It has become very apparent, in my opinion that the support offered to the Mccanns by some people goes way above what I would call reasonable and logical behaviour.
No matter how many reverses the Mccanns have suffered through the court system, and it is their behaviour which triggered the case, the support still exists, but in a diminishing number of people.
Likewise, excuses are always offered for their behaviour, but it never stacks up in both logic and common sense terms.
So why does it continue ?
perhaps it is your idea of what reasonable or logical behaviour is...I find the persecution of the McCanns to be unreasonable and illogical
Of course.
You would say nothing else.
The behaviour of the Mccanns was both unreasonable and illogical.
The mccanns negligent behaviour led to this case.i would say the behavior of those who criticise them is unreasonable and illogical
There is no going away from that.
As to why some people offer unconditional support to them is another question, and part of the reason why I suggested this thread title.
i would say the behavior of those who criticise them is unreasonable and illogical
Is cult strong enough?
I think it goes way beyond that Slarti.
probably not for the cult who spend much of their time criticising them
A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object:
Is cult strong enough?
Nope, doesn't fit the sceptics.
so you think your definition fits the supporters
slarti has supplied the definition of a cult as being
A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object:
and the described supporters behaviour as beyond a cult.
backtracking
Does this help ?
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
These bits you mean.
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged even punished.
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself.
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary.
It has become very apparent, in my opinion that the support offered to the Mccanns by some people goes way above what I would call reasonable and logical behaviour.
No matter how many reverses the Mccanns have suffered through the court system, and it is their behaviour which triggered the case, the support still exists, but in a diminishing number of people.
Likewise, excuses are always offered for their behaviour, but it never stacks up in both logic and common sense terms.
So why does it continue ?
It has become very apparent, in my opinion that the support offered to the Mccanns by some people goes way above what I would call reasonable and logical behaviour.
No matter how many reverses the Mccanns have suffered through the court system, and it is their behaviour which triggered the case, the support still exists, but in a diminishing number of people.
Likewise, excuses are always offered for their behaviour, but it never stacks up in both logic and common sense terms.
So why does it continue ?
I support the McCanns because I absolutely detest injustice
I support the McCanns because I absolutely detest injustice
Do you spread your detestation far and wide or do you specialise in the McCanns?
What injustice ?
It was Madeleine who suffered.
Do you spread your detestation far and wide or do you specialise in the McCanns?
It has become very apparent, in my opinion that the support offered to the Mccanns by some people goes way above what I would call reasonable and logical behaviour.
Please give specific examples of the above.
No matter how many reverses the Mccanns have suffered through the court system, and it is their behaviour which triggered the case, the support still exists, but in a diminishing number of people.
Please quantify the above allegation giving specific examples.
Likewise, excuses are always offered for their behaviour, but it never stacks up in both logic and common sense terms.
The McCanns have to live every day of their lives with the knowledge that they were dining while someone was stealing their daughter ~ you don't ~ and neither do the 3,111.
To what specific behaviour are you referring?
So why does it continue ?
Why does what continue? ... the daily rite of vilification of the McCanns?
if you have to ask the question you would not understand the answer
i wish I was...supporter of the opressed yes
The mccanns aren't oppressed.
FAR FROM IT.
The mccanns aren't oppressed.
FAR FROM IT.
I have yet to see you once criticize the mccanns behaviour in Portugal, or criticize or admit the nature of some people supporting the mccanns , who abuse others.
You have started a thread ... using a post making assertions and allegations ... one can only assume your refusal to clarify and substantiate what you claim, is you quite simply cannot because what you claim has absolutely no substance.
You have made an accusation of cult like behaviour ... please be prepared to substantiate that claim ... or I suggest you consider withdrawing it.
Any reason one can think of why the thread originator is unable to substantiate the claim he has made?
No, I will not withdraw what people can plainly see in the behaviour exhibited by various parties.
I note for example, as per usual, your refusal to answer my questions to you.
I have yet to see you once criticize the McCann's behaviour or that of some of their followers who abuse others.
Do not deny it happens.
Examples have been given on this forum on several occasions.
No, I will not withdraw what people can plainly see in the behaviour exhibited by various parties.
I note for example, as per usual, your refusal to answer my questions to you.
I have yet to see you once criticize the McCann's behaviour or that of some of their followers who abuse others.
Do not deny it happens.
Examples have been given on this forum on several occasions.
Substantiate your claim ... if you cannot please desist from making spurious, insulting acclamations directed at fellow members and have the decency to withdraw a clearly misguided belief.
It has become very apparent, in my opinion that the support offered to the Mccanns by some people goes way above what I would call reasonable and logical behaviour.
No matter how many reverses the Mccanns have suffered through the court system, and it is their behaviour which triggered the case, the support still exists, but in a diminishing number of people.
Likewise, excuses are always offered for their behaviour, but it never stacks up in both logic and common sense terms.
So why does it continue ?
39
Support for the McCann family is no different from the support enjoyed by Goncalo Amaral but to infer that it is akin to a cult status is somewhat of an exaggeration.
I'm only going to post this once. I have allowed this thread on the basis that the topic subject could be of interest to some. If however posters continue to use this thread as some sort of platform to have a go then I will delete this thread in its entirety.
Admin
I have no association with a cult of any description and find it an offensive definition.
Support for the McCann family is no different from the support enjoyed by Goncalo Amaral but to infer that it is akin to a cult status is somewhat of an exaggeration. That said however, there are fanatical individuals on both sides who pursue their individual allegiances with great fervour and passion to the exclusion of all else.
That surely cannot be healthy?
i think stephens talk of cults shows how poorly he understands the situation
I understand the situation very clearly.
Make no mistake about that.
There is no doubt that the activities of some supporters can be viewed as fanatical, obsessive, devoted and infatuated, even radical, but that is not in the least unusual or surprising given the power of social media these days.
A cult following is a group of fans who are highly dedicated to something even having a small but very passionate fanbase. A common component of cult followings is the emotional attachment the fans have to the object of the cult following, often identifying themselves and other fans as members of a community.
Certainly I prefer the label cult follower to that of troll.
i personally dont think it is healthy for mcann supporters to be so dedicated to the mcanns the mcanns are adults and can defend themselves as can GA everybodys intrest should be maddie she IS the victim and she gets forgotten by all the focus on the adults
I replied to give my opinion of you Stephen, who is so wound up that people support the McCann's you have to wonder why. My reason is simple, they are innocent, Madeleine is out there somewhere and needs to be found and the person who took her brought to justice.
You don't know who is innocent or not in this case.
Madeleine will not be found alive. That has been my prediction as it has others for years.
You type 'needs to be found'.
That is part of the mccann mantra we have heard from the mccanns, and completely meaningless.
You don't know who is innocent or not in this case.
Madeleine will not be found alive. That has been my prediction as it has others for years.
You type 'needs to be found'.
That is part of the mccann mantra we have heard from the mccanns, and completely meaningless.
Your prediction? well that is hardly one you can be proud about is it? Everyone knows she may be dead Stephen, and in all likelihood she is, but until she is found no one knows for sure.
Madeleine does need to be found, as any missing child needs to be found, how is that meaningless? I find your response very odd, if a child disappeared in the UK expected of being abducted, would you say that finding this child is meaningless? tell that to all the parents of the missing.
Your prediction? well that is hardly one you can be proud about is it? Everyone knows she may be dead Stephen, and in all likelihood she is, but until she is found no one knows for sure.
