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: Angelo222 on January 08, 2015, 02:50:20 PM
-
By their actions they have given Amaral and the public perception against them legs. Far from damaging him they have raised him to a level which he could never previously have aspired to. They themselves have helped spread the knowledge of the book and its contents worldwide and still they have the audicity to name and blame him.
16
-
By their actions they have given Amaral and the public perception against them legs. Far from damaging him they have raised him to a level which he could never previously have aspired to. They themselves have helped spread the knowledge of the book and its contents worldwide and still they have the audicity to name and blame him.
They haven't had that effect on me - nor anyone else I know. In fact hardly any of the people I do know (and I know a lot) follow the case and wouldn't have a clue who Amaral was if I asked them.
People who think half the country is up in arms one way or another over this case are deluding themselves IMO.
-
They haven't had that effect on me - nor anyone else I know. In fact hardly any of the people I do know (and I know a lot) follow the case and wouldn't have a clue who Amaral was if I asked them.
People who think half the country is up in arms one way or another over this case are deluding themselves IMO.
That's two things we've agreed on in one day Benice 8)--))
-
By their actions they have given Amaral and the public perception against them legs. Far from damaging him they have raised him to a level which he could never previously have aspired to. They themselves have helped spread the knowledge of the book and its contents worldwide and still they have the audicity to name and blame him.
in reality only a few of the uk public have heard of the book......
-
They haven't had that effect on me - nor anyone else I know. In fact hardly any of the people I do know (and I know a lot) follow the case and wouldn't have a clue who Amaral was if I asked them.
People who think half the country is up in arms one way or another over this case are deluding themselves IMO.
Most people in Portugal would never have known about Amaral if it hadn't been for the McCann's own litigations. In pursuing him they have not only elevated him in the eyes of the Portuguese public but they have also managed to damaged their own credibility both in Portugal and in the UK. There must be times now when even they realise this and should the current litigation in Lisbon go against them then this can only get worse.
-
Most people in Portugal would never have known about Amaral if it hadn't been for the McCann's own litigations. In pursuing him they have not only elevated him in the eyes of the Portuguese public but they have also managed to damaged their own credibility both in Portugal and in the UK. There must be times now when even they realise this and should the current litigation in Lisbon go against them then this can only get worse.
I though Amaral was a best-selling author who frequently appeared on National TV to talk about the case and his book?
-
Most people in Portugal would never have known about Amaral if it hadn't been for the McCann's own litigations. In pursuing him they have not only elevated him in the eyes of the Portuguese public but they have also managed to damaged their own credibility both in Portugal and in the UK. There must be times now when even they realise this and should the current litigation in Lisbon go against them then this can only get worse.
And boy will the need some reputation management then.
Pity CM seems to have jumped ship.
-
The McCanns reputation in Portugal couldn't be worse (thanks to Amaral), the outcome of this case will make little difference to that.
-
The McCanns reputation in Portugal couldn't be worse (thanks to Amaral), the outcome of this case will make little difference to that.
As far as the libel case goes ... who can possibly predict what the outcome will be.
I feel that since the reopening of Madeleine's case under the imprimatur of the PJ and SY that there has been a subtle change in attitude and tone of foreign commentators ... I don't know if there has been a spin off to that in Portugal ... but that is the important case.
Should what happened to Madeleine be discovered by the current investigation ... reputations will be restored and reputations destroyed.
-
I think both books served to keep the story in the public eye but for very different reasons. I also think the Amaral book would not have been as widely read or disseminated had it not been for the attempt to ban it followed thereafter by the libel/damages trial.
I can appreciate the several reasons for publishing the Madeleine book but it was counterproductive to some extent as it also served to raise the profile of the McCann's antagonist, Gonçalo Amaral.
-
I think both books served to keep the story in the public eye but for very different reasons. I also think the Amaral book would not have been as widely read or disseminated had it not been for the attempt to ban it followed thereafter by the libel/damages trial.
I can appreciate the several reasons for publishing the Madeleine book but it was counterproductive to some extent as it also served to raise the profile of the McCann's antagonist, Gonçalo Amaral.
Which Madeleine book? The McCann one?
-
Most people in Portugal would never have known about Amaral if it hadn't been for the McCann's own litigations. In pursuing him they have not only elevated him in the eyes of the Portuguese public but they have also managed to damaged their own credibility both in Portugal and in the UK. There must be times now when even they realise this and should the current litigation in Lisbon go against them then this can only get worse.
