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: C.Edwards on September 23, 2013, 05:49:18 PM
-
In the spirit of bringing evidence to the hearsay and opinion party, how about some dated articles that predate Amaral's book? If these articles are out there and being discussed at a time before the book appears on the scene, how can Amaral's book be blamed for whatever it is he's currently being blamed for?
A few links to articles. I'm neither condoning nor condemning the articles, merely demonstrating what was being discussed widely long before Amaral's book.
Item 1: September 13th, 2007
http://aconservatives.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/how-mccanns-killed-madeleine.html (http://aconservatives.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/how-mccanns-killed-madeleine.html)
(for the sensitive among you, it's not what it appears from the article title)
Item 2: September 9th, 2007
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070909155458AARSGMG (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070909155458AARSGMG)
Item 3: Various - between September 2007 and February 2008 I think
http://www.helium.com/debates/100229-thinking-the-unthinkable-did-madeleine-mccanns-parents-kill-her/side_by_side (http://www.helium.com/debates/100229-thinking-the-unthinkable-did-madeleine-mccanns-parents-kill-her/side_by_side)
Item 4: October 2007
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2007/disliking_mccanns.html (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2007/disliking_mccanns.html)
(I find this quite an interesting article. Pros will hate it as it explains the lady's thoughts towards the McCanns cogently and expressively and is obviously written by an intelligent person therefore not fitting the "thick [ censored word ]"-shaped hole they like to store such people in normally.
Item 5: September 2007
http://www.today.com/id/20726999/ns/msnbc/t/rumor-vs-evidence-madeleine-mccann-case/ (http://www.today.com/id/20726999/ns/msnbc/t/rumor-vs-evidence-madeleine-mccann-case/)
There are dozens - if not hundreds - of such articles and opinion pieces all dated before 2008. Many of them discuss hiding bodies, fridges, DNA, cars, the church, you name it... I don't see how this can be blamed on Amaral's book as it hadn't come out by the time these articles were written. What seems more likely from the articles is that the Arguido status kicked off the change in public perception/feeling.
-
In the spirit of bringing evidence to the hearsay and opinion party, how about some dated articles that predate Amaral's book? If these articles are out there and being discussed at a time before the book appears on the scene, how can Amaral's book be blamed for whatever it is he's currently being blamed for?
A few links to articles. I'm neither condoning nor condemning the articles, merely demonstrating what was being discussed widely long before Amaral's book.
Item 1: September 13th, 2007
http://aconservatives.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/how-mccanns-killed-madeleine.html (http://aconservatives.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/how-mccanns-killed-madeleine.html)
(for the sensitive among you, it's not what it appears from the article title)
Item 2: September 9th, 2007
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070909155458AARSGMG (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070909155458AARSGMG)
Item 3: Various - between September 2007 and February 2008 I think
http://www.helium.com/debates/100229-thinking-the-unthinkable-did-madeleine-mccanns-parents-kill-her/side_by_side (http://www.helium.com/debates/100229-thinking-the-unthinkable-did-madeleine-mccanns-parents-kill-her/side_by_side)
Item 4: October 2007
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2007/disliking_mccanns.html (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2007/disliking_mccanns.html)
(I find this quite an interesting article. Pros will hate it as it explains the lady's thoughts towards the McCanns cogently and expressively and is obviously written by an intelligent person therefore not fitting the "thick [ censored word ]"-shaped hole they like to store such people in normally.
Item 5: September 2007
http://www.today.com/id/20726999/ns/msnbc/t/rumor-vs-evidence-madeleine-mccann-case/ (http://www.today.com/id/20726999/ns/msnbc/t/rumor-vs-evidence-madeleine-mccann-case/)
There are dozens - if not hundreds - of such articles and opinion pieces all dated before 2008. Many of them discuss hiding bodies, fridges, DNA, cars, the church, you name it... I don't see how this can be blamed on Amaral's book as it hadn't come out by the time these articles were written. What seems more likely from the articles is that the Arguido status kicked off the change in public perception/feeling.
well said and GA became the cmanns and pros scapegoat
-
And the silence is deafening. Quelle surprise.
-
And the silence is deafening. Quelle surprise.
They know very well it was the newspapers, who folded to the lawyers and compensated. Now it's like seeking compensation twice.
That's the UK arena anyway. They never did take action against Portuguese papers did they >@@(*&) (bar the one that folded)
-
Good point. I can't help but feel that sometimes the McCanns follow the line that they feel the public thinks they should - basically so that they keep the perception going that they are doing all that "people in their situation" would do. Hence them almost being forced into continuing with the legal action once Amaral turned down their offer to settle as pulling out would have been a PR disaster for them. Actually losing would be less of a problem than not having fought the battle at all, so they seem to feel stuck on this rollercoaster at the moment.
-
From rhe first link:
At some point in time it seems the McCann's had a key to a local church, which may have had a fridge or freezer.
Oh dear.
-
Perhaps someone should list the horrible press articles etc that appeared after Amarals book -only fair.
-
From rhe first link:
At some point in time it seems the McCann's had a key to a local church, which may have had a fridge or freezer.
Oh dear.
Keep it on topic please. The content of those links is not under discussion other than to highlight the fact that such things were already being discussed prior to the release of Amaral's book.
-
Perhaps someone should list the horrible press articles etc that appeared after Amarals book -only fair.
In what way? If it was already out there and being discussed months if not years before the book, what relevance does Amaral's book have ? I've clearly demonstrated that things were not all rosey in the McCann garden well before the book came out. What evidence can you present to demonstrate that the book was the turning point the McCann team in Portugal at present are trying to claim?
-
Perhaps someone should list the horrible press articles etc that appeared after Amarals book -only fair.
I don't think any in the UK, after the press libel settlements. I don't know where the witnesses get the idea GA had an impact in UK media from.
A witness says Channel 5 wanted to interview him, but there's no indication what the interview was going to be about. The injunction presumably. I can't remember he had much presence at all in the UK before that >@@(*&)
-
Kate and Gerry McCann should have been given the chance to try and get on with something resembling normal life after the arguido status was lifted in July 2008. They should have been left in peace, and the pre-shelving articles would most likely have died away.
Amaral's book robbed them of that chance, the chance to be left in peace to try and rebuild their lives.
-
Kate and Gerry McCann should have been given the chance to try and get on with something resembling normal life after the arguido status was lifted in July 2008. They should have been left in peace, and the pre-shelving articles would most likely have died away.
Amaral's book robbed them of that chance, the chance to be left in peace to try and rebuild their lives.
That's actually the best description of their claim that I've yet seen put in plain words. Without all the flowery side bits about mental anguish etc it fundamentally comes down to the McCanns and the disruption of what should have been their lives from that point on?
However...
As the case was only shelved pending further evidence AND it quite clearly stated there were still question marks isn't it right for such a high profile and interesting case to continue to be discussed? If the contention is that, without Amaral's book, this would all have swiftly died away, I'm afraid that I disagree. Firstly not only Amaral wrote about the book - although I concede his words have more weight coming from the ex-coordinator of the investigation - and secondly it's inconceivable that people would just forget about something so high profile. Among my friends hardly any of them know of Amaral. They almost all refer exclusively to what is written in the papers.
-
That's actually the best description of their claim that I've yet seen put in plain words. Without all the flowery side bits about mental anguish etc it fundamentally comes down to the McCanns and the disruption of what should have been their lives from that point on?
However...
As the case was only shelved pending further evidence AND it quite clearly stated there were still question marks isn't it right for such a high profile and interesting case to continue to be discussed? If the contention is that, without Amaral's book, this would all have swiftly died away, I'm afraid that I disagree. Firstly not only Amaral wrote about the book - although I concede his words have more weight coming from the ex-coordinator of the investigation - and secondly it's inconceivable that people would just forget about something so high profile. Among my friends hardly any of them know of Amaral. They almost all refer exclusively to what is written in the papers.