Madeleine does need to be found, as any missing child needs to be found, how is that meaningless? I find your response very odd, if a child disappeared in the UK expected of being abducted, would you say that finding this child is meaningless? tell that to all the parents of the missing.
Contradiction lace.
'needs to be found'.
That cliche has been rolled out thousands of times.
she hasent been found for 9 years ..........
And?
so most likley she wont be imo
Support for neither the McCanns nor Amaral has reached 'cult status'.
There are those who believe in the rule of law (McCann-supporters) and there are those who uphold the 'right' of citizens to trample rough-shod over the rule of law (Amaral-supporters); precious little in between (so far as I can judge).
Seems the Appeal Court in Lisbon doesn't agree with you.
Your prediction? well that is hardly one you can be proud about is it? Everyone knows she may be dead Stephen, and in all likelihood she is, but until she is found no one knows for sure.
Madeleine does need to be found, as any missing child needs to be found, how is that meaningless? I find your response very odd, if a child disappeared in the UK expected of being abducted, would you say that finding this child is meaningless? tell that to all the parents of the missing.
The Portuguese prosecutors certainly do. The McCanns were made arguidos (nearest English equivalent, questioned under caution); then the status was dropped (because the Portuguese prosecutors were satisfied the McCanns had no case to answer).
That is untrue, the case was archived because insufficient evidence existed to charge anyone. The AG never cleared anyone.
Seems the Appeal Court in Lisbon doesn't agree with you.
I have offered a considered analysis of the appeal-court ruling elsewhere (on this board).
I have offered a considered analysis of the appeal-court ruling elsewhere (on this board).
Support for neither the McCanns nor Amaral has reached 'cult status'.
There are those who believe in the rule of law (McCann-supporters) and there are those who uphold the 'right' of citizens to trample rough-shod over the rule of law (Amaral-supporters); precious little in between (so far as I can judge).
Supporter's seem to have issues with the laws of Portugal, however.
Yet they were elated when the law was in the mccanns favour, until the appeals of course.
I always said Mr Amaral would win in the end and I was proven right.
I always said Mr Amaral would win in the end and I was proven right.
Now about this cult status claim, my own view is that both Amaral and the McCanns have people who 'follow' them who think they are in a cult of some form or other.
I always said Mr Amaral would win in the end and I was proven right.
Now about this cult status claim, my own view is that both Amaral and the McCanns have people who 'follow' them who think they are in a cult of some form or other.
The end?
(Incidentally, some people on the side of truth and justice (for the McCanns!) also predicted Amaral would win the libel trial).
He should have.
The first judges judgement was flawed.
I always said Mr Amaral would win in the end and I was proven right.
Now about this cult status claim, my own view is that both Amaral and the McCanns have people who 'follow' them who think they are in a cult of some form or other.
those who talk of dogma and mantras certainly do sound cultish
Supporter's seem to have issues with the laws of Portugal, however.
That Portuguese law places no requirement on ex police officers to keep quiet about cases they have been involved in, especially as recently as just a handful of months before publication of a book on the subject, does seem bizarre.
That Portuguese law places no requirement on ex police officers to keep quiet about cases they have been involved in, especially as recently as just a handful of months before publication of a book on the subject, does seem bizarre.
What they actually said was;
The facts were already in the public arena because the files had been released and;
They had been widely discussed in the media [because of the parents], so;
It made no sense to say Amaral shouldn't give his interpretation too.
I have posted what they actually said ....
You did indeed and you interpreted it as;
And for these judges to hold that even serving police officers should not feel under any obligation to obey judicial secrecy surely demonstrates them incompetent, biased, or even corrupt?
Re: Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.
« Reply #2393 on: May 15, 2016, 04:16:01 PM »
Which is clearly not what they said. I posted more or less what they said, simplified so as not to be misunderstood. The facts were no longer secret, so the judges were not 'incompetent, biased or even corrupt';
it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
There is no evidence as to anyone that would stand up in court.
Unless of course someone confesses to what really happened that night.
You did indeed and you interpreted it as;
And for these judges to hold that even serving police officers should not feel under any obligation to obey judicial secrecy surely demonstrates them incompetent, biased, or even corrupt?
Re: Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.
« Reply #2393 on: May 15, 2016, 04:16:01 PM »
Which is clearly not what they said. I posted more or less what they said, simplified so as not to be misunderstood. The facts were no longer secret, so the judges were not 'incompetent, biased or even corrupt';
it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
Thousands of people have to keep secrets about what happened in their jobs. Lawyers, Teachers, Doctors, Counsellors, Police Officers, etc etc. Why should Amaral be different?
You can't keep secrets that aren't secret.
Quite. When is a secret not a secret? When it's been splashed all over the media worldwide and when the official record is available for all to read.
You did indeed and you interpreted it as;
And for these judges to hold that even serving police officers should not feel under any obligation to obey judicial secrecy surely demonstrates them incompetent, biased, or even corrupt?
Re: Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.
« Reply #2393 on: May 15, 2016, 04:16:01 PM »
Which is clearly not what they said. I posted more or less what they said, simplified so as not to be misunderstood. The facts were no longer secret, so the judges were not 'incompetent, biased or even corrupt';
it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
GA did not break the judicial secrecy laws and even if he did in the tiniest inconsequential technical way by passing his manuscript over to a lawyer or publisher, this is nothing to do with the mccanns orignal writ so why all the fuss about JS
Yes, we know Mercury.
However, not everyone understands that, it seems.
And to boot the complaint about breaking judicial secrecy made years ago by the mccanns pt lawyer was chucked out of court so seems doubly bizarre to focus on this now imo which makes me think...well, not sure tbh
&%+((£
@)(++(*
Err, I thought the complaint here was about GA breachng it by his book publishing, pt police breaking judicial secrecy with press leaks is a whole different ballgame and a whole new thread
Just seen this is the cult thread, we do all get muddled but such is life suppose, sometimes off topic has no meanng as its all intertwined tis it not?
Lol
Eta btw your third and fourth paras have no connect in logic or the argument, you will have to spell it out especially as it zero to do with the writ
Nothing muddled.
The quirk (in Portuguese law) seems to be that because Amaral quit the PJ there is no legal bar on him breaching judicial secrecy.
As far as I'm aware, it's not disputed that he breached judicial secrecy.
Nothing muddled.
The quirk (in Portuguese law) seems to be that because Amaral quit the PJ there is no legal bar on him breaching judicial secrecy.
As far as I'm aware, it's not disputed that he breached judicial secrecy.
The semantically accurate description of what Amaral's book does.
Why do you have a problem with that?
I believe we know the answer to that one.
Why would I have a problem with it ?
I know neither Sr Amaral nor the McCanns.
I just am amazed at people getting in a muck sweat about things they have not a hope in hell of changing, wondering when they will realise same ..............
Then of course there is the psychological thingy of why people seemingly imagine they are part of some extended family of those they support; hurt my extended family hurt me form a laager .........................
Cue abuse from supporters. A bit like wasps really.
Why would I have a problem with it ?
I know neither Sr Amaral nor the McCanns.
I just am amazed at people getting in a muck sweat about things they have not a hope in hell of changing, wondering when they will realise same ..............
Then of course there is the psychological thingy of why people seemingly imagine they are part of some extended family of those they support; hurt my extended family hurt me form a laager .........................
Cue abuse from supporters. A bit like wasps really.
I see Sharon Osbourne on her talk show in America has lambasted the McCann's.
Excellent.
That report is in the Mirror.
Why would I have a problem with it ?
I know neither Sr Amaral nor the McCanns.