I suspect the publication in Portugal of Amaral's own book might tend to give the lie to that ...
-
Which Madeleine book? The McCann one?
Yes, sorry, the one called 'Madeleine'.
-
Yes, sorry, the one called 'Madeleine'.
Ok, I knew it was a daft question. I don't think it was counterproductive, but a book was three years late (though a 2008 book wouldn't have had the same approach/text as the 2011 one).
-
The McCanns reputation in Portugal couldn't be worse (thanks to Amaral), the outcome of this case will make little difference to that.
The mccanns reputation in Portugal is due to their own stupidity, arrogance, the pursuit of Amaral and the MONEY....
-
Most people in Portugal would never have known about Amaral if it hadn't been for the McCann's own litigations. In pursuing him they have not only elevated him in the eyes of the Portuguese public but they have also managed to damaged their own credibility both in Portugal and in the UK. There must be times now when even they realise this and should the current litigation in Lisbon go against them then this can only get worse.
That's not true for the Portuguese. The original PJ team in general (with Amaral as its effective head) was portrayed as a hero by numerous blogs way before the book was published. Also by various PT tabloids, but many have disappeared in the interim, which makes it difficult to prove.
-
Does anyone know how many copies Kate's book has sold or the amount of money earned?
It's clear from the book, as explained in chapter 13, The Tide Turns, that Kate thinks the tide started turning with an article in a Portuguese newspaper on 30 June 2007 entitled Pact Of Silence. Well before Amaral's book.
Although Amaral's book seems to have been big, the TV special based on it probably had more impact.
Amaral has been on TV several time with respect to the case, but look at other sources. One of the big media sites in Portugal tracks how many stories on Madeleine it has, and those figures went through the roof in 2007 (and funnily enough in 2014, probably due to SY.)
I check the comments section or articles in Portuguese, and these are near 100% hostile to the McCanns. While the English sources have more pro-McCann comments, though I'm still seeing a clear majority of anti-McCann.
The book seems to have achieved it aims, raising money for the fund and keeping the incident high profile.
The book does have some things that are counterproductive. Omitting efits from the Smith sighting, chapter titles like No Stone Unturned, when there are plenty of unturned stones.
-
Does anyone know how many copies Kate's book has sold or the amount of money earned?
It's clear from the book, as explained in chapter 13, The Tide Turns, that Kate thinks the tide started turning with an article in a Portuguese newspaper on 30 June 2007 entitled Pact Of Silence. Well before Amaral's book.
Although Amaral's book seems to have been big, the TV special based on it probably had more impact.
Amaral has been on TV several time with respect to the case, but look at other sources. One of the big media sites in Portugal tracks how many stories on Madeleine it has, and those figures went through the roof in 2007 (and funnily enough in 2014, probably due to SY.)
I check the comments section or articles in Portuguese, and these are near 100% hostile to the McCanns. While the English sources have more pro-McCann comments, though I'm still seeing a clear majority of anti-McCann.
The book seems to have achieved it aims, raising money for the fund and keeping the incident high profile.
The book does have some things that are counterproductive. Omitting efits from the Smith sighting, chapter titles like No Stone Unturned, when there are plenty of unturned stones.
The aim in writing MADELEINE was to put money into the depleted Madeleine Fund and in this it was successful ... so from that point of view it was very productive indeed ... it raised the necessary capital and it kept Madeleine in the public conscience.
However I think that if the authorities had still been actively pursuing Madeleine's case at the time of writing making it unnecessary for her parents to have to finance their own search, the book would not have been written.
I find it interesting that the Portuguese hostility you comment on directed towards Madeleine's parents in articles and comments pages is so marked and wonder just how these opinions have been formed.
How many of the contributors have actually read 'Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie' and how much has opinion been formed by exposure to one sided coverage on the plethora of television programmes and chat shows, some of which we have briefly glimpsed.
There are a few examples of Portuguese TV programmes containing unashamed McCann bashing available on You Tube and that is probably the tip of the iceberg.
For example from memory, but take your pick there are many; one I watched was a panel discussion with Mr Amaral and Dr Paulo Sargento prominently featuring a learned discussion re a tennis bag, seated in front of a huge background subliminal image of Dr Gerry McCann on a golf course carrying a golf bag.
The programme did not feature anyone to put a different point of view ... or anyone to point out that no-one played golf on the holiday ... but subtle as well as not so subtle propaganda regarding Madeleine McCann's disappearance has been the norm in Portugal for nearly eight years.