Don't forget that Amaral's book was the backbone of the hate-leaflets penned by the "Madeleine Foundation" - leaflets that were posted through the doors of Kate and Gerry McCanns neighbours. What kind of upset and distress do you think that must have caused? In fact, wasn't Bennett trying to use the fact that the injunction had been overturned to carry on his stalking campaign against the family.
-
Don't forget that Amaral's book was the backbone of the hate-leaflets penned by the "Madeleine Foundation" - leaflets that were posted through the doors of Kate and Gerry McCanns neighbours. What kind of upset and distress do you think that must have caused? In fact, wasn't Bennett trying to use the fact that the injunction had been overturned to carry on his stalking campaign against the family.
Incorrect. There's nothing substantial in GA's book we didn't already know before publication.
-
I don't think any in the UK, after the press libel settlements. I don't know where the witnesses get the idea GA had an impact in UK media from.
A witness says Channel 5 wanted to interview him, but there's no indication what the interview was going to be about. The injunction presumably. I can't remember he had much presence at all in the UK before that >@@(*&)
You miss the point. Because the book was written by the ex officer in charge and claiming that Madeleine was not abducted and the parents and friends blah blah blah.....The McCanns were quite rightly deeply concerned that it did/would have an effect on the general public looking for Madeleine especially in Portugal.
-
You miss the point. Because the book was written by the ex officer in charge and claiming that Madeleine was not abducted and the parents and friends blah blah blah.....The McCanns were quite rightly deeply concerned that it did/would have an effect on the general public looking for Madeleine especially in Portugal.
In Portugal perhaps, I don't know about that. But witnesses in Lisbon appear to be suggesting he had great influence in the UK. Perhaps he did amongst the tiny minority online but 99% of the British public don't know him, or his book.
Don't know about Portugal >@@(*&)
-
Don't forget that Amaral's book was the backbone of the hate-leaflets penned by the "Madeleine Foundation" - leaflets that were posted through the doors of Kate and Gerry McCanns neighbours. What kind of upset and distress do you think that must have caused? In fact, wasn't Bennett trying to use the fact that the injunction had been overturned to carry on his stalking campaign against the family.
Stick to the point. Bennett is irrelevant in all this. How do you suppose it can be proved that the Madeleine Foundation only did that leafleting because of Amaral's book then? Is this documented anywhere?
-
You miss the point. Because the book was written by the ex officer in charge and claiming that Madeleine was not abducted and the parents and friends blah blah blah.....The McCanns were quite rightly deeply concerned that it did/would have an effect on the general public looking for Madeleine especially in Portugal.
And would you also concede that in the hypothetical situation whereby the parents were involved, they would also be extremely upset over a book that may well have nailed exactly what happened? Regardless of which book, ignore Amaral's for the moment. If any case got shelved, the people involved were genuinely involved but claimed they weren't and the lead coordinator of that investigation went on to publish a book about it, wouldn't their reaction be equally horrified that they may not yet have gotten away with it*
*My hypothetical situation bears no resemblance to any persons alive or dead. ;-)
-
From rhe first link:
At some point in time it seems the McCann's had a key to a local church, which may have had a fridge or freezer.
Oh dear.
Can you point to the page of the files where the PJ bothered to investigate whether this church had a fridge or freezer? Or is that another example of the incompetent way the case was handled?
-
Can you point to the page of the files where the PJ bothered to investigate whether this church had a fridge or freezer? Or is that another example of the incompetent way the case was handled?
It's irrelevant. Start a new topic about it if you want. Try and stick to the point that I've demonstrated clearly if you can - this is about the claim that the book was what turned the public opinion against them when it clearly wasn't.
-
And would you also concede that in the hypothetical situation whereby the parents were involved, they would also be extremely upset over a book that may well have nailed exactly what happened? Regardless of which book, ignore Amaral's for the moment. If any case got shelved, the people involved were genuinely involved but claimed they weren't and the lead coordinator of that investigation went on to publish a book about it, wouldn't their reaction be equally horrified that they may not yet have gotten away with it*
*My hypothetical situation bears no resemblance to any persons alive or dead. ;-)
Why would any guilty party, pester, petition, give TV and Newspaper interviews. Plead with the Police / Prime Minister. In fact doing everything in their power to keep their case (An abducted child) to the forefront of everyone?
-
Why would any guilty party, pester, petition, give TV and Newspaper interviews. Plead with the Police / Prime Minister. In fact doing everything in their power to keep their case (An abducted child) to the forefront of everyone?
8((()*/
I've said this before and I'll say it again Ben - if they'd "done it" they would have breathed a sigh of relief after the shelving and slunk away into obscurity, glad that they'd got away with it. Guilty people certainly wouldn't want the Yard poking around in things, IMO.
-
It's irrelevant. Start a new topic about it if you want. Try and stick to the point that I've demonstrated clearly if you can - this is about the claim that the book was what turned the public opinion against them when it clearly wasn't.
You may not believe the book did not turn public opinion against the McCanns.
But you seem to be forgetting something.
This trial is nothing to do with the UK.
How would you know what the situation is regarding the book in Portugal?
When you offer evidence related to the trial which is taking place then we can start a proper discussion.
And its odd that you rule the comment from me out of order but ignored it when the point I was replying was made. Two-faced?
-
Why would any guilty party, pester, petition, give TV and Newspaper interviews. Plead with the Police / Prime Minister. In fact doing everything in their power to keep their case (An abducted child) to the forefront of everyone?
Excellent questions.
I do recall predictions at one point that the McCanns would fade anonymously into the background, never to be heard of again; perhaps much more the way you would expect a guilty party to react.
But they didn't, and guess what ....
-
More generally and related to the effect in Portugal in particular. I wrote this earlier.
Had the key document available in public in mid 2008 been the one from the AG stating that there still is a chance (however slim) that Madeleine is alive and that there is no evidence of any involvement in the disappearance from her parents the situation would have, I suggest, been very different to the situation which Amaral engineered for profit.
That situation was that a book by the senior detective on the case (a man very willing to spread the word far and wide on TV and elsewhere) making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report stating that the child was dead, there was no hope of finding her alive and that her parents had covered it all up was being sold all over Portugal and potentially all over the world.
There is no way that his book had no damaging effect on the search.
-
8((()*/
I've said this before and I'll say it again Ben - if they'd "done it" they would have breathed a sigh of relief after the shelving and slunk away into obscurity, glad that they'd got away with it. Guilty people certainly wouldn't want the Yard poking around in things, IMO.
Excellent points.
I even recall people predicting the McCanns would never go to trial against Bennett, they would withdraw. Those people were wrong.
Then the predictions that the McCanns wanted to withdraw from this case. Again wrong.
-
Excellent questions.
I do recall predictions at one point that the McCanns would fade anonymously into the background, never to be heard of again; perhaps much more the way you would expect a guilty party to react.
But they didn't, and guess what ....
You may have answered your own question there.
(speaking hypothetically of course)
-
Excellent points.
I even recall people predicting the McCanns would never go to trial against Bennett, they would withdraw. Those people were wrong.
Then the predictions that the McCanns wanted to withdraw from this case. Again wrong.
How do you know that ?
Are you an associate of the Mccanns ?
-
How do you know that ?
Are you an associate of the Mccanns ?
Wouldn't you like to know?
But to you and others like you. I say simply, "Mind your own business! What difference would it make if I was? Would I not be entitled to an opinion?"
-
Excellent points.
I even recall people predicting the McCanns would never go to trial against Bennett, they would withdraw. Those people were wrong.
Then the predictions that the McCanns wanted to withdraw from this case. Again wrong.
Pretty obvious what a big part of the motivation is. Whatever the truth about Madeleine's disappearance, her parents are now fighting for what history will have to say about it to their other children in the future.
-
Wouldn't you like to know?
But to you and others like you. I say simply, "Mind your own business! What difference would it make if I was? Would I not be entitled to an opinion?"
This is a free country.
However, you are also bringing in personal bias. >@@(*&)
-
Why would any guilty party, pester, petition, give TV and Newspaper interviews. Plead with the Police / Prime Minister. In fact doing everything in their power to keep their case (An abducted child) to the forefront of everyone?