I just am amazed at people getting in a muck sweat about things they have not a hope in hell of changing, wondering when they will realise same ..............
Then of course there is the psychological thingy of why people seemingly imagine they are part of some extended family of those they support; hurt my extended family hurt me form a laager .........................
Cue abuse from supporters. A bit like wasps really.
Do you not get a sense of moral outrage at injustice?
Do you perceive injustice?
talking of cults...has anyone seen the latest picture of St Amaral being crucified ...depicting like Jesus...serious cult status
no things like that dont intrest me why do you go looking for trouble?
It's anything to deflect Carly.
It's anything to deflect Carly.
What deflection? Perhaps you should remind yourself of the thread title?
Depicting Amaral in the same way as Christ i.e. being crucified on the cross - could not be more cult-like if it tried.
Whoever made and posted that picture obviously worships the man - to go to those extremes.
IMO
It's anything to deflect Carly.
talking of cults...has anyone seen the latest picture of St Amaral being crucified ...depicting like Jesus...serious cult status
it is your thread re cult status....I'm giving you an example....you obviously don't like it
As a reminder, the thread title was altered from my original.
Second, I have stated Amaral made mistakes, hardly a viewpoint of a cultist.
However, it is fragrantly obvious which people and sites are, on both extremes.
Do you not agree dave ?
you must visit really strange ...web pages....
mind you jesus sacrificed a lot ......same as G A ...for his truth seeking
where as with the mccs .it was maddie...her safety ....her right to be protected ...left helpless...to her fate by her own so called parents
Would that be in the same way Benice as those who worship the mccanns then ?
I know which forums that applies to. 8)--))
excuses..excuses...the thread has totally backfired on you . Where are your examples of posters worshiping the McCanns...i have provided an absolute hoot
Can you cite a similar example of cult worship of the McCanns - to the one posted re Amaral?
i don't visit any strange websites...it was on .....2...I wouldn't call taht site strange
You really walked into this one Benice. 8)--))
Nigel Nessling, devout mccann supporter.
Just for starters.
Claims that Madeleine signifies the second coming of Christ.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/madeleine-and-rennes-le-chateau-part-3/
I think the reason G A ....has such a following...not a cult ....but sympathisers ...
who know he was unjustly treat and does not deserve ...what is said and has been done to him....
all he did was his job as a policeman.....
now as for the mccs doing there job ....they didn't ....G A is a thorn in there side ....he knows the truth...
All he did was his job as a policeman? No, he wrote a book about his theory, and made it sound like fact.
It was a thesis Lace, and it was a shared one.
Thesis/theory, he wrote about what he thought had happened to Madeleine, with the added 'calpol' wrong understanding of the DNA and added hints about the McCann's, such as when Gerry was nervous waiting for the phone call from a person who said he knew where Madeleine was, Amaral accused him of knowing it would be a false lead, he also said that dogs were barking because of a burglary by his home, and suggested the burglars had the wrong house, insinuating he thought they had meant to burgle his home. Show me where any of this is in the files.
More pertinently, show me where the theory of accidental death has been disproved.#
#
It hasn't been proven to be true as it? Now point me in the direction to where all the accusations that Amaral brings into his book are in the files.
So how do the mccann supporters on here respond to those like Nessling and his cult beliefs ?
Or don't they count as he is McCann supporter ? 8**8:/:
I haven't a clue who nessling is....and I'm sure I'm not the only one
All he did was his job as a policeman? No, he wrote a book about his theory, and made it sound like fact.
Made it sound like fact? how do you do that then?
I never heard anyone who has read the book think they were reading about the 'McCanns dunit' They managed to establish it was a thesis based on an enquiry. But, oh well, if you didn't get that then then he should be hang by the neck till he be dead... Or perhaps you should get someone to read it as it should be read- As a Thesis!
Amaral states things as facts
He does not talk about a thesis
Only in supporters heads, other people like myself know it to be a Thesis. Not one I agree with I have to say, but I still see it as it is.
The Book is called "The Truth of the Lie" for god sake! What does 'the truth' mean in this instance? It's only a thesis about the truth?
A book that purports to tell the truth cannot also be a thesis.What did the appeal court find on this point? The book is a theorem, that largely reflects the thinking when Amaral was removed.
What did the appeal court find on this point? The book is a theorem, that largely reflects the thinking when Amaral was removed.He should have picked a more equivocal title then, the unpleasant little man - that's my opinion btw, so no need to ask for a cite.
He should have picked a more equivocal title then, the unpleasant little man - that's my opinion btw, so no need to ask for a cite.
I don't know what you think the title means, but I found an explanation by a Portuguese person;
Hi I'm Portuguese and the title is Truth of the Lie. This is an old phrase in Portuguese which basically means every lie has some truth and when you find the truth of the lie, you're extracting the truthful part of a deceptive story. That's the best way I can explain it. It makes perfect sense in Portuguese.
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/maddie-truth-of-lie.html
You really walked into this one Benice. 8)--))
Nigel Nessling, devout mccann supporter.
Just for starters.
Claims that Madeleine signifies the second coming of Christ.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/madeleine-and-rennes-le-chateau-part-3/
I don't know what you think the title means, but I found an explanation by a Portuguese person;And your point is?
Hi I'm Portuguese and the title is Truth of the Lie. This is an old phrase in Portuguese which basically means every lie has some truth and when you find the truth of the lie, you're extracting the truthful part of a deceptive story. That's the best way I can explain it. It makes perfect sense in Portuguese.
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/maddie-truth-of-lie.html
Thankyou for the link.
I am not a Christian but as far as I know Armageddon and the 'second coming' are believed by billions of people worldwide who do not consider themselves to be part of a cult.
The subject of the article is Armageddon and is an interesting observation of modern day 'major events' in the world which the author relates and connects to the prophecies in the Bible regarding the apocalypse and the 2nd coming.
Madeleine's case can without doubt be described as a 'major event' as it is known about worldwide (and is still being discussed 10 years later) - and in the opinion of the author is another example of those events which he believes bear out those biblical prophecies.
As I said I am not a Christian so it doesn't work for me. But as the author is obviously a committed christian who believes in the Bible I can see where he is coming from. IMO his theory is intriguing, very well-researched and is backed up with cites. Whether it is correct or not - is matter of opinion.
However, there is nothing in the article which even hints that any of the McCann family should be worshipped - or compared to God.
AIMHO
And your point is?
No point, just an answer to your post 153.In what way do you think it answers my post 153 in which I said he should have chosen a more equivocal title? It is clear from the title alone that he believes that the McCanns are involved in a deception to do with their child's disappearance and that his book supposedly extracts the truth from the deception. He is not claiming this as a thesis but as a fact.
In what way do you think it answers my post 153 in which I said he should have chosen a more equivocal title? It is clear from the title alone that he believes that the McCanns are involved in a deception to do with their child's disappearance and that his book supposedly extracts the truth from the deception. He is not claiming this as a thesis but as a fact.
Made it sound like fact? how do you do that then?
I never heard anyone who has read the book think they were reading about the 'McCanns dunit' They managed to establish it was a thesis based on an enquiry. But, oh well, if you didn't get that then then he should be hang by the neck till he be dead... Or perhaps you should get someone to read it as it should be read- As a Thesis!
Some need reminding the cause of Madeleine's disappearance is undetermined.
In what way do you think it answers my post 153 in which I said he should have chosen a more equivocal title? It is clear from the title alone that he believes that the McCanns are involved in a deception to do with their child's disappearance and that his book supposedly extracts the truth from the deception. He is not claiming this as a thesis but as a fact.
