and the word of Duarte Levy versus 5 UK cops with sworn statements. Not really a contest is it?
As for your final question. The UK liaison officers travelled to Portugal early on 5th May and were with the family less than 48 hours after the disappearance. They were not there for those first few hours, of course, but after that spent far, far, far more time with the McCanns than any PJ or GNR officer did, especially Amaral who I believe never even met them.
-
Its null and defunct because no one said the FLOS said YES and perjury never came into any discussion, ever, only when you started this thread
The reason people start threads is to bring things into discussion. That is the purpose of the forum.
A claim that the sworn witness statements of British Police officers are "null and defunct", whatever that may precisely mean, should be backed up by evidence.
It seems rather far-fetched to claim such a thing when you, yourself go and bring a news article with no corroboration other than the word of a known liar as evidence.
Some hypocrisy there I think.
Why do people dismiss sworn statements of police officers whose jobs would be on the line if they lied and prefer to believe newspapers which we know lie, Levy who we know lies and Amaral who was convicted of lying?
Perhaps one of the people doing this could explain?
-
First this diplomat story is rather off topic in a thread about the police officers.
But it is interesting that you have cited a news article as evidence. Not only is this just a Daily Mail news article but it is one which appears to be based entirely on the claims of one Duarte Levy, that great friend of Amaral. Levy is a liar. Remember those photos? Even Joana Morais called him a cheat and a liar. :)
So to challenge the clear and unmistakeable evidence from 5 British police officers you have cited a totally uncorroborated news story which emerged from Derniere Heure (which is nothing but a blog) which the liar Levy ran.
Why am I not surprised?
What to believe? The signed and sworn statements of five British police officers or the unreliable words in a news article sourced from a liar who is a friend of Amaral who was convicted of lying?
Hard one isn't it.
And you don't think the McCanns may have tried not to raise any suspicion,especially in the presence of the police officers ? Or perhaps that it may have been difficult for the FLOs to differentiate between the grief of losing a child and the grief of having a child abducted ? >@@(*&)
-
And you don't think the McCanns may have tried not to raise any suspicion,especially in the presence of the police officers ? Or perhaps that it may have been difficult for the FLOs to differentiate between the grief of losing a child and the grief of having a child abducted ? >@@(*&)
Faithlilly, if the McCanns were such vile, cruel, callous people that they could dispose of their dead childs body -as if it was nothing more than an inconvenient bag of rubbish, then they would know nothing about the meaning of grief in the first place.
-
Faithlilly, if the McCanns were such vile, cruel, callous people that they could dispose of their dead childs body -as if it was nothing more than an inconvenient bag of rubbish, then they would know nothing about the meaning of grief in the first place.
I have heard any ridiculous things on this forum in my time but that about takes the biscuit @)(++(*
-
I have heard any ridiculous things on this forum in my time but that about takes the biscuit @)(++(*
Well I can only think that I must have misunderstood your post in which I thought you were saying that the McCanns were expressing grief because they knew their daughter was dead. If you were not saying that then what were you saying?
-
It still doesn't answer my question though does it Redblossom, why would FLO categorically say NO to a question asking whether they saw any suspicious behaviour and risk committing perjury?
You can throw as many letters into the pot as you like, but surely the role of a Family Liaison Officer, apart from helping a family through a traumatic time, is to look for signs that the people they are helping are a) telling the truth and b) whether they could be involved in what has happened.
And it is clear from those statements that the Family Liaison Officers did not have any suspicions about the McCanns, so again why would they commit perjury? Doesn't that tell the [ censored word] something? Doesn't that tell the [ censored word] that officers who are trained and in contact with the McCann, family did not suspect them of a heinous crime?
When did these FLO arrive in PDL ? How long did they stay ? What kind of opportunity they had to observe the McCann family ? Why did 2 of them consider important to add something to the generally neutral statement ?
It never crossed my mind they were sort of spies.
-
When did these FLO arrive in PDL ? How long did they stay ? What kind of opportunity they had to observe the McCann family ? Why did 2 of them consider important to add something to the generally neutral statement ?
It never crossed my mind they were sort of spies.
Can I ask you what YOU think the role of Family Liaison Officers are Anne?
-
The Family Liaison officers arrived in PdL the day after the abduction. For the role that FLOs play in these kind of crimes, Google brings up a number of sites where this function is explained.
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/criminaljustice/2009/200909CJUFLO01.pdf
Edited to add link - CG
-
When did these FLO arrive in PDL ? How long did they stay ? What kind of opportunity they had to observe the McCann family ? Why did 2 of them consider important to add something to the generally neutral statement ?
It never crossed my mind they were sort of spies.
They arrived in PDL on 5th May less than 48 hours after the disappearance.
They spent very lengthy periods of time with the McCanns. They were often seen in photographs accompanying the McCanns whilst walking in the town. Their duties are very wide ranging but include supporting the victims in all kinds of ways from making cups of tea upwards. The document linked to is very clear also that the FLO is always a police officer and has strict duties in the case of suspicion of the family's involvement in the crime (or any other crime for that matter).
Normally an FLO has this role as part of their duties but In the case of these particular FLOs, they were in PDL with a single role and as such would be able to spend even longer than normal with the McCanns.
It is very clear why they felt they should add something to the statement. Because they had something to add. Not really so strange is it?
Its normal practice in the UK for witnesses to be asked if they want to add to or alter anything in their statement after they read it before signing. It gives them the opportunity to read over it and change anything if necessary.
-
I have heard any ridiculous things on this forum in my time but that about takes the biscuit @)(++(*
Perhaps you should go back & read some of your own posts, hardly seen so much rubbish & speculation anywhere.
-
Can I ask you what YOU think the role of Family Liaison Officers are Anne?
Sorry, Benice, I read this only now : I think a FLO is a go-between. Isn't s(h)e ?
-
The Family Liaison officers arrived in PdL the day after the abduction. For the role that FLOs play in these kind of crimes, Google brings up a number of sites where this function is explained.
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/criminaljustice/2009/200909CJUFLO01.pdf
Edited to add link - CG
Many thanks, Chinagirl, but I couldn't read more than 20 pages, no time, no patience as well. This reading raised nevertheless more questions than it answered. Why so many FLO and why none being fluent in Portuguese ?
-
Sorry, wrong thread ...
-
"COULD belong to a son or daughter of The McCanns." Was that it?
It is patently obvious that Goncalo Amaral has no conception of DNA, although it isn't actually that difficult to understand. Unless I am brighter than most.