I can think of a reason why someone who was guilty would do that... because that's what they believe the public would want supposedly-innocent people to do. I realise this is a "damned if you don't, damned if you do" scenario, but it is a valid reason. If someone is deeply embedded in a lie of any kind then it's hard to get out.
-
You may not believe the book did not turn public opinion against the McCanns.
But you seem to be forgetting something.
This trial is nothing to do with the UK.
How would you know what the situation is regarding the book in Portugal?
When you offer evidence related to the trial which is taking place then we can start a proper discussion.
And its odd that you rule the comment from me out of order but ignored it when the point I was replying was made. Two-faced?
Ah, so in your mind all the evidence we've heard is entirely relating to Portugal and is nothing to do with the UK?
-
Wouldn't you like to know?
But to you and others like you. I say simply, "Mind your own business! What difference would it make if I was? Would I not be entitled to an opinion?"
Yes. But you present it as a fact, not an opinion. That's why you're being challenged on it.
-
I can think of a reason why someone who was guilty would do that... because that's what they believe the public would want supposedly-innocent people to do. I realise this is a "damned if you don't, damned if you do" scenario, but it is a valid reason. If someone is deeply embedded in a lie of any kind then it's hard to get out.
Not that difficult at all in this case. Simply do not undertake litigation. Simply retire from media exposure. Very easy to become almost anonymous in fact.
But the McCanns do not do that. And your reason while potentially true does not cover the sheer determination of the McCanns to keep their daughter's name not just in the spotlight but in the very centre of that spotlight where it belongs.
-
Yes. But you present it as a fact, not an opinion. That's why you're being challenged on it.
Because I have seen the reasons given in live interviews and have no reason at all to believe those reasons are lies. Therefore I believe they are accurate. Therefore I present them as accurate. And for all you know I may be able to present it as fact from personal knowledge. No way for you to know otherwise is there?
-
Because I have seen the reasons given in live interviews and have no reason at all to believe those reasons are lies. Therefore I believe they are accurate. Therefore I present them as accurate. And for all you know I may be able to present it as fact from personal knowledge. No way for you to know otherwise is there?
Very true and with my connections to the police force that have been publicised here and elsewhere, I'm hardly going to claim it's unfair of you to potentially have connections. But you do seem prepared to take the words of those who have most to lose if proven to be lying at face value whereas I am not. Both viewpoints are valid and it's nothing to do with "presuming innocence" as that's a legal definition. It's clearly possible for people to lie to avoid being caught out - it happens all the time. I'm not saying they are lying, but neither am I prepared to just take their word for it when other people far more clued up than me doubt their word and it can be proven that they've been "economical with the truth" in the past.
-
How do you know that ?
Are you an associate of the Mccanns ?
That thought has crossed my mind a couple of times due to their immense knowledge of this case. Gilet's posts are spot on and backed up with evidence to dispute the many falsehoods that surround this case.
Totally agree with you Gilet, it is none of their business as to whom you may be. Could we not accuse some people on here of being associates of Goncalo Amaral? As it is abundantly clear that some people ignore the facts, when produced, and prefer to believe a man who has been convicted in a court for falsifying documents, than the truth.
-
That thought has crossed my mind a couple of times due to their immense knowledge of this case. Gilet's posts are spot on and backed up with evidence to dispute the many falsehoods that surround this case.
Totally agree with you Gilet, it is none of their business as to whom you may be. Could we not accuse some people on here of being associates of Goncalo Amaral? As it is abundantly clear that some people ignore the facts, when produced, and prefer to believe a man who has been convicted in a court for falsifying documents, than the truth.
He didn't falsify documents. *sigh*
-
That thought has crossed my mind a couple of times due to their immense knowledge of this case. Gilet's posts are spot on and backed up with evidence to dispute the many falsehoods that surround this case.
Totally agree with you Gilet, it is none of their business as to whom you may be. Could we not accuse some people on here of being associates of Goncalo Amaral? As it is abundantly clear that some people ignore the facts, when produced, and prefer to believe a man who has been convicted in a court for falsifying documents, than the truth.
Very true. Actually, only today I was asked via a private message whether I thought there was a connection between the person doing the reporting from the court and Amaral. I had to reply that I had no idea but as with all evidence the reports should be taken as potentially biased. They are not verbatim historical records but have been processed by at least two people whose underlying motive hopefully is pure truth but may not be.
-
That thought has crossed my mind a couple of times due to their immense knowledge of this case. Gilet's posts are spot on and backed up with evidence to dispute the many falsehoods that surround this case.
Totally agree with you Gilet, it is none of their business as to whom you may be. Could we not accuse some people on here of being associates of Goncalo Amaral? As it is abundantly clear that some people ignore the facts, when produced, and prefer to believe a man who has been convicted in a court for falsifying documents, than the truth.
It is a reasonable question to ask when people who dare question the Mccanns version of events are called '[ censored word ]s' and far worse ?
Of course you believe gilet, because you have the same views too. 8)-)))
-
He didn't falsify documents. *sigh*
I have seen this stated before. Please for the benefit of us all, do tell us precisely what the criminal act was that got Amaral his conviction and suspended sentence.
He must have done something or are you saying the Portuguese Judiciary are corrupt fools?
-
He didn't falsify documents. *sigh*
Pardon me it was far more serious than that.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/428782/Brave-mum-Kate-McCann-faces-new-ordeal-in-Portuguese-courtroom-over-Madeleine
He was given a jail sentence, suspended for 18 months, over an unrelated conviction of perjury by falsifying documents in May 2009.
-
It is a reasonable question to ask when people who dare question the Mccanns version of events are called '[ censored word ]s' and far worse ?
Of course you believe gilet, because you have the same views too. 8)-)))
I think if you ever look in on Twitter you will understand that the "far worse" is the profanity which emanates from those devoted followers of Goncalo Amaral. Some of them would be quite at home in the sewers with the most vile creatures imaginable down there.
Would you like me to go and find some of the more recent examples of that profanity and debased name calling of pros by [ censored word]?
-
Pardon me it was far more serious than that.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/428782/Brave-mum-Kate-McCann-faces-new-ordeal-in-Portuguese-courtroom-over-Madeleine
Gonçalo Amaral was not convicted for falsifying documents, it was for false testimony. There was another inspector who was convicted for falsifying documents.
-
I think if you ever look in on Twitter you will understand that the "far worse" is the profanity which emanates from those devoted followers of Goncalo Amaral. Some of them would be quite at home in the sewers with the most vile creatures imaginable down there.
Would you like me to go and find some of the more recent examples of that profanity and debased name calling of pros by [ censored word]?
Sorry gilet, I'm not having that.
I've seen the hate from both sides of the fence on twitter from the extremists there.
Something tells me just like the Mccanns, you turn a blind eye to what the die-hard mccanns supporters do.
-
I think if you ever look in on Twitter you will understand that the "far worse" is the profanity which emanates from those devoted followers of Goncalo Amaral. Some of them would be quite at home in the sewers with the most vile creatures imaginable down there.
Would you like me to go and find some of the more recent examples of that profanity and debased name calling of pros by [ censored word]?
They are not followers of Mr Amaral. They're just using him, like they used Bennett. Quite a few of them have their own agendas.
-
Gonçalo Amaral was not convicted for falsifying documents, it was for false testimony. There was another inspector who was convicted for falsifying documents.
Falsifying documents or falsifying testimony, whatever it was, the fact remains HE IS STILL A CONVICTED EX-COP who was removed from the initial investigation.
-
I have seen this stated before. Please for the benefit of us all, do tell us precisely what the criminal act was that got Amaral his conviction and suspended sentence.
He must have done something or are you saying the Portuguese Judiciary are corrupt fools?
You know all this damn well, I've seen your postings on it. But for the benefit of others who don't know the full story...