In what way do you think it answers my post 153 in which I said he should have chosen a more equivocal title? It is clear from the title alone that he believes that the McCanns are involved in a deception to do with their child's disappearance and that his book supposedly extracts the truth from the deception. He is not claiming this as a thesis but as a fact.
Have you read his book? watched the video? at the start of the video it is said they are going to say 'what really happened'. So is that fact or not?
Amaral goes about blackening the McCann's names all the way through his book, he argues about the DNA stating that how come the parts of the DNA match Madeleine, he accuses Gerry of knowing that a person was falsely claiming to know where Madeleine was, and hints that burglars were meant to have burgled his house for his briefcase but went to a house near him instead, also when his wife finds his dog dead, he thinks to himself as he can't bury his dog the ground is too hard [he throws it in the bin] how easily it would be to dispose of a body in a bin. His wife when finding the dog dead begs him to leave the case as it is too dangerous, hinting that someone had killed his dog to get at him. He also mentions another family who was being investigated as their child was missing but they failed to hide some bloody evidence and were caught.
Very craftily done but all the same he points at the McCann's all the way through, he describes Gerry as being cold and someone points out 'well he is a heart surgeon and cuts people up before breakfast' or similar words, Gerry isn't a heart surgeon as Amaral should have known, but it makes the readers think he is cold and ruthless doesn't it?
He doesn't stick to the files and slyly gives an impression of the McCann's as being these cold calculated people who would throw their child in a bin.
Reading his book, I would no doubt say that a lot of readers would believe what he says and think his understanding of the facts were true.
Excellent post Lace. IMO sly inuendo is prolific throughout the book - not to mention the actual lies , half truths and lies by omission. An example of all those are in his Chapter where he described Madeleine's crying incident. He even changes the date from the 3rd to the 2nd May - to make it fit in with what he wants his readers to believe.
AIMHO
You asked a question;Perhaps you should have quoted the correct post of mine, instead of quoting my post #158, which is where the confusion has arisen. In any case my question was rhetorical, but you surely knew that.
The Book is called "The Truth of the Lie" for god sake! What does 'the truth' mean in this instance? It's only a thesis about the truth?
I gave you a definition of this Portuguese expression. If that's not what you wanted then make your posts clearer.
LOL, so the court has determined that Amaral's lies are now indeed facts and therefore not libel, I see...
but it is a fact ....it is not libel..............
LOL, so the court has determined that Amaral's lies are now indeed facts and therefore not libel, I see...
it is back on sale isnt it ......
not libel,I see...........................................said the blind man to his deaf daughter
Perhaps you should have quoted the correct post of mine, instead of quoting my post #158, which is where the confusion has arisen. In any case my question was rhetorical, but you surely knew that.
but it is a fact ....it is not libel..............
No his book is not fact.
Libellous to accuse Gerry of knowing that a caller saying he knew where Madeleine was, was in fact lying.
Libellous to insinuate that the McCann's would drug their daughter to help her sleep, that type of Calpol wasn't on sale until the September of that year.
All the rest is sly innuendos and sly accusations.
Sorry, Alfie...my eyesight lol. You ask so many questions it's hard to know which are rhetorical and which aren't. I thought an answer from a Portuguese person about a Portuguese figure of speech was interesting, but if you prefer to make up your own explanation fair enough.My interpretation of the title and your explanation of the quaint little Portuguese saying are practically the same, so I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make.... &%+((£
sez you.......
the book is on sale sweet heart ........................whether you like it or not ...
passed by three judges
Lets hope it's put in the fiction section, because that is what it is 'sweetheart'.
Glad then are you that the police investigation has been whittled down into a book full of twisted facts and innuendos, so as to line an ex policeman's pocket and blacken the name of the parents of a missing child. It has done its worse now, as some people believed it and no doubt a lot of people think Madeleine is dead, and who knows what information may have been handed in by people who may have read his book and decided not to bother as Amaral said she was dead.
What an embarrassment he must be to the detectives who are working along side SY trying to find out what has happened to Madeleine, and who have not questioned the McCann's proving that they are not following Amaral's theory.
Lets hope it's put in the fiction section, because that is what it is 'sweetheart'.
Glad then are you that the police investigation has been whittled down into a book full of twisted facts and innuendos, so as to line an ex policeman's pocket and blacken the name of the parents of a missing child. It has done its worse now, as some people believed it and no doubt a lot of people think Madeleine is dead, and who knows what information may have been handed in by people who may have read his book and decided not to bother as Amaral said she was dead.
What an embarrassment he must be to the detectives who are working along side SY trying to find out what has happened to Madeleine, and who have not questioned the McCann's proving that they are not following Amaral's theory.
One minute the PJ are 'working alongside', another they're carrying out a 'joint investigation' or are they 'blocking' SY's final lead? I guess it depends on the point one is attempting to make. @)(++(*A Plod Firewall you mean? @)(++(*
I think there is a team who respond to requests made by UK police and a completely separate group who are investigating the case.
No his book is not fact.
Libellous to accuse Gerry of knowing that a caller saying he knew where Madeleine was, was in fact lying.
Libellous to insinuate that the McCann's would drug their daughter to help her sleep, that type of Calpol wasn't on sale until the September of that year.
All the rest is sly innuendos and sly accusations.
At the moment I think it might be libelous to accuse Amaral of libel. He can, at the moment, prove that he did no such thing under the laws of his country.@)(++(* Are you trying to stifle debate?
If Madeleine was found tomorrow and her abductor apprehended, Amaral would still not be guilty of libel according to the laws of his country it seems. If someone else is found guilty of taking her then do the McCanns get to sue him all over again?
Mr. Mantra time again.
So is it Mr. Spotty Face ?
Mr. Dirty Face ?
Or Jane Tanner's Mr. No Face.
The list seems endless..........
You seem to have narrowed it down to three
Not really.
There's Mr. Swarthy Type, The two Mr. Blond Hairs, seen staring at the apartment. 8**8:/:
Ms. Victoria Beckham lookalike, and so on and so forth.
Some say abductions not possible but you've identified 7 suspects
Great work
At the moment I think it might be libelous to accuse Amaral of libel. He can, at the moment, prove that he did no such thing under the laws of his country.
I'm not in his country - and under the laws of my country - the UK - 'innuendo' can be considered to be defamatory.
Quote from Carter-Ruck
The onus is on the claimant to show the facts giving rise to the innuendo and that these facts are known to the readers. For example, to say that a person eats meat is not defamatory on its face; if, however, some readers know that the person professes to be a committed vegetarian, the statement may be considered defamatory, suggesting he is hypocritical or dishonest.
The words must be put in their full context, including headings and captions to any photographs. For the purpose of deciding whether words are defamatory, the intention of the author is irrelevant. All that matters is the impression which the words give to readers.
End quote
I'm not in his country - and under the laws of my country - the UK - 'innuendo' can be considered to be defamatory.
Quote from Carter-Ruck
The onus is on the claimant to show the facts giving rise to the innuendo and that these facts are known to the readers. For example, to say that a person eats meat is not defamatory on its face; if, however, some readers know that the person professes to be a committed vegetarian, the statement may be considered defamatory, suggesting he is hypocritical or dishonest.
The words must be put in their full context, including headings and captions to any photographs. For the purpose of deciding whether words are defamatory, the intention of the author is irrelevant. All that matters is the impression which the words give to readers.
End quote
Unless he publishes his book in the UK your opinion matters not a jot. Are you sure that quote is from Carter Ruck btw?No one's opinion matters a jot.
