Defamation and defamatory ...

[ferryman]

The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless.  It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008.  As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?

****

Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case, diverting with other questionable at best  issues doesnt cut the mustard at all

So you tend to the view that it hasn't been refuted outright that Kate's father "contradicted" Kate and Gerry on Madeleine being given sedatives?

Or that Almeida's references to "findings" of cadaver scent are contradicted by both Grime and Harrison, who both make plain that there was no corroboration (other than innocent!) of dog alerts?

Or that the Mcanns' response to being accused of "sedating" their children was a response to the accusation (raised for the first time)  making a mockery of Almeida's claim that they "asked too late" for the twins to be tested?

[Redblossom]

Its not up to me ferryman its up to the police and the judiciairy and yes btw the mccanns dis NOT make the time or effort to test their children for drugs until months later, bit late in the day dont you think? and POINTLESS considering on May 5th they were worried about drugs being administered and asking uk police if ere was any evidence  theyhad been, like anyone would know if no tests were done so why didnt they get them tested?

[Rachel Granada]

The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless.  It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008.  As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?

****

Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best  issues doesnt cut the mustard at all

It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case.  What do you make of his fridge theory?

[Rachel Granada]

Its not up to me ferryman its up to the police and the judiciairy and yes btw the mccanns dis NOT make the time or effort to test their children for drugs until months later, bit late in the day dont you think?

It was up to the PJ to test the twins for drugs. not the McCanns.

[ferryman]

Its not up to me ferryman its up to the police and the judiciairy and yes btw the mccanns dis NOT make the time or effort to test their children for drugs until months later, bit late in the day dont you think?

No!

The McCanns first raised the possibility of drug use in the abduction within 48 hours with the PJ.

The McCanns never got a response.

Medically, I would trust Kate (a qualified anaesthetist) to have monitored the twins on the night and to have made a correct judgment call that the twins were not in need of medical attention.

[Redblossom]

Its not up to me ferryman its up to the police and the judiciairy and yes btw the mccanns dis NOT make the time or effort to test their children for drugs until months later, bit late in the day dont you think?

It was up to the PJ to test the twins for drugs. not the McCanns.

where there asked to? What reason would the pj have to do this?

[Redblossom]

The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless.  It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008.  As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?

****

Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best  issues doesnt cut the mustard at all

It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case.  What do you make of his fridge theory?

thats YOUR interpretation which you are entitled to.

A convicted perjuror, many would dispute that anyhow,  is a rogue cop how? What has one to do with the other? nothing at all. its like saying Chris Huhne convicted for lying was a rogue mp

[Rachel Granada]

The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless.  It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008.  As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?

****

Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best  issues doesnt cut the mustard at all

It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case.  What do you make of his fridge theory?

thats YOUR interpretation which you are entitled to.

A convicted perjuror, many would dispute that anyhow,  is a rogue cop how? What has one to do with the other? nothing at all. its like saying Chris Huhne convicted for lying was a rogue mp

So a convicted perjuror is an honest, trustworthy and upstanding person then?

[Redblossom]

@ DCI


'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'

And you know this how ?

Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 

And this is what they said



Dear xxx
I'm checking with Kate on this and will get back with you once I've had a chance to talk with her about this.
Thanks.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign

Dear xxx
The rumours are just that--rumours. Unfounded and not based on fact.
Thanks for the feedback.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
--------------------

And this is the secret squirrel ace Amaral is going to use at his libel trial?   

Why do you think this is what Mr Amaral is going to use in the libel trial? getting overexcited are we about nothing? Anything to paint Mr Amaral in the black of course, silly me, its NOTHING to do with him or the libel trial, its just an embarrassing episode for the  OFM FB page and its wierd WM  thats all
 

[Redblossom]

The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless.  It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008.  As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?

****

Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best  issues doesnt cut the mustard at all

It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case.  What do you make of his fridge theory?

thats YOUR interpretation which you are entitled to.

A convicted perjuror, many would dispute that anyhow,  is a rogue cop how? What has one to do with the other? nothing at all. its like saying Chris Huhne convicted for lying was a rogue mp

So a convicted perjuror is an honest, trustworthy and upstanding person then?

It might  help  your case if you answered issues instead of continually shifting goalposts

[ferryman]

 Anything to paint Mr Amaral in the black of course ...

Who is the lying, good-for-nothing bounder who is depicting Amaral as financially solvent?

[Rachel Granada]

The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless.  It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008.  As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?

****

Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best  issues doesnt cut the mustard at all

It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case.  What do you make of his fridge theory?

thats YOUR interpretation which you are entitled to.

A convicted perjuror, many would dispute that anyhow,  is a rogue cop how? What has one to do with the other? nothing at all. its like saying Chris Huhne convicted for lying was a rogue mp

So a convicted perjuror is an honest, trustworthy and upstanding person then?

It might  help case if you answered issues instead of continually shifting goalposts

I've answered them perfectly adequately.  The intercalary report is worthless and Amaral is a convicted perjuror.  NEXT!

[DCI]

@ DCI


'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'

And you know this how ?

Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 

And this is what they said



Dear xxx
I'm checking with Kate on this and will get back with you once I've had a chance to talk with her about this.
Thanks.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign

Dear xxx
The rumours are just that--rumours. Unfounded and not based on fact.
Thanks for the feedback.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
--------------------

And this is the secret squirrel ace Amaral is going to use at his libel trial?   

Why do you think this is what Mr Amaral is going to use in the libel trial? getting overexcited are we about nothing? Anything to paint Mr Amaral in the black of course, silly me, its NOTHING to do with him oe the libel trial, its just an embarrassing episode for the  OFM FB page and its wierd WM  thats all
 

Because Faithlilly has it just informed us that this correpondence has been secretly squirrelled away until Amaral's trial to"prove" Kate's duplicity!  Laughable really, isn't it?!

Like mine was, you mean Martha? 

At least mine will prove someones duplicity, and it won't be Kate McCann's 

[icabodcrane]

Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 


No-one knows who asked for the settlement.  Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.

If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one.  As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer.  Obviously not enough.

Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out  >@@(*&)

A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.

I'm not sure what this is about  ...  are you saying that an official website confirmed that it was  not the McCanns who asked for an out of court settlement   ....   and then  'took it back'   ?

The webmaster, after speaking to Kate, said the rumours of the McCanns seeking a settlement were false but once this was made public , webmaster denied the answer had come from Kate. Why deny it was from Kate if it was true ? Why didn't the webmaster simply say that  during the delicate negotiations they wouldn't be commenting ?

I see, thanks

Why would the webmaster need  to  'deny'  that Kate had said it was a rumour  ...  more to the point,  why would Kate  not  have confirmed it was a rumour ?

Why havn't  the McCanns made a simple,  clear,  and unequivical statement ...   "Amaral has asked for an out of court settlement" 

[Eleanor]

Anything to paint Mr Amaral in the black of course ...

Who is the lying, good-for-nothing bounder who is depicting Amaral as financially solvent?