He was convicted on the technicality that, even though he was not present at the event itself, as senior officer on duty when Cipriano attempted to throw herself off the landing of the stairs, he should have known that the injuries inflicted were not caused by this, but rather by being manhandled by his officers. As he simply filled in and signed off on the report based on what he was told (fairly reasonable as he wasn't there at the time and can hardly be expected to be an expert in injury identification) he was subsequently found to have falsified a statement to cover up for his men as the court found that the injuries hadn't been inflicted in the way his men had reported and he'd signed off on. Ironically he would have been "not guilty" had he actually falsified the report and claimed his men had beaten her up.
That's not the end of the story though... subsequently the police officers were exonerated as Cipriano was sentenced to another 7 months in jail for lying about being beaten up. So in fact Amaral's statement WAS correct after all and yet... due to the vagaries of the portuguese system his conviction remained in place as - at the time - he should allegedly have somehow known that his men were telling him porkies and reported them and filled in the statement differently. Quite how they square this all with the fact that he was subsequently proven right is a mystery to me.
That pros can claim he deliberately falsified evidence when he quite demonstrably didn't, is ridiculous.
-
They are not followers of Mr Amaral. They're just using him, like they used Bennett. Quite a few of them have their own agendas.
Very true Lyall and the sad part is that the welfare of Madeleine McCann doesn't enter into their reasoning. No person would class a missing child as deceased, a normal person would hope and pray that she is found alive and reunited with her family.
And that is the hope that her parents cling to. And so would any parent who has a missing child or family who have a missing loved one. That hope being that one day their child/loved one will be found and reunited with them and they can start to rebuild their lives together.
-
You know all this damn well, I've seen your postings on it. But for the benefit of others who don't know the full story...
He was convicted on the technicality that, even though he was not present at the event itself, as senior officer on duty when Cipriano attempted to throw herself off the landing of the stairs, he should have known that the injuries inflicted were not caused by this, but rather by being manhandled by his officers. As he simply filled in and signed off on the report based on what he was told (fairly reasonable as he wasn't there at the time and can hardly be expected to be an expert in injury identification) he was subsequently found to have falsified a statement to cover up for his men as the court found that the injuries hadn't been inflicted in the way his men had reported and he'd signed off on. Ironically he would have been "not guilty" had he actually falsified the report and claimed his men had beaten her up.
That's not the end of the story though... subsequently the police officers were exonerated as Cipriano was sentenced to another 7 months in jail for lying about being beaten up. So in fact Amaral's statement WAS correct after all and yet... due to the vagaries of the portuguese system his conviction remained in place as - at the time - he should allegedly have somehow known that his men were telling him porkies and reported them and filled in the statement differently. Quite how they square this all with the fact that he was subsequently proven right is a mystery to me.
That pros can claim he deliberately falsified evidence when he quite demonstrably didn't, is ridiculous.
So the court sentenced him to 18 months on a technicality. I see.
And that technicality relates directly to the fact that he simply had no idea whether his subordinates were being truthful with him or not. I see.
He signed off something he really could not sign and testify that he was sure it was true. I see.
His sentence of 18 months was simply due to the vagaries of the Portuguese Judicial system. I see.
Thanks for making all that so clear.
So basically you are saying that Amaral had no idea if his officers were telling him the truth, that he signed off paperwork he really could not truthfully say was accurate and that the Portuguese Judicial System is crap. I get that now.
-
They are not followers of Mr Amaral. They're just using him, like they used Bennett. Quite a few of them have their own agendas.
I understand what you have said, but do wonder why didn't more genuine Amaral supporters then publicly distance themselves from those who were "just using him" for "their own agenda"? It seems hypocritical that it was okay for everyone to hitch their cart to Bennett until he started making the anti McCann's look stupid. Then suddenly Bennett was no good for Amarals agenda anymore. Bennetts and the Madeleine Foundations money was good enough for a donation to Amaral.
-
Wouldn't you like to know?
But to you and others like you. I say simply, "Mind your own business! What difference would it make if I was? Would I not be entitled to an opinion?"
They didn't want to withdraw, they sought a settlement with Amaral.
-
I understand what you have said, but do wonder why didn't more genuine Amaral supporters then publicly distance themselves from those who were "just using him" for "their own agenda"? It seems hypocritical that it was okay for everyone to hitch their cart to Bennett until he started making the anti McCann's look stupid. Then suddenly Bennett was no good for Amarals agenda anymore. Bennetts and the Madeleine Foundations money was good enough for a donation to Amaral.
It is incorrect to make the assumption that people question the McCann's version of events because they are 'supporters' of Amaral ( although it is certainly in keeping with the 'thrust' of the libel trial as presented by the McCanns, so far )
Speaking for myself, I think the original Portuguese investigation was certainly flawed ...and Amaral must take responsibility for that
So I am no 'fan'
The reason I question the McCann's version of events is not because of Amaral ... or his book ( which I have not read ) ... it is because their version makes no sense ... it has more holes than swiss cheese !
That's why I question it ( nowt to do with Amaral )
-
from the first day when people watched the news they turned their heads...and though, hey? They left their kids alone? To go out and eat?
This is documented widely
The mccanns were suspected by the general public from day one
Despite a media onslaught onto the Portuguese by certain rags by certain relatives and some other so called nonrags, the mccanns were never persons that the public did not question,initially for leaving their three babies alone,but as more facts came out for other reasons too, it is ridiculous in the extreme to blame Mr amaral for all the suspicions people had ...let alone for after his book was published...they were well sunk in by then...the mccanns went to court in 2010 even and made fools of themselves, mccanns have no case IMO and Ive said this for a couple of years,
-
It is incorrect to make the assumption that people question the McCann's version of events because they are 'supporters' of Amaral ( although it is certainly in keeping with the 'thrust' of the libel trial as presented by the McCanns, so far )
Speaking for myself, I think the original Portuguese investigation was certainly flawed ...and Amaral must take responsibility for that
So I am no 'fan'
The reason I question the McCann's version of events is not because of Amaral ... or his book ( which I have not read ) ... it is because their version makes no sense ... it has more holes than swiss cheese !
That's why I question it ( nowt to do with Amaral )
I was referring to genuine Amaral supporters.
-
So the court sentenced him to 18 months on a technicality. I see.
And that technicality relates directly to the fact that he simply had no idea whether his subordinates were being truthful with him or not. I see.
He signed off something he really could not sign and testify that he was sure it was true. I see.
His sentence of 18 months was simply due to the vagaries of the Portuguese Judicial system. I see.
Thanks for making all that so clear.
So basically you are saying that Amaral had no idea if his officers were telling him the truth, that he signed off paperwork he really could not truthfully say was accurate and that the Portuguese Judicial System is crap. I get that now.
Yeah. Just keep spinning. Just because you can't or won't admit that it's blatantly ridiculous doesn't make it any less so.
-
It makes me laugh how some people post amaral is a convict a convicted criminal etc like hes a murderer or rapist, just shows their desperation in exagerating the facts...theyhave only one reason to exagerate the facts,...embroider the truth....oops, just like the mccanns
-
It makes me laugh how some people post amaral is a convict a convicted criminal etc like hes a murderer or rapist, just shows their desperation in exagerating the facts...theyhave only one reason to exagerate the facts,...embroider the truth....oops, just like the mccanns
amaral is a convict ..he has a criminal record aswell you know ...people don't have to be a rapist or a murderer to be a convict red ..you just being silly as usual 8-)(--)
-
amaral is a convict ..he has a criminal record aswell you know ...people don't have to be a rapist or a murderer to be a convict red ..you just being silly as usual 8-)(--)
Pathetic attack on Amaral, yet again.
Just another diversion from the source of this case.
2 incompetent parents.
-
Pathetic attack on Amaral, yet again.
Just another diversion from the source of this case.
2 incompetent parents.
well you would say that you being a amaral supporter ....the mccanns aren't criminals and don't have a criminal record ....get over it fgs AMARAL IS A CRIM sorry if that upsets you honey 8)-)))
-
Very true Lyall and the sad part is that the welfare of Madeleine McCann doesn't enter into their reasoning. No person would class a missing child as deceased, a normal person would hope and pray that she is found alive and reunited with her family.