So it is hardly surprising that public opinion has been steered against the Drs McCann.
I wonder if it is now pay back time for that;
if the judge did not already know of this near 100% hostility to the McCanns, I am sure she does now and it rather substantiates the claims they made about damage to their reputations to a judge who was puzzled that people didn't know they are innocent.
I think that without Madeleine's parents doing everything within their power to keep the investigation going into her disappearance ... the book being a huge part of that both from raising awareness and raising money ... was anything but counter productive.
It was a resounding success.
-
The aim in writing MADELEINE was to put money into the depleted Madeleine Fund and in this it was successful ... so from that point of view it was very productive indeed ... it raised the necessary capital and it kept Madeleine in the public conscience.
However I think that if the authorities had still been actively pursuing Madeleine's case at the time of writing making it unnecessary for her parents to have to finance their own search, the book would not have been written.
I find it interesting that the Portuguese hostility you comment on directed towards Madeleine's parents in articles and comments pages is so marked and wonder just how these opinions have been formed.
How many of the contributors have actually read 'Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie' and how much has opinion been formed by exposure to one sided coverage on the plethora of television programmes and chat shows, some of which we have briefly glimpsed.
There are a few examples of Portuguese TV programmes containing unashamed McCann bashing available on You Tube and that is probably the tip of the iceberg.
For example from memory, but take your pick there are many; one I watched was a panel discussion with Mr Amaral and Dr Paulo Sargento prominently featuring a learned discussion re a tennis bag, seated in front of a huge background subliminal image of Dr Gerry McCann on a golf course carrying a golf bag.
The programme did not feature anyone to put a different point of view ... or anyone to point out that no-one played golf on the holiday ... but subtle as well as not so subtle propaganda regarding Madeleine McCann's disappearance has been the norm in Portugal for nearly eight years.
So it is hardly surprising that public opinion has been steered against the Drs McCann.
I wonder if it is now pay back time for that;
if the judge did not already know of this near 100% hostility to the McCanns, I am sure she does now and it rather substantiates the claims they made about damage to their reputations to a judge who was puzzled that people didn't know they are innocent.
I think that without Madeleine's parents doing everything within their power to keep the investigation going into her disappearance ... the book being a huge part of that both from raising awareness and raising money ... was anything but counter productive.
It was a resounding success.
And how do you feel about the mirror-image of that propoganda that has been conducted in this country by the McCanns with the willing support of our MSM ? Where was the individual putting forward an alternative view when the reputation of Amaral, the PJ and the whole Portuguese nation was being trampled under foot ?
-
The aim in writing MADELEINE was to put money into the depleted Madeleine Fund and in this it was successful ... so from that point of view it was very productive indeed ... it raised the necessary capital and it kept Madeleine in the public conscience.
However I think that if the authorities had still been actively pursuing Madeleine's case at the time of writing making it unnecessary for her parents to have to finance their own search, the book would not have been written.
I find it interesting that the Portuguese hostility you comment on directed towards Madeleine's parents in articles and comments pages is so marked and wonder just how these opinions have been formed.
How many of the contributors have actually read 'Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie' and how much has opinion been formed by exposure to one sided coverage on the plethora of television programmes and chat shows, some of which we have briefly glimpsed.
There are a few examples of Portuguese TV programmes containing unashamed McCann bashing available on You Tube and that is probably the tip of the iceberg.
For example from memory, but take your pick there are many; one I watched was a panel discussion with Mr Amaral and Dr Paulo Sargento prominently featuring a learned discussion re a tennis bag, seated in front of a huge background subliminal image of Dr Gerry McCann on a golf course carrying a golf bag.
The programme did not feature anyone to put a different point of view ... or anyone to point out that no-one played golf on the holiday ... but subtle as well as not so subtle propaganda regarding Madeleine McCann's disappearance has been the norm in Portugal for nearly eight years.
So it is hardly surprising that public opinion has been steered against the Drs McCann.
I wonder if it is now pay back time for that;
if the judge did not already know of this near 100% hostility to the McCanns, I am sure she does now and it rather substantiates the claims they made about damage to their reputations to a judge who was puzzled that people didn't know they are innocent.
I think that without Madeleine's parents doing everything within their power to keep the investigation going into her disappearance ... the book being a huge part of that both from raising awareness and raising money ... was anything but counter productive.
It was a resounding success.
I am getting the idea, perhaps wrongly, that you think that I fit into pro-McCann mould or anti-McCann mould, when I fact I do neither.
Technically, I am not even pro-Madeleine. Did I just say that ? Ouch!