No one's opinion matters a jot.
If Madeleine was found tomorrow and her abductor apprehended, Amaral would still not be guilty of libel according to the laws of his country it seems. If someone else is found guilty of taking her then do the McCanns get to sue him all over again?
Is there enough money in the fund for that ?
Is there enough money in the fund for that ?if not, I'm sure there'd be quite a few willing to help out ;-)
if not, I'm sure there'd be quite a few willing to help out ;-)
There don't appear to be many on here.what would you know about it?
what would you know about it?
From previous threads.you mean the goading one started by Faithlilly? As if any supporter here is going to play along with her games.
There don't appear to be many on here.can you work out how they have managed to raise millions with so little support
can you work out how they have managed to raise millions with so little supportDonations from the first year before their accouhts were laid bare by the papers
Donations from the first year before their accouhts were laid bare by the papers
Libel threats
The book and
Sun serialisation of it
Thats the vast majority
So if the McCanns have little support then the book wouldn't sell too well
How many copies were sold
Wasn't it the number one best seller at one stage
you mean the goading one started by Faithlilly? As if any supporter here is going to play along with her games.
False argument, buying a book never means support for the author, god forbid
And changng goalposts, tryand follow the argument if you can
I would disagree the book sales confirm support
Did you buy it
Why not
Because you wouldn't want to give money to the mccanns
So, you are saying people only bought the book to support the McCanns?Am I
I would disagree the book sales confirm support
Did you buy it
Why not
Because you wouldn't want to give money to the mccanns
I would disagree the book sales confirm support
Did you buy it
Why not
Because you wouldn't want to give money to the mccanns
Yes I did, see, you are WRONG lol
Id buy any crime book i was nterested in, never means i support any suspect in the story, so wrong again
If youre honest it was bound to be a best seller for a whole host of reasons
You could be just saying you bought to make a point
if not, I'm sure there'd be quite a few willing to help out ;-)
Drifting off topic yet again ... Reminder, "Has support for the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral reached cult status?"
Why would the McCann's deserve money.
They set in motion this case.
Drifting off topic yet again ... Reminder, "Has support for the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral reached cult status?"
Just to clarify the McCanns are totally innocent full stop
And anyone who think they aren't is barmy
Hope I've made myself clear
Have you actually seen the amount of money that has been donated to the fund in recent years ?Have the McCanns been actively soliciting funding for the last few years? In any case I wasn't talking about masses of small donations to help them pursue Amaral for libel in the event of an abductor being found guilty of Madeleine's disappearance, just that there are I'm sure a few benfactors that might be happy to help them out.
I can't see that total rising substantially now the public know the money is not being used specifically for the search.
Yes when people say things such as...
Have the McCanns been actively soliciting funding for the last few years? In any case I wasn't talking about masses of small donations to help them pursue Amaral for libel in the event of an abductor being found guilty of Madeleine's disappearance, just that there are I'm sure a few benfactors that might be happy to help them out.
Have the McCanns been actively soliciting funding for the last few years? In any case I wasn't talking about masses of small donations to help them pursue Amaral for libel in the event of an abductor being found guilty of Madeleine's disappearance, just that there are I'm sure a few benfactors that might be happy to help them out.
Have the McCanns been actively soliciting funding for the last few years? In any case I wasn't talking about masses of small donations to help them pursue Amaral for libel in the event of an abductor being found guilty of Madeleine's disappearance, just that there are I'm sure a few benfactors that might be happy to help them out.
Really ? Then why are they using the fund ATM ?Because they can, and because there are sufficient funds I expect.
Because they can, and because there are sufficient funds I expect.
Because they can, and because there are sufficient funds I expect.
Because they can, and because there are sufficient funds I expect.
Lets hope it's put in the fiction section, because that is what it is 'sweetheart'.
Glad then are you that the police investigation has been whittled down into a book full of twisted facts and innuendos, so as to line an ex policeman's pocket and blacken the name of the parents of a missing child. It has done its worse now, as some people believed it and no doubt a lot of people think Madeleine is dead, and who knows what information may have been handed in by people who may have read his book and decided not to bother as Amaral said she was dead.
What an embarrassment he must be to the detectives who are working along side SY trying to find out what has happened to Madeleine, and who have not questioned the McCann's proving that they are not following Amaral's theory.
So do you think that even though they have someone willing to foot their legal bills they are still using the fund meant to pay investigators to look for their child to do this?dMaybe, who knows? Perhaps they don't like to ask or take offers of help until or unless the situation gets desperate.
dMaybe, who knows? Perhaps they don't like to ask or take offers of help until or unless the situation gets desperate.
no you are wrong there ............G A ....didn't have to blacken there name they did that all by themselves
you seem to except things very easily regarding the mccs ...
to even think that anyone reading the book would be brain washed into stop looking for maddie...or not report any info they had ... 8**8:/:
.the people reading the book i would say were doubters anyway...but can make up there own minds....
after all ....the only thing usually published is...abduction ...abduction sightings ....suspects ...etc etc....
and as for G A being an embarrassment ....what would you call below....a pic of maddie two and a half...and if you didn't know different you would think it was a lottery cheque ..they were holding up ......
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/SyS0o5iTePI/AAAAAAAAHKU/X6PbCmsGNdQ/s1600/Gerry+McCann,+Kate+McCann+and+Brian+Ashton.jpg
Tell me how their name was blackened to the extent of being accused of knowing someone was lying about knowing where Madeleine was? That is absolutely disgusting, and hinting to the readers that Gerry knew where Madeleine was because he had hidden her. Tell me how their name was blackened before the book with regard to the Calpol, letting readers imagine they drugged their children to make them sleep, when that type of Calpol was not a sedative, the sleep Calpol wasn't on the market until the September. Tell me how they blackened their name before the book came out, to the extent that Amaral hinted at - swinging, drugging, lying, hiding Madeleine's body, being cold and uncaring.
The leaving them alone had been investigated and sorted there was 'no intent' eg they did not want anything to happen to Madeleine they thought she was safe.
You say people reading the book were doubters anyway, well I wasn't and I read it. Don't you understand what a difference it would have made coming from the Police Officer that had been the co-ordinator of the investigation? He wasn't just an ordinary member of the public writing a book was he.
Madeleine wasn't 2 and a half in that picture, it was a photo of her from the Christmas before so she was 3 and 7 months. It was to help the search for Madeleine, would you have come up with a better idea in which to get her face circulated and remembered in peoples minds?
and no relevance to Portuguese Law.
You appear to have missed the point I was making.
My post was in reply to G-units post
Quote
At the moment I think it might be libelous to accuse Amaral of libel. He can, at the moment, prove that he did no such thing under the laws of his country.
Unquote
I pointed out that in the UK - under our own laws - 'Innuendo' can be considered to be defamatory and IMO it is not libelous in this country for posters to point out the examples of such 'innuendo' in Amarals book.
If - as G-unit believes - it may be breaking the libel laws of this country to do that - then an explanation as to which part of our Libel law is being broken needs to be explained.
I am no 'legal eagle' and am quite happy to cease commenting on this subject if it is breaking our libel laws to do so. At the moment I do not believe it is.
.
AIMHO
If you tell lies about someone that's defamation. If Amaral went to the trouble to track you down and sue you in this country it would be up to you to prove that you were writing the truth when you accused him of libel. It would be interesting to see how you think you could prove that.
The proof is in his book for all to see - which is why UK publishers won't touch it with a bargepole.
IMO
The proof is in his book for all to see - which is why UK publishers won't touch it with a bargepole.