And that is the hope that her parents cling to. And so would any parent who has a missing child or family who have a missing loved one. That hope being that one day their child/loved one will be found and reunited with them and they can start to rebuild their lives together.
Neither does it enter yours or her parents. Having had the possibility of avoiding all the bad press that came out of this trial they chose to make it public. They do not care what effect it may have on the twins as long as it gets them back in the news, imo.
-
Does it enter anyones head that all the McCanns ever wanted from him (Amaral), was for him to stop claiming that their child was dead.
He gave up the search for Madeleine due to his "Theory" (ask Paiva if you don't believe me). The McCanns have not And never will give up their search.
-
well you would say that you being a amaral supporter ....the mccanns aren't criminals and don't have a criminal record ....get over it fgs AMARAL IS A CRIM sorry if that upsets you honey 8)-)))
You and your associates may go on repeating the falsehoods you wish but what we know is that Mrs and Mr McCann are suspects in the disappearance of their child. The fact that they had the "arguido" status (which is granted only while an active investigation or inquiry are on) lifted doesn't mean their situation as prime suspects has changed, as the Archiving Report States: "they failed to prove their innocence".
-
Does it enter anyones head that all the McCanns ever wanted from him (Amaral), was for him to stop claiming that their child was dead.
He gave up the search for Madeleine due to his "Theory" (ask Paiva if you don't believe me). The McCanns have not And never will give up their search.
exactly 8((()*/!!!
-
Does it enter anyones head that all the McCanns ever wanted from him (Amaral), was for him to stop claiming that their child was dead.
He gave up the search for Madeleine due to his "Theory" (ask Paiva if you don't believe me). The McCanns have not And never will give up their search.
Misinformation, as usual. He didn't give up, he was moved from the investigation by his superiors (the National PJ Director), probably (speculating) because he was closer to the truth than it was comfortable to the "superior interests" involved .
-
Does it enter anyones head that all the McCanns ever wanted from him (Amaral), was for him to stop claiming that their child was dead.
He gave up the search for Madeleine due to his "Theory" (ask Paiva if you don't believe me). The McCanns have not And never will give up their search.
You are not privy to all that Amaral knows. Did you ever consider that? There are things that are known that cannot be used in a court of law due to daft Portuguese evidence-gathering loopholes. I can't evidence it due to my source, but I trust them implicitly and they are in a position to know. This is *probably* why Amaral has said about the McCanns... "they know I know..."
So just hypothetically lets say that there's an investigation going on in Botswana, for example. The Botswanan nvestigating team, say, intercept a phone call or two that kind of gives away the game a little on the investigation they're working on. Due to the fact that they failed to ask in advance and fill out the correct forms for monitoring phone calls, it's not possible for them to use the evidence they've gathered in court. Hmm. So what do they do? They call in the suspects and lean on them. They lean HARD. Some of the suspects get very upset and cry because they're terrified that their clever ruse has been uncovered and they're for it, big style. Some of the suspects even say they can't go on, it's over, they're finished. Fortunately for the suspects and unfortunately for the police, the suspects are made of stern stuff and gather themselves and form, shall we say, a pact of silence. They may even say that the police have got nothing on them as long as they stick together and say nothing. They also have powerful and influential lawyers and are able to avoid further investigation.
What can the Botswanan police do? Well one thing they may do is pretty much call off the whole investigation, say they can't establish what happened, but also indicate that they know damn well what happened and they're not looking for anyone else.
I know that some of you will not have a clue what that's all about. That's ok, it's all a complete fabrication, of course. 8((()*/
-
Misinformation, as usual. He didn't give up, he was moved from the investigation by his superiors (the National PJ Director), probably (speculating) because he was closer to the truth than it was comfortable to the "superior interests" involved .
What ?? I can't recall Paivas exact words but they went something like "No sightings etc or leads were followed up..due to Amarals theory/ies.
I suggest you go back to the first Trial tweets missy.
-
Pathetic attack on Amaral, yet again.
Just another diversion from the source of this case.
2 incompetent parents.
Not a diversion at all.
You only seem to see incompetent parents. The parents who used the same kind of checking system on their children that operated in many resorts, hotels, Butlins Camps for decades which you declare to be a sign of their incompetence.
But you miss the incompetent cop. The one who tells us his fingerprint experts were crap. The one who signed off a document he had no idea was true or not. The one who got booted off the McCann case for his illegal comments to the journalist, the one who got himself convicted and sentenced for some kind of "paperwork error" :).
And why do you ignore the incompetent cop and the incompetent investigation he coordinated? Because you don't care about any search for Madeleine. You are one of those people fixated on the guilt of the parents in covering up a totally un-evidenced death. You cannot understand that when there is not one shred of evidence of the death of the child all options remain open.
-
You are not privy to all that Amaral knows. Did you ever consider that? There are things that are known that cannot be used in a court of law due to daft Portuguese evidence-gathering loopholes. I can't evidence it due to my source, but I trust them implicitly and they are in a position to know. This is *probably* why Amaral has said about the McCanns... "they know I know..."
So just hypothetically lets say that there's an investigation going on in Botswana, for example. The Botswanan nvestigating team, say, intercept a phone call or two that kind of gives away the game a little on the investigation they're working on. Due to the fact that they failed to ask in advance and fill out the correct forms for monitoring phone calls, it's not possible for them to use the evidence they've gathered in court. Hmm. So what do they do? They call in the suspects and lean on them. They lean HARD. Some of the suspects get very upset and cry because they're terrified that their clever ruse has been uncovered and they're for it, big style. Some of the suspects even say they can't go on, it's over, they're finished. Fortunately for the suspects and unfortunately for the police, the suspects are made of stern stuff and gather themselves and form, shall we say, a pact of silence. They may even say that the police have got nothing on them as long as they stick together and say nothing. They also have powerful and influential lawyers and are able to avoid further investigation.
What can the Botswanan police do? Well one thing they may do is pretty much call off the whole investigation, say they can't establish what happened, but also indicate that they know damn well what happened and they're not looking for anyone else.
I know that some of you will not have a clue what that's all about. That's ok, it's all a complete fabrication, of course. 8((()*/
FROM CEDWARDS - "You are not privy to all that Amaral knows. Did you ever consider that? "
No really? And you and the other antibunnies are? Yeah right.
Has it ever occurred to you and others, that claiming Amaral is smarter than the other Portuguese authorities above him in rank is in fact, very insulting to those people.
-
Not a diversion at all.
You only seem to see incompetent parents. The parents who used the same kind of checking system on their children that operated in many resorts, hotels, Butlins Camps for decades which you declare to be a sign of their incompetence.
But you miss the incompetent cop. The one who tells us his fingerprint experts were crap. The one who signed off a document he had no idea was true or not. The one who got booted off the McCann case for his illegal comments to the journalist, the one who got himself convicted and sentenced for some kind of "paperwork error" :).
And why do you ignore the incompetent cop and the incompetent investigation he coordinated? Because you don't care about any search for Madeleine. You are one of those people fixated on the guilt of the parents in covering up a totally un-evidenced death. You cannot understand that when there is not one shred of evidence of the death of the child all options remain open.
I'm only surprised that he isn't up for some sort of sainthood.. 8-)(--)
-
Not a diversion at all.
You only seem to see incompetent parents. The parents who used the same kind of checking system on their children that operated in many resorts, hotels, Butlins Camps for decades which you declare to be a sign of their incompetence.
But you miss the incompetent cop. The one who tells us his fingerprint experts were crap. The one who signed off a document he had no idea was true or not. The one who got booted off the McCann case for his illegal comments to the journalist, the one who got himself convicted and sentenced for some kind of "paperwork error" :).
And why do you ignore the incompetent cop and the incompetent investigation he coordinated? Because you don't care about any search for Madeleine. You are one of those people fixated on the guilt of the parents in covering up a totally un-evidenced death. You cannot understand that when there is not one shred of evidence of the death of the child all options remain open.