I happen to be pro-evidence, wherever said evidence should lead.
Therefore - fact. Sentiment in Portugal happens to be strongly anti-McCann. This proves NOTHING except that sentiment in Portugal is strongly anti-McCann. It does NOT relate to the evidence in the case.
And - fact. The book made money plus it kept the case high profile, so at least we agree on that. Neither pro-McCann or anti-McCann, and it has a very limited relevance to the case. Compare and contrast the actual statements (to which Kate had plentiful access) and Kate's book on those very same statements and I can say without fear of censure that Kate varied between poor and sloppy on the details.
I can accuse her of no more. I have no evidence to accuse her of more. Poor to sloppy on the details.
So, what can we agree on? We appear to agree on the ideas that the book made money for the fund and kept Madeleine high profile.
I choose to disagree that it was necessary to make money for the fund. I choose this on the basis that I cannot yet see whatever is beneficial the fund may have found out, though I am aware that it appears to have ignored perfectly good information (the Smith sighting) because the McCanns preferred (?) the Tanner sighting.
No stone unturned? If only some of the unturned stones were turned over, we might make some progress.
-
Some wag (that is wag not W.A.G) suggested it was a defence document looking for a trial.
If that is the case wait and see!
-
I am getting the idea, perhaps wrongly, that you think that I fit into pro-McCann mould or anti-McCann mould, when I fact I do neither.
Technically, I am not even pro-Madeleine. Did I just say that ? Ouch!
I happen to be pro-evidence, wherever said evidence should lead.
Therefore - fact. Sentiment in Portugal happens to be strongly anti-McCann. This proves NOTHING except that sentiment in Portugal is strongly anti-McCann. It does NOT relate to the evidence in the case.
And - fact. The book made money plus it kept the case high profile, so at least we agree on that. Neither pro-McCann or anti-McCann, and it has a very limited relevance to the case. Compare and contrast the actual statements (to which Kate had plentiful access) and Kate's book on those very same statements and I can say without fear of censure that Kate varied between poor and sloppy on the details.
I can accuse her of no more. I have no evidence to accuse her of more. Poor to sloppy on the details.
So, what can we agree on? We appear to agree on the ideas that the book made money for the fund and kept Madeleine high profile.
I choose to disagree that it was necessary to make money for the fund. I choose this on the basis that I cannot yet see whatever is beneficial the fund may have found out, though I am aware that it appears to have ignored perfectly good information (the Smith sighting) because the McCanns preferred (?) the Tanner sighting.
No stone unturned? If only some of the unturned stones were turned over, we might make some progress.
One of those posts which really did make me smile ... and another point for agreement is that the value of your blog is your even handed approach and your determination on the value of evidence and your relentless search for it.
You remind me a bit of one of my favourite posters here whose analytical mind is second to none and who is tireless in rooting out information.
You sound a bit miffed that I may be pinning labels on you; please be assured that I would not be so presumptive; I think what you may be tapping into is 'respect'.
I hope I haven't damaged your 'street cred' in the process particularly as I have a particular dislike of arbitrary labels.
I am also of the opinion you are a very valuable poster here because of what you can tell us first hand about the environs of PDL and the opinions of the people you speak with.
You say that ... "sentiment in Portugal is strongly anti-McCann. It does NOT relate to the evidence in the case."
If the feeling is anti-McCann but not related to the case ... what is it related to ... and do you have any idea what caused them to form it?
Initially we are told people were very sympathetic. Why did that change?
You seem to think the book adds nothing to the case, I am in agreement and I don't think it was ever meant to; however I am not convinced about the 'sloppiness' of what was written in comparison to the statements (which I take to be the PJ files) for the simple reason she had access to files we have not seen and the translations she used were professional, payment for which was another necessary drain on the fund.
We must also agree to disagree on the value of keeping the fund going for two reasons
(a) we do not know what information the PIs may have uncovered. We do know the files from these source were passed to Operation Grange.
(b) I think the authorities here and in Portugal may have been shamed by the fact that the family of a missing child had been forced to employ people to do what they should have been doing.
It acted as a lever to have the case reviewed with the result that resources not available to the private sector were put in place with the decision to reopen the case.
Without that pressure provided by the fund and parents who were not going away ... I don't think that would have happened.
Another point of disagreement is the Smith sighting ... have you found any independent evidence to substantiate their account?
I think you will find that the majority of people make the assumption the sighting was reported contemporaneously with Jane Tanner's.