IMO
The proof is in his book for all to see - which is why UK publishers won't touch it with a bargepole.
IMO
It may be obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to the Portuguese Courts. Your opinion of Amaral's book doesn't constitute proof, you would need to be able to prove that he libeled the McCanns. As his conclusions matched those of the investigation as at September 2007 that would be difficult imo.
The leaving them alone had been investigated and sorted there was 'no intent' eg they did not want anything to happen to Madeleine they thought she was safe.
they thought it safe.....like when she left the twins after maddie had gone ....she thought it safe ....
like when they put twins in creche ,,,they thought it safe ...
even going out the country and leaving twins ..she thought it safe ...
only difference ...according to her there was an abductor....[could have been one of the staff]
but she still thought it safe ....that is because ...it was....
It may be obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to the Portuguese Courts. Your opinion of Amaral's book doesn't constitute proof, you would need to be able to prove that he libeled the McCanns. As his conclusions matched those of the investigation as at September 2007 that would be difficult imo.
This isn't the topic we were discussing but still. Kate searched the apartment for Madeleine there was no abductor hiding there he was long gone, so safe enough to leave and hurry to alert Gerry.
The crèche opened to all parents there weren't just the twins going, they wanted to keep everything normal for them, do you honestly think one of the nannies would abduct the twins from the crèche? it would be a bit obvious wouldn't it? twins gone, nanny gone!!!
They left the twins with relatives when they left the country.
His conclusions yes, but that was only part of his book wasn't it?
no you are wrong there ............G A ....didn't have to blacken there name they did that all by themselves
you seem to except things very easily regarding the mccs ...
to even think that anyone reading the book would be brain washed into stop looking for maddie...or not report any info they had ... 8**8:/:
.the people reading the book i would say were doubters anyway...but can make up there own minds....
after all ....the only thing usually published is...abduction ...abduction sightings ....suspects ...etc etc....
and as for G A being an embarrassment ....what would you call below....a pic of maddie two and a half...and if you didn't know different you would think it was a lottery cheque ..they were holding up ......
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/SyS0o5iTePI/AAAAAAAAHKU/X6PbCmsGNdQ/s1600/Gerry+McCann,+Kate+McCann+and+Brian+Ashton.jpg
how do you know ......you will have to wait and see won't you
or has all the U K publishers told you personally ...they wont touch it with a barge pole....
It may be obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to the Portuguese Courts. Your opinion of Amaral's book doesn't constitute proof, you would need to be able to prove that he libeled the McCanns. As his conclusions matched those of the investigation as at September 2007 that would be difficult imo.
Have the UK publishers told you personally that they intend to publish the book?
Unless the version we have has been completely wrongly translated from beginning to end - there is not a chance that a UK publisher will publish it - because it breaks our country's libel laws.
IMO
Kate searched the apartment for Madeleine there was no abductor hiding there he was long gone, so safe enough to leave and hurry to alert Gerry.
new the abductor was long gone .........how the hell did she know it was safe........
Ah....so r u saying ..she knew he had been gone about three quarters of an hour...like after the 9 15 check or what ...to know he was long gone
how could she know ...when maddie was suppose to have been taken .....
it could have been a couple of minutes before ....and he was returning for twins .....
So you think he would return for the twins when Kate was screaming in the road that Madeleine was gone do you, Kate searched the apartment there was no abductor.I'm sure you're right - no abductor.
I'm sure you're right - no abductor.
On you go then. If his opinions were also shared by his colleagues they're not his, remember, they are the investigation's opinions. If his colleagues testified that they all agreed with him he was simply reporting the thoughts of the investigation, based on the clues and facts available to the investigators.
I'm sure you're right - no abductor.
No, he'd ran off with Madeleine.
If you look at all the facts in the case abduction really is the only option
Hardly.
Likewise, absolutely no evidence, which can't be explained by other scenarios.
He was reporting the thoughts of the investigation with added sly comments and accusations of his own. If you read his book [which I presume you have] you will acknowledge that he sneaks in his accusations such as Gerry knowing the informant was lying, well how would Gerry know that? well according to Amaral he wasn't one bit bothered waiting for a call from the person who said he knew where Madeleine was, he was sucking a lolly and joking. So, what do you gather from that? Gerry didn't care, Gerry knew it was lies, Gerry knew where Madeleine was. Now take the Calpol, Amaral says they give Calpol to the children for them to sleep, so what do you take from that? They were uncaring parents only caring about themselves and the fact that they wanted to go out and so they were prepared to drug their children in order to do so, so they would also hide the body of Madeleine as they didn't want anyone to find out they had done that. Then the dog dying, 'oh Amaral it is too dangerous for you to carry on, please leave the case' in other words, the McCann's are on to you they killed our dog, it's a warning. The burglary, 'makes me wonder if they had the wrong house' oh so the McCann's had arranged a burglary to steal Amaral's papers to find out how the investigation was going, they really are ruthless aren't they. Add in the swinging, the coldness etc. etc. and you have the readers thinking that actually these McCann's sound as though they are guilty.Damn right, and well said!
You can see where all the 'nasty cold evil McCann's' come from can't you, where the 'McCann's have help they know people in high places' comes from.
Amaral wrote a book on the case, yes he did, but he also added his own take on the whole thing.
Damn right, and well said!
He was reporting the thoughts of the investigation with added sly comments and accusations of his own. If you read his book [which I presume you have] you will acknowledge that he sneaks in his accusations such as Gerry knowing the informant was lying, well how would Gerry know that? well according to Amaral he wasn't one bit bothered waiting for a call from the person who said he knew where Madeleine was, he was sucking a lolly and joking. So, what do you gather from that? Gerry didn't care, Gerry knew it was lies, Gerry knew where Madeleine was. Now take the Calpol, Amaral says they give Calpol to the children for them to sleep, so what do you take from that? They were uncaring parents only caring about themselves and the fact that they wanted to go out and so they were prepared to drug their children in order to do so, so they would also hide the body of Madeleine as they didn't want anyone to find out they had done that. Then the dog dying, 'oh Amaral it is too dangerous for you to carry on, please leave the case' in other words, the McCann's are on to you they killed our dog, it's a warning. The burglary, 'makes me wonder if they had the wrong house' oh so the McCann's had arranged a burglary to steal Amaral's papers to find out how the investigation was going, they really are ruthless aren't they. Add in the swinging, the coldness etc. etc. and you have the readers thinking that actually these McCann's sound as though they are guilty.
You can see where all the 'nasty cold evil McCann's' come from can't you, where the 'McCann's have help they know people in high places' comes from.
Amaral wrote a book on the case, yes he did, but he also added his own take on the whole thing.
Meanwhile , there is kate mccanns, 'sorry for me' book.
That wore very thin, quite a while ago.
It seems to have really annoyed you
Have the UK publishers told you personally that they intend to publish the book?
Unless the version we have has been completely wrongly translated from beginning to end - there is not a chance that a UK publisher will publish it - because it breaks our country's libel laws.
IMO
So you think he would return for the twins when Kate was screaming in the road that Madeleine was gone do you, Kate searched the apartment there was no abductor.
Kate searched the apartment for Madeleine there was no abductor hiding there he was long gone, so safe enough to leave and hurry to alert Gerry.
what i said was ..how do you know k mcc thought the abductor was long gone.....why would she think that ...or how would she know that....
she wasn't screaming in the road either ........she ran to the tapas bar
Kate searched the apartment, she didn't find Madeleine or an abductor, so wouldn't you come to the conclusion the abductor wasn't there, that he had gone?