...and... breathe.
incompetent - rant, rant, rant - disgraced - rant, rant, rant - fixated on the guilt - rant, rant, rant.
So you'd rather the investigating force (wasn't just Amaral, remember!) just carried on doing what the parents wanted? "look over there, don't look over here!" even though there wasn't a shred of evidence to support abduction. Would you have had the entire portuguese police force out combing the scrubland for years? Knocking on every door?
What, practically, can they have done to "carry on the search"? Surely the parents had a fund for such things. The police seemed content they'd done all they could and just because this didn't fit in with the McCann agenda doesn't mean it was wrong!
-
FROM CEDWARDS - "You are not privy to all that Amaral knows. Did you ever consider that? "
No really? And you and the other antibunnies are? Yeah right.
Has it ever occurred to you and others, that claiming Amaral is smarter than the other Portuguese authorities above him in rank is in fact, very insulting to those people.
Where did I claim he was smarter? I have no idea what other people know. I'm fortunate to have some interesting connections, yes. I used to be a lot more ambivalent about the McCanns until I met these connections a few years ago!
-
No person would class a missing child as deceased, a normal person would hope and pray that she is found alive and reunited with her family.
Very true TTSOFAFM : no (innocent) person... And the McCanns very well know that.
-
What ?? I can't recall Paivas exact words but they went something like "No sightings etc or leads were followed up..due to Amarals theory/ies.
I suggest you go back to the first Trial tweets missy.
Considering that all leads were followed, as can be checked in the PJ files, and that you don't give any substantiated proof that Ricardo Paiva (one of Amaral's strongest supporters) ever said that, I recommend you read (or re-read) Mark Harrison's report, the expert suggested by the british detectives (Leicestershire) that were part of he task force.
At the time all decisions were made by portuguese and british police involved in the search, and the request for this expert to become involved was formally made by Guilhermino Encarnação (Faro's PJ director).
The report was made under the assumption that, according to the expertise, a murder had been committed, the reason why the dogs (those poor vilified beautiful creatures) were called...
As you will be able to read on that report, this expert was called after the McCann called upon Krueger and his "dead find" machine from South Africa.
So, implying that it was Amaral that initiated the search for a dead Maddie is a TOTAL LIE. It was the McCann that started it..
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html)
-
You are not privy to all that Amaral knows. Did you ever consider that? There are things that are known that cannot be used in a court of law due to daft Portuguese evidence-gathering loopholes. I can't evidence it due to my source, but I trust them implicitly and they are in a position to know. This is *probably* why Amaral has said about the McCanns... "they know I know..."
So just hypothetically lets say that there's an investigation going on in Botswana, for example. The Botswanan nvestigating team, say, intercept a phone call or two that kind of gives away the game a little on the investigation they're working on. Due to the fact that they failed to ask in advance and fill out the correct forms for monitoring phone calls, it's not possible for them to use the evidence they've gathered in court. Hmm. So what do they do? They call in the suspects and lean on them. They lean HARD. Some of the suspects get very upset and cry because they're terrified that their clever ruse has been uncovered and they're for it, big style. Some of the suspects even say they can't go on, it's over, they're finished. Fortunately for the suspects and unfortunately for the police, the suspects are made of stern stuff and gather themselves and form, shall we say, a pact of silence. They may even say that the police have got nothing on them as long as they stick together and say nothing. They also have powerful and influential lawyers and are able to avoid further investigation.
What can the Botswanan police do? Well one thing they may do is pretty much call off the whole investigation, say they can't establish what happened, but also indicate that they know damn well what happened and they're not looking for anyone else.
I know that some of you will not have a clue what that's all about. That's ok, it's all a complete fabrication, of course. 8((()*/
Your Botswanan example is plausible if and only if the investigated crime is a minor one. Were somebody's life at stake any "clever ruse" would be dismantled, filled out or not the correct forms for monitoring phone calls..
-
Considering that all leads were followed, as can be checked in the PJ files, and that you don't give any substantiated proof that Ricardo Paiva (one of Amaral's strongest supporters) ever said that, I recommend you read (or re-read) Mark Harrison's report, the expert suggested by the british detectives (Leicestershire) that were part of he task force.
At the time all decisions were made by portuguese and british police involved in the search, and the request for this expert to become involved was formally made by Guilhermino Encarnação (Faro's PJ director).
The report was made under the assumption that, according to the expertise, a murder had been committed, the reason why the dogs (those poor vilified beautiful creatures) were called...
As you will be able to read on that report, this expert was called after the McCann called upon Krueger and his "dead find" machine from South Africa.
So, implying that it was Amaral that initiated the search for a dead Maddie is a TOTAL LIE. It was the McCann that started it..
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html)
Are you claiming that Paiva lied in Court?
-
I'm only surprised that he isn't up for some sort of sainthood.. 8-)(--)
You mean like Saint Kate?!!! 8)-)))
-
You are not privy to all that Amaral knows. Did you ever consider that? There are things that are known that cannot be used in a court of law due to daft Portuguese evidence-gathering loopholes. I can't evidence it due to my source, but I trust them implicitly and they are in a position to know. This is *probably* why Amaral has said about the McCanns... "they know I know..."
...
Hee hee. Coldwater used those very words so often. And so many fools believed him too.
@)(++(*
And of course you know about this ACE that Amaral seems to have left up his sleeve so long it has presumably rotted. Yeah right.
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Hee hee. Coldwater used those very words so often. And so many fools believed him too.
@)(++(*
And of course you know about this ACE that Amaral seems to have left up his sleeve so long it has presumably rotted. Yeah right.
@)(++(* @)(++(*
You do realize that many wums claim to have "ologys" of some sort or another. Flipping Country is teeming with the blighters.
-
Hee hee. Coldwater used those very words so often. And so many fools believed him too.
@)(++(*
And of course you know about this ACE that Amaral seems to have left up his sleeve so long it has presumably rotted. Yeah right.
@)(++(* @)(++(*
Yeah, just keep laughing. 8((()*/
-
You mean like Saint Kate?!!! 8)-)))
Sorry didn't see your answer Luz to this question. Are you claiming that Paiva lied in Court?
-
[quote Quote from: Luz on Today at 01:55:23 PM
Considering that all leads were followed, as can be checked in the PJ files, and that you don't give any substantiated proof that Ricardo Paiva (one of Amaral's strongest supporters) ever said that, I recommend you read (or re-read) Mark Harrison's report, the expert suggested by the british detectives (Leicestershire) that were part of he task force.
At the time all decisions were made by portuguese and british police involved in the search, and the request for this expert to become involved was formally made by Guilhermino Encarnação (Faro's PJ director).
The report was made under the assumption that, according to the expertise, a murder had been committed, the reason why the dogs (those poor vilified beautiful creatures) were called...
As you will be able to read on that report, this expert was called after the McCann called upon Krueger and his "dead find" machine from South Africa.
So, implying that it was Amaral that initiated the search for a dead Maddie is a TOTAL LIE. It was the McCann that started it..
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html
Are you claiming that Paiva lied in Court?
[/quote]
Show me that he said that in Court.
In the reports I read from the first Court Trial, Ricardo Paiva is not quoted as saying such thing, on the contrary.
However, I suggest you read the document I mentioned and think with your own mind.
-
Deny all you like Luz but Paiva said it. Either that or JondiPaulo (sp) mis quoted.
Out of politeness I will have a look for the twitter timeline of the first Trial.
-
Considering that all leads were followed, as can be checked in the PJ files, and that you don't give any substantiated proof that Ricardo Paiva (one of Amaral's strongest supporters) ever said that, I recommend you read (or re-read) Mark Harrison's report, the expert suggested by the british detectives (Leicestershire) that were part of he task force.
At the time all decisions were made by portuguese and british police involved in the search, and the request for this expert to become involved was formally made by Guilhermino Encarnação (Faro's PJ director).