I know I did.
I was therefore bemused at the delay in contacting the police to make the report.
It is also worth remembering that the PJ and SY had the referred to efits.
Nevertheless the Smith sighting was not ignored by Dr McCann ...
Kate McCann's book "Madeleine" (hardback):-
Kate McCann devotes no fewer than 4 pages in her book to the significance of the Smith sighting – pp 98, 328-329 & 365
She says:-
Quote:
“The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primaria were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all). The only reason for their skepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. To me, the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing”.
She goes on to remark on the similarities between these two completely independent sightings saying
Quote:
“(…remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts.”
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting
I think it possible that stones are not being moved at the moment because of the shake up in the judicial system where current cases are being prioritised ... we shall just have to wait it out.
-
A challenge for you, Brietta. Your mission, should you wish to accept it:
January 2008: the papers mention the 10pm sighting, and Mitchell is quoted talking about it (briefly).
May 2009: It's featured in Madeleine was here.
Can you find any mention between those dates?
-
One of those posts which really did make me smile ... and another point for agreement is that the value of your blog is your even handed approach and your determination on the value of evidence and your relentless search for it.
You remind me a bit of one of my favourite posters here whose analytical mind is second to none and who is tireless in rooting out information.
You sound a bit miffed that I may be pinning labels on you; please be assured that I would not be so presumptive; I think what you may be tapping into is 'respect'.
I hope I haven't damaged your 'street cred' in the process particularly as I have a particular dislike of arbitrary labels.
I am also of the opinion you are a very valuable poster here because of what you can tell us first hand about the environs of PDL and the opinions of the people you speak with.
You say that ... "sentiment in Portugal is strongly anti-McCann. It does NOT relate to the evidence in the case."
If the feeling is anti-McCann but not related to the case ... what is it related to ... and do you have any idea what caused them to form it?
Initially we are told people were very sympathetic. Why did that change?
You seem to think the book adds nothing to the case, I am in agreement and I don't think it was ever meant to; however I am not convinced about the 'sloppiness' of what was written in comparison to the statements (which I take to be the PJ files) for the simple reason she had access to files we have not seen and the translations she used were professional, payment for which was another necessary drain on the fund.
We must also agree to disagree on the value of keeping the fund going for two reasons
(a) we do not know what information the PIs may have uncovered. We do know the files from these source were passed to Operation Grange.
(b) I think the authorities here and in Portugal may have been shamed by the fact that the family of a missing child had been forced to employ people to do what they should have been doing.
It acted as a lever to have the case reviewed with the result that resources not available to the private sector were put in place with the decision to reopen the case.
Without that pressure provided by the fund and parents who were not going away ... I don't think that would have happened.
Another point of disagreement is the Smith sighting ... have you found any independent evidence to substantiate their account?
I think you will find that the majority of people make the assumption the sighting was reported contemporaneously with Jane Tanner's.
I know I did.
I was therefore bemused at the delay in contacting the police to make the report.
It is also worth remembering that the PJ and SY had the referred to efits.
Nevertheless the Smith sighting was not ignored by Dr McCann ...
Kate McCann's book "Madeleine" (hardback):-
Kate McCann devotes no fewer than 4 pages in her book to the significance of the Smith sighting – pp 98, 328-329 & 365
She says:-
Quote:
“The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primaria were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all). The only reason for their skepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. To me, the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing”.
She goes on to remark on the similarities between these two completely independent sightings saying
Quote:
“(…remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts.”
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting
I think it possible that stones are not being moved at the moment because of the shake up in the judicial system where current cases are being prioritised ... we shall just have to wait it out.
One thing we have to remember is that by the time Kate wrote Madeleine she had no choice but to mention the Smith sighting but notice how it is only mentioned in the context of the, preferred, Tanner sighting, a sighting SY have dismissed as having no relevance.
-
A challenge for you, Brietta. Your mission, should you wish to accept it:
January 2008: the papers mention the 10pm sighting, and Mitchell is quoted talking about it (briefly).
May 2009: It's featured in Madeleine was here.
Can you find any mention between those dates?
I'm not at all interested in taking up challenges, Lyall, particularly ones which I consider involve an irrelevance ... Dr McCann was convinced enough to mention the Smith sighting in her book ... but I think the incident may be one which will self destruct if it hasn't already done so.
Who knows?
-
Some wag (that is wag not W.A.G) suggested it was a defence document looking for a trial.
If that is the case wait and see!
Countering a lot of online theories.