As soon as Kate was in sight of the Tapas Bar she was screaming that Madeleine had gone.
Kate searched the apartment, she didn't find Madeleine or an abductor, so wouldn't you come to the conclusion the abductor wasn't there, that he had gone?
As soon as Kate was in sight of the Tapas Bar she was screaming that Madeleine had gone.
right now ......my conclusion is there wasn't an abductor in the first place....
she returned to the tapas bar .......not screaming when in sight........
you continue to prefer putting it in your own words ....as though it happened that way ....
in reality you don't know that ...unless you were told it personally ...
Read the statements.
I have said several times taht this case hinges on whether kate is telling the truth and in order to investigate it the police have to make that decision. Amaral thought no mainly because he didnt understand the evidence. SY think they are...as I do.....SY are investigating in portugal and has said the McCanns are not suspects. That reinforces my view that Kate is telling the truth
So which members of SY are currently in Portugal ?
Since, it is abundantly clear the investigation is winding down and going nowhere.
It is a matter of fact, the last known people to see Madeleine are the Mccanns.
same as the Needham case...parents are innocent...same as the Needham case
He was reporting the thoughts of the investigation with added sly comments and accusations of his own. If you read his book [which I presume you have] you will acknowledge that he sneaks in his accusations such as Gerry knowing the informant was lying, well how would Gerry know that? well according to Amaral he wasn't one bit bothered waiting for a call from the person who said he knew where Madeleine was, he was sucking a lolly and joking. So, what do you gather from that? Gerry didn't care, Gerry knew it was lies, Gerry knew where Madeleine was. Now take the Calpol, Amaral says they give Calpol to the children for them to sleep, so what do you take from that? They were uncaring parents only caring about themselves and the fact that they wanted to go out and so they were prepared to drug their children in order to do so, so they would also hide the body of Madeleine as they didn't want anyone to find out they had done that. Then the dog dying, 'oh Amaral it is too dangerous for you to carry on, please leave the case' in other words, the McCann's are on to you they killed our dog, it's a warning. The burglary, 'makes me wonder if they had the wrong house' oh so the McCann's had arranged a burglary to steal Amaral's papers to find out how the investigation was going, they really are ruthless aren't they. Add in the swinging, the coldness etc. etc. and you have the readers thinking that actually these McCann's sound as though they are guilty.
You can see where all the 'nasty cold evil McCann's' come from can't you, where the 'McCann's have help they know people in high places' comes from.
Amaral wrote a book on the case, yes he did, but he also added his own take on the whole thing.
parents are innocent ....
well they say if you say it enough times you end up believing it ..
who you trying to convince ...us or yourself....
because ....you can't say they are ....until the SY investigation finish ...you don't know what the outcome will be ....
as said before ....P J said they were not suspects .....
I'm not trying to convince anyone...just stating a fact
its only....... a fact ......to you
Do you really believe that
You think I am the only person who can see the truth
I would say the overwhelming vast majority of the country think Maddie was abducted including Hopkins an osborne
Actually dave, when people are presented with the facts, i.e. no evidence of abduction, they know where to put the blame.
Presented with lies is more like it
Both Osborne and Hopkins believe Maddie was abducted and therefore believe the McCanns are not involved in any crime
Presented with lies is more like it
Both Osborne and Hopkins believe Maddie was abducted and therefore believe the McCanns are not involved in any crime
You are exactly right xtina and davel is exactly wrong though he wishes he wasnt lol
this is what i mean ........
its only your opinion ..
.what you like to believe....
of what they think
but neither of them said that did they .....
just you.....
Presented with lies is more like it
Both Osborne and Hopkins believe Maddie was abducted and therefore believe the McCanns are not involved in any crime
Exactly dave 8((()*/
Was Gerry sucking a lolly and joking? I think I've seen a photo of that. Was sedation of the children mentioned? Oh yes, Kate McCann mentioned it when her twins slept too well. I don't know who mentioned swinging, was that Amaral? Did they have help in high places? Well, not every parent of a missing child gets phone calls from Tony and Cherie Blair and Gordon Brown. Child abduction abroad is dealt with at Consular level usually, Ambassadors don't get involved in such matters. The Foreign Office doesn't normally provide press officers. Finally, Amaral was not the only one to notice an atypical emotional response.
Have you asked Hopkins and Osbourne what they believe ?
Please cite where they have stated abduction.
Bottom line, there is Sweet Foxtrot Alpha to show abduction, and you typing it, won't change a thing.
Sharon Osbourne clearly believes that Madeleine was abducted.What does Ms. Osbourne know about the case, other than the mccanns left their children alone whilst they consumed alcohol and ate ?
This is an excerpt from what she said during an US show called The Talk - (on Youtube) explaining why she made those comments.
Quote
.............. a case I cited to educate young girls who were not looking at the news when Maddie was taken - cos they were too young..............................
End quote
Please give a link to the photo of Gerry sucking a lolly and joking. Even if he was, Amaral took that as being unconcerned, when maybe Gerry was joking with friends who rang up to lighten the mood, he was a joker apparently and it is the way some overcome stress. Yet Amaral took the way Gerry behaved as suspicious, that he knew it was a hoax -
Quote from Amaral's book -One day, we were all together at the PJ in Portimão – inspectors and negotiators, members of Scotland Yard and the Leicestershire police – waiting for a contact to define the place and the conditions for the handing over of the money in Holland; when the tension was at its height and we were all holding our breath, Gerald McCann displayed a nonchalance that surprised all of the police officers present, including the English. The atmosphere got heavier as the waiting drew out, but McCann, relaxed, was reading trivia on the internet and discussing rugby and football with the English police, while licking a lollipop. On the telephone, he laughed with friends who called him. Perhaps this was nervousness; sometimes it’s totally displaced, given what is at stake at the time. His attitude shocked. When, two days later the dutch police informed us that the individual had been arrested, that he was not holding any information and had lied from start to finish with the sole objective of extorting money from the couple, we were not surprised. End of quote
'We were not surprised' Amaral said, what does that tell the readers?
As for the Calpol, it was Amaral who said the McCann's give it to the children to help them sleep, Kate McCann said they didn't give the children any medication to help them sleep. Kate's father when asked if the McCann's give the children any medication he replied he had only ever seen them give Madeleine Calpol, which is what is given to children for fever, or pain, Amaral jumped on that to claim that they had given Madeleine Calpol to help her sleep when it is not a sedative the Calpol Sleep wasn't sold until September.
As to the help the McCann's received, what other British couple who have lost a child abroad are you comparing this case with?
Quote
What does Ms. Osbourne know about the case, other than the mccanns left their children alone whilst they consumed alcohol and ate ?
Does she know there is no evidence of abduction ?
8)-)))
If I had been present at the time I would have been shocked too. It all depends on what you think is appropriate behaviour for the father of a child who could be on the verge of being found, doesn't it?
Amaral mentioned Calpol, anti-histamines and sedation. Why concentrate on just one of them, I wonder?
Kerry Needham asked The British Embassy for help but was refused. It took three months for an FLO to be provided by SY police.
http://www.helpfindben.co.uk/history.html
You asked for a cite where they had stated 'abduction'. I gave you a cite from Sharon Osbourne stating 'abduction'. i.e. in her own words .... ''when Maddie was taken''. If that isn't enough to answer your request then I can't help you.
If I had been present at the time I would have been shocked too. It all depends on what you think is appropriate behaviour for the father of a child who could be on the verge of being found, doesn't it?