The report was made under the assumption that, according to the expertise, a murder had been committed, the reason why the dogs (those poor vilified beautiful creatures) were called...
As you will be able to read on that report, this expert was called after the McCann called upon Krueger and his "dead find" machine from South Africa.
So, implying that it was Amaral that initiated the search for a dead Maddie is a TOTAL LIE. It was the McCann that started it..
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html)
Why did Paiva say it in court if its a total lie?
Is it normal for Portuguese Police Officers and ex police officers to lie in court?
That's what you seem to be suggesting.
And we all know about the cases of other ex officers don't we? Amaral? Almeida? Cristovao?
I love this blog.
http://mafiadobenfica.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/la-famiglia.html
-
Report from Court in Lisbon from Jon di Paolo about Paiva at
Live text: Afternoon session, 12 January 2010
...
4:12-- Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html
Yes Luz, you are clearly suggesting that Paiva lied in court.
-
Why stop with just the quote that suits?
Why not have the whole collection and pick the bones out of what this means for your idols. Or do you only pick out the words that meet your agenda? Hmm?
4:31 jondipaolo: Paiva: if she was being held somewhere publicity would be more likely to hasten her death.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:31 jondipaolo
4:29 jondipaolo: Paiva: we found the 'merchandising' operation with wristbands and so on very strange.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:29 jondipaolo
4:16 jondipaolo: Mr amaral looks like he's dozing off.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:16 jondipaolo
4:13 jondipaolo: Paiva: mccanns never pointed me towards any evidence that maddie was still alive.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:13 jondipaolo
4:12 jondipaolo: Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:12 jondipaolo
4:09 jondipaolo: Paiva: amaral's theories are based on the facts of the investigation.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:09 jondipaolo
4:09 jondipaolo: Paiva: it was scotland yard who first thought it could be a murder case.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:09 jondipaolo
4:04 jondipaolo: Paiva: there was total collaboration between british and portuguese police on the case.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:04 jondipaolo
4:03 jondipaolo: Paiva also says the mccanns were made suspects after the british sniffer dogs were brought in.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:03 jondipaolo
3:52 jondipaolo: Gerry has put his arm round kate as they listen to paiva's testimony.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:52 jondipaolo
3:47 jondipaolo: Kate whispers something in gerry's ear and gives him a little smile. He stays looking straight in front.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:47 jondipaolo
3:45 jondipaolo: Paiva is asked whether he ever got the impression from the mccanns they thought maddie could be dead. He says yes.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:45 jondipaolo
3:34 jondipaolo: Insp paiva says he was the family liaison officer for the case but was taken off at the mcanns' request.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:34 jondipaolo
3:33 jondipaolo: Inspector ricardo paiva, of the portuguese police, has taken the stand.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:33 jondipaolo
3:29 jondipaolo: Mr amaral has just walked in and we're under way.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:29 jondipaolo
3:28 jondipaolo: We're back in court. The mcanns are here but mr amaral is missing.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:28 jondipaolo
2:10 jondipaolo: The court is adjourning for lunch. Back at 3pm.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 2:10 jondipaolo
2:09 jondipaolo: The mcanns' lawyer is rebuked for saying de almeida was accused of torturing suspects - he was never charged.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 2:09 jondipaolo
2:05 jondipaolo: The mcanns' lawyer is getting quite worked up in her cross examination of de almeida.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 2:05 jondipaolo
1:54 jondipaolo: De almeida: when we asked uk for info on mccanns we got a single side of a4.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 1:54 jondipaolo
1:53 jondipaolo: De almeida: british authorities other than police hindered investigation by withholding information.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 1:53 jondipaolo
1:39 jondipaolo: De almeida: Forensic lab technicians from birmingham came to portugal so it is strange concerns were raised about contamination.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 1:39 jondipaolo
1:36 jondipaolo: De almeida: british police kept information about the mcanns to themselves.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 1:36 jondipaolo
1:35 jondipaolo: De almeida: we were controlled by the british police.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 1:35 jondipaolo
1:34 jondipaolo: British police would have found it very difficult to charge the mccanns.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 1:34 jondipaolo
1:11 jondipaolo: A report by the British police stated that one of the sniffer dogs was in a nervous, excitable state, and wanted to get into the room.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 1:11 jondipaolo
1:02 jondipaolo: The animals also found a scent on a piece of cloth in a flat rented by the McCanns after they left the apartment where Madeleine vanished.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 1:02 jondipaolo
12:58 jondipaolo: The dogs detected the traces inside the dining room of the holiday flat and in the car the McCanns were using.
-
Yeah, just keep laughing. 8((()*/
I will do so. I keep seeing these characters with sources. And every one is a failure.
I am sure i won't be wrong this time.
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I will do so. I keep seeing these characters with sources. And every one is a failure.
I am sure i won't be wrong this time.
@)(++(* @)(++(*
Well if it's any consolation, it won't keep me up at night worrying about you ;-)
-
I was ready to borrow an [ censored word] conspiracy hat there because odd for me, the tweets on a usually tidy sites are a mess...all over printed. You can read them when posted though. Then it would not let me post the whole thing on here. too many characters.
jondipaolo:
Paiva: mccanns never pointed me towards any evidence that maddie was still alive.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:13 jondipaolo
4:12
Twitter
jondipaolo:
Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:12 jondipaolo
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Twitter.htm
-
Considering that all leads were followed, as can be checked in the PJ files, and that you don't give any substantiated proof that Ricardo Paiva (one of Amaral's strongest supporters) ever said that, I recommend you read (or re-read) Mark Harrison's report, the expert suggested by the british detectives (Leicestershire) that were part of he task force.
At the time all decisions were made by portuguese and british police involved in the search, and the request for this expert to become involved was formally made by Guilhermino Encarnação (Faro's PJ director).
The report was made under the assumption that, according to the expertise, a murder had been committed, the reason why the dogs (those poor vilified beautiful creatures) were called...
As you will be able to read on that report, this expert was called after the McCann called upon Krueger and his "dead find" machine from South Africa.
So, implying that it was Amaral that initiated the search for a dead Maddie is a TOTAL LIE. It was the McCann that started it..
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html)
CALLING LUZ!!!!
CALLING LUZ!!!
CALLING LUZ!!
CALLING LUZ!
Just because the McCanns used Krueger does not mean they then proclaimed their child dead. Are you not capable of understanding/empathising with a couple who will try all options to get some idea of what happened to their child? Do you not see that the emotions will run from the darkest thoughts to the glimmer of hope?
It was not the McCanns proclaiming her death. They have always stated that they know that is a possibility but that they hope she is alive.
It wasn't even the PJ/AG who stated death as a fact. The archival report is clear that there is no knowledge whether she is alive or dead (though death is more probable).
It was Amaral who proclaimed the death of Madeleine. It was his team that divulged the completely erroneous information about DNA to the press. And it was Amaral in his book who sealed that claim and proclaimed the death as a certainty and that the parents covered it up.
-
The parents are only suspected to be involved in the concealment of the body.
-
The parents are only suspected to be involved in the concealment of the body.
Oh are you actually sure of that?
I think it is something that needs to be checked.
There may be truth in what you say, then again maybe not.
ps any chance you could respond to my question about transcripts here?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2202.270
-
I was ready to borrow an [ censored word] conspiracy hat there because odd for me, the tweets on a usually tidy sites are a mess...all over printed. You can read them when posted though. Then it would not let me post the whole thing on here. too many characters.
jondipaolo:
Paiva: mccanns never pointed me towards any evidence that maddie was still alive.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:13 jondipaolo
4:12
Twitter
jondipaolo:
Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 4:12 jondipaolo
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Twitter.htm
So you were wrong then Luz?
-
Until the McCann sued the Uk newspapers in March 2008, everyone of them had questioning articles about the McCann's role in the disappearance of their child.
After they had to pay them more than 550 000£ they made a 180º change of track. So cheap is the independence of information in the UK!
-
Until the McCann sued the Uk newspapers in March 2008, everyone of them had questioning articles about the McCann's role in the disappearance of their child.
After they had to pay them more than 550 000£ they made a 180º change of track. So cheap is the independence of information in the UK!
What does that ^^^^^^^^ have do to your claim that I was lying over Paivas words in Court? 8-)(--)
-
CALLING LUZ!!!!
CALLING LUZ!!!
CALLING LUZ!!
CALLING LUZ!
Just because the McCanns used Krueger does not mean they then proclaimed their child dead. Are you not capable of understanding/empathising with a couple who will try all options to get some idea of what happened to their child? Do you not see that the emotions will run from the darkest thoughts to the glimmer of hope?
It was not the McCanns proclaiming her death. They have always stated that they know that is a possibility but that they hope she is alive.
It wasn't even the PJ/AG who stated death as a fact. The archival report is clear that there is no knowledge whether she is alive or dead (though death is more probable).
It was Amaral who proclaimed the death of Madeleine. It was his team that divulged the completely erroneous information about DNA to the press. And it was Amaral in his book who sealed that claim and proclaimed the death as a certainty and that the parents covered it up.
Why do you hate Amaral so much? He was only one in a group of more than 150 inspectors, detectives, policemen, portuguese and british - Why do you insist on attributing to him happenings that were of the responsibility by others, namelly by the McCann themselves?!
Very early in the investigation, the Faro PJ director told the press that, even if the child had been kidnapped, by then she was probably dead because of the Media attention the parents had brought upon her and her identifying features.
Your focus in Amaral is not healthy. That's obsession, maybe you should check your psy.; just a sympathetic thought.
-
What does that ^^^^^^^^ have do to your claim that I was lying over Paivas words in Court? 8-)(--)
Who said I was responding to you?!!!!
-
Why do you hate Amaral so much? He was only one in a group of more than 150 inspectors, detectives, policemen, portuguese and british - Why do you insist on attributing to him happenings that were of the responsibility by others, namelly by the McCann themselves?!
Very early in the investigation, the Faro PJ director told the press that, even if the child had been kidnapped, by then she was probably dead because of the Media attention the parents had brought upon her and her identifying features.
Your focus in Amaral is not healthy. That's obsession, maybe you should check your psy.; just a sympathetic thought.
You forget that Amaral is the only one of these officers who was booted off the case for breaking the secrecy rule and talking to journalists.
You also forget that Amaral is the only one of these officers who decided to improve his honour and make a fortune from writing a speculative work about the case which proclaims the death of a missing little girl without there being any proof of that death and proclaims that the parents of that child hid the body and covered up the death of their daughter.
You also then forget that this Amaral went out of his way to laud the person who calls herself a profiler but can show no actual experience of ever having worked professionally on any actual case and who wrote a book which made up a stupid story about Gerry McCann carrying his daughters body through Heathrow in a rucksack.
You forget as well that this is the Amaral who has been connected to the horrendous antics of the Madeleine Foundation.
Those among other reasons are why I and others focus on this particular individual.
It is not an obsession at all. It is forum debate.
-
Who said I was responding to you?!!!!
So when will you respond to the fact that you were totally wrong about your claims concerning Amaral? Paiva proved you to be wrong. Don't you think you owe the forum an explanation?
-
You forget that Amaral is the only one of these officers who was booted off the case for breaking the secrecy rule and talking to journalists.
You also forget that Amaral is the only one of these officers who decided to improve his honour and make a fortune from writing a speculative work about the case which proclaims the death of a missing little girl without there being any proof of that death and proclaims that the parents of that child hid the body and covered up the death of their daughter.
You also then forget that this Amaral went out of his way to laud the person who calls herself a profiler but can show no actual experience of ever having worked professionally on any actual case and who wrote a book which made up a stupid story about Gerry McCann carrying his daughters body through Heathrow in a rucksack.
You forget as well that this is the Amaral who has been connected to the horrendous antics of the Madeleine Foundation.
Those among other reasons are why I and others focus on this particular individual.
It is not an obsession at all. It is forum debate.
No your focus on Amaral is because of your clear hatred for him.
A brief reminder, if needed.
He was far from the only one who believed the Mccanns were involved.
The mccanns also managed to break the secrecy laws through a variety of leaks by different people.
They clearly occurred on both sides.
-
You forget that Amaral is the only one of these officers who was booted off the case for breaking the secrecy rule and talking to journalists.
You also forget that Amaral is the only one of these officers who decided to improve his honour and make a fortune from writing a speculative work about the case which proclaims the death of a missing little girl without there being any proof of that death and proclaims that the parents of that child hid the body and covered up the death of their daughter.
You also then forget that this Amaral went out of his way to laud the person who calls herself a profiler but can show no actual experience of ever having worked professionally on any actual case and who wrote a book which made up a stupid story about Gerry McCann carrying his daughters body through Heathrow in a rucksack.
You forget as well that this is the Amaral who has been connected to the horrendous antics of the Madeleine Foundation.
Those among other reasons are why I and others focus on this particular individual.
It is not an obsession at all. It is forum debate.
It is more than obsession, it's a desperate attempt to blame someone in order to emotionally accept the unacceptable.
Any minimally informed person that reads your post sees clearly how deceiving you are being. You create false allegations, you distort facts, you create absurd accusations that only exist in your mind and of those colleagues of yours that chose to defame an innocent person in order to clean a couple that has many stains to explain.
-
So when will you respond to the fact that you were totally wrong about your claims concerning Amaral? Paiva proved you to be wrong. Don't you think you owe the forum an explanation?
No. I think you owe the Forum an apology for the inaccuracies you are passing as if fact.
If and when you prove the statements you make with documents I'll be the first to apologize to you.
-
No your focus on Amaral is because of your clear hatred for him.
A brief reminder, if needed.
He was far from the only one who believed the Mccanns were involved.
The mccanns also managed to break the secrecy laws through a variety of leaks by different people.
They clearly occurred on both sides.
I have outlined the clear reasons for mine and others focus on Amaral.
That you are unable to understand these reasons and choose to invent one of your own is quite pathetic.
-
I have outlined the clear reasons for mine and others focus on Amaral.
That you are unable to understand these reasons and choose to invent one of your own is quite pathetic.
No, not pathetic.
It clearly demonstrates that you have allegiance to the Mccanns and nothing else.
Very sad indeed.
-
How thickly can some minds function to the point of deceiving themselves?!
The reason Amaral was excused from Madeleine's case was political/diplomatic, nothing to do with breaches of the secrecy of justice. If there were leaks, and I believe there were, most certainly it weren't from him but from some undergraduate detective.,
Furthermore. an investigation "task-force" is not an army company where the soldiers are like machines obeying the commander's voice. An investigation group is a heterogeneous group with different skills and a certain degree of autonomy. The coordinator is what the title means; he/she manages the distribution of tasks according to the different skills of the team members and puts the results together. In the files, it's visible that almost all the documents were written by the team members and not Amaral. Yet, some people seem to believe that the coordinator was working alone.
One of the most damning reports for the McCann was the interim report, however I've never heard anyone protesting against it or the person that wrote it.
That's why I think that this obsession with Amaral is, if not deviously strategic, very pathological.
-
So when will you respond to the fact that you were totally wrong about your claims concerning Amaral? Paiva proved you to be wrong. Don't you think you owe the forum an explanation?
Obviously not one for saying sorry when she is proven wrong. >@@(*&)
-
Obviously not one for saying sorry when she is proven wrong. >@@(*&)
Hmm. I'm guessing that cherry-picking quotes and taking them out of context doesn't necessarily count as proof for some?
-
Hmm. I'm guessing that cherry-picking quotes and taking them out of context doesn't necessarily count as proof for some?
You have no clue but you jump in anyway.
8-)(--)
Fact is I stated Paiva said something at a previous part of the Trial.(Read my sig).
Luz said it was a lie.
I knew it wasn't and provided the tweet concerned. As did Gilet.
Luz was proved wrong and didn't like it hence no apology.
So no cherry picking at all.
-
Still no apology from Luz.... >@@(*&)