Amaral mentioned Calpol, anti-histamines and sedation. Why concentrate on just one of them, I wonder?
Kerry Needham asked The British Embassy for help but was refused. It took three months for an FLO to be provided by SY police.
http://www.helpfindben.co.uk/history.html
You have failed to answer my question.
What does Ms. Osbourne know about the case ?
Try answering that before you type more mantra.
LOL what mantra are you talking about? You asked for a cite and I gave you a cite. And you didn't even say thankyou.
If you want to know why Sharon Osbourne believes Madeleine was abducted - you need to ask her not me.
In other words, you don't know.
When did she use the word 'abduction' by the way ?
I have never claimed to know what Sharon Osbourne's reasons are to believe ''Maddie was taken.'' You asked for a cite and I gave you one. The end.
In the context of what Sharon was saying - if you don't believe that 'Maddie was taken' means the same as 'Maddie was abducted' - then you need to explain why.
Why do I need to explain why ?
She did not use the word abducted, did she ?
Why do I need to explain why ?
She did not use the word abducted, did she ?
She said ''Maddie was taken'' - so what do you think Sharon meant by that - if she didn't mean 'abducted'. Do tell.
You are playing with words .
Now answer the point in my last post as regards lack of evidence as regards accidental death.
You have yet to answer that once.
So here goes, do you accept that even without the forensic corroboration, there is the possibility of accidental death.
YES or NO ?
So back to the original thread title dave.
Do you aprove of those cultists who support the mccanns or Amaral ?
Why should it goad you dave ?
You were quite happy to call other people trolls who don't support the mccanns.
no I wasn't...more tosh....I have no problem with people not supporting the mccanns ...I think those who post the mccanns should suffer for the rest of their miserable lives...are more than a bit sad...that's a troll
how many people have said that? Then
One, & she's dead (right).
One, & she's dead (right).
I was thinking there was another who used the phrase but I don't think Davel is calling her a troll.
do you support the use of such tweets
I certainly do. Because I believe in freedom of expression, & the right to an opinion, because I'm not a left wing Nazi.
do you support the use of such tweets
Q “how long must the McCanns suffer” answer “for the rest of their miserable lives”.’
He deserves to be miserable and feel fear."
I see little difference between:-
And
I see little difference between:-
And
Kate was in a desperate situation having lost her daughter....Brenda wasn't...that's the diference. Its revealing that you condone such attacks
Kate was in a desperate situation having lost her daughter....Brenda wasn't...that's the diference. Its revealing that you condone such attacksCorrect. Kate perceived that Amaral was obstructing the search for her missing child, and not only that but also trying to pin the blame on her. What suffering had the McCanns ever caused to Brenda FGS?! How would most normal people feel about some jumped-up cop accusing them of something they hadn't done and not making any serious attempt to look for their missing child? Probably exactly the same as Kate.
Correct. Kate perceived that Amaral was obstructing the search for her missing child, and not only that but also trying to pin the blame on her. What suffering had the McCanns ever caused to Brenda FGS?! How would most normal people feel about some jumped-up cop accusing them of something they hadn't done and not making any serious attempt to look for their missing child? Probably exactly the same as Kate.
Kate was in a desperate situation having lost her daughter....Brenda wasn't...that's the diference. Its revealing that you condone such attacks
Correct. Kate perceived that Amaral was obstructing the search for her missing child, and not only that but also trying to pin the blame on her. What suffering had the McCanns ever caused to Brenda FGS?! How would most normal people feel about some jumped-up cop accusing them of something they hadn't done and not making any serious attempt to look for their missing child? Probably exactly the same as Kate.
Correct. Kate perceived that Amaral was obstructing the search for her missing child, and not only that but also trying to pin the blame on her. What suffering had the McCanns ever caused to Brenda FGS?! How would most normal people feel about some jumped-up cop accusing them of something they hadn't done and not making any serious attempt to look for their missing child? Probably exactly the same as Kate.
I see three possibilities in this case.
1. McCanns innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
2. McCann's involved in some way in their daughter's disappearance.
3. Nobody Knows for sure if it's 1 or 2.
I am a 3 leaning towards 2 but still accepting the possibility of 1.
Because of my stance arguments relying solely on 1 make no sense because 1 hasn't been proved.
Saying that Kate dislikes Amaral because she's innocent only makes sense if you are a 1.
Saying that Kate dislikes Amaral because she's guilty only makes sense if you are a 2.
As a 3, either is possible because neither 1 or 2 has been proved to be true in my opinion.
I know the McCanns handed the dossier to the police because they said so. When did they say they had handed the dossier to Sky News? Cite please.
Amaral wasn't doing his job IMO. Instead of looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion like a professional policeman would - he came to a conclusion first and then spent his time trying to fit the evidence to suit that one conclusion - quite often by cherry picking the info he did have (the dogs) - and by the inclusion of gossip (the fridge) - not to mention a dream - which apparently changed the whole course of the investigation.
Does that sound like a professional policeman 'doing his job'? I beg to differ. I reckon SY would too.
AIMHO
p.s if you can provide the evidence that the McCanns passed the dossier to Sky News - then fair enough. If you can't then I suggest you stop making that claim.
(must go out now)
The dossier compilers handed it to the Police. The compilers were therefore in contact with the McCann's. No dossier compiler has come forward to say they passed it to Sky News, and it therefore it went to Sky wit the McCanns complicity.
Amaral, along with the PJ did their job.
Just remember the UK police told the PJ to investigate the Mccanns, before the 'instructions' changed, to protect the Mccanns.
As to SY, if they were doing a professional job as you call it, they would be o vestige ting all logical scenarios.
what do you mean by proved...i would say on the balance of probabilities it has been proved
Balance of probabilities means more likely than not, even if the balance is 51% for v. 49% against. Not completely convincing then.
So what level of proof are you referring to in your post
The dossier compilers handed it to the Police. The compilers were therefore in contact with the McCann's. No dossier compiler has come forward to say they passed it to Sky News, and it therefore it went to Sky wit the McCanns complicity.
Amaral, along with the PJ did their job.
Just remember the UK police told the PJ to investigate the Mccanns, before the 'instructions' changed, to protect the Mccanns.
As to SY, if they were doing a professional job as you call it, they would be o vestige ting all logical scenarios.
Members are reminded that the topic of the thread from which we seem to have strayed is ...
"Has support for the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral reached cult status?"
Members are reminded that the topic of the thread from which we seem to have strayed is ...
"Has support for the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral reached cult status?"
Well, let's see, Amaral has recently been depicted as if Christ, crucified on the cross.
Does that help at all?
O wad some Power the giftie gie us. To see oursels as ithers see us!
To a Louse:
Robert Burns
I don't think this was well thought out at all by the photoshopper. Did he do Mr Amaral any favours by sticking his head incongruously on an image of the body of the crucified Christ? Not in my opinion ... and I am not sure how it will go down amongst the faithful in Catholic Portugal where I'm sure some will recognise it as blasphemous.
Out of the same stable as the one with rays of rainbow light emanating from Mr Amaral's head I think.
However, in conjunction with many comments littering the internet such images certainly give the distinct impression of a quasi-religious cult built around Mr Amaral and his works.
Ok, let me get this straight. One person on the internet has photoshopped something silly ...please explain how you make such a quantum leap from that lone one person action to the conclusion that Amaral has a cult status. Maybe you should get out more?
maybe the person who did the photoshop should get out moreThat is probably true but doesnt excuse quantum illogical leaps, thanks for the input lol