Ricardo Paiva, "Kate McCann had a dream where she saw Maddie on a hillside"

[Alfred R Jones]

LOL I'd actually typed something similar at the end of my post - but then deleted it.   

Having looked at the video again - I still can't see why some folk can claim he was 'SO annoyed' - or in fact claim that he was 'annoyed' at all!   What have I missed?

It's interesting that we have two "sceptics" view of this story, both of which differ substantially about what was said but both of whom believe it amounts to the same thing anyway - McCanns = guilty as sin.  There's no reason or logic involved in this McCann bashing, at the end of the day.

[stephen25000]

You've lost me Stephen - care to elaborate on what Gerry said about the dream?  What is it that is 'obvious' to you that others have missed?   Or could you point out where he shows his extreme annoyance in the video?  I've missed that too.

Non-verbal communication.

[stephen25000]

It's interesting that we have two "sceptics" view of this story, both of which differ substantially about what was said but both of whom believe it amounts to the same thing anyway - McCanns = guilty as sin.  There's no reason or logic involved in this McCann bashing, at the end of the day.

Is that in your 'rational' opinion ? 

[Benice]

Non-verbal communication.

I'm intrigued.   Do tell.

[faithlilly]

the fact that it was a statement made by Gerry McCann means that it is ripe for criticism, whatever he said!!

I notice he didn't correct the report read out in court by Lee Rainbow saying that because of the contradictions in Gerry McCann's statements homicide should be considered. Duarte would also have had access to this report and if the advice was really as generic as some supporters would have us believe why did Gerry not contest it on the courthouse steps as he did the dream evidence ?

[Mr Gray]

I notice he didn't correct the report read out in court by Lee Rainbow saying that because of the contradictions in Gerry McCann's statements homicide should be considered. Duarte would also have had access to this report and if the advice was really as generic as some supporters would have us believe why did Gerry not contest it on the courthouse steps as he did the dream evidence ?

there is that much that is incorrect he addressed the most important...I don't believe rainbow made reference to any contradictions.....

[Benice]

I notice he didn't correct the report read out in court by Lee Rainbow saying that because of the contradictions in Gerry McCann's statements homicide should be considered. Duarte would also have had access to this report and if the advice was really as generic as some supporters would have us believe why did Gerry not contest it on the courthouse steps as he did the dream evidence ?

He wasn't there to give chapter and verse about everything said in court or he would have been there all day.   IMO he would mention the dream because it was claimed to have been a turning point in the case.  That's a pretty hefty claim for the police to make.

Not only are the McCanns criticised for every word they do speak - they are now being criticised for things they didn't say!

Damned if they do and damned if they don't  - every single step of the way.

 

[Mr Gray]

I notice he didn't correct the report read out in court by Lee Rainbow saying that because of the contradictions in Gerry McCann's statements homicide should be considered. Duarte would also have had access to this report and if the advice was really as generic as some supporters would have us believe why did Gerry not contest it on the courthouse steps as he did the dream evidence ?

I don't believe rainbow said that because it isn't true and Rainbow...unlike amaral knows what he is talking about.
The McCanns should have been investigated...full stop...no reasons......that's good policing and that is what rainbow said...the rest was an add on by amaral's solicitor

[faithlilly]

He wasn't there to give chapter and verse about everything said in court or he would have been there all day.   IMO he would mention the dream because it was claimed to have been a turning point in the case.  That's a pretty hefty claim for the police to make.

Not only are the McCanns criticised for every word they do speak - they are now being criticised for things they didn't say!

Damned if they do and damned if they don't  - every single step of the way.

 

Lee Rainbow's report was also described as a turning point.

[Mr Gray]

Lee Rainbow's report was also described as a turning point.

another turning point..what a farce the initial investigation was

[stephen25000]

another turning point..what a farce the initial investigation was

In the eyes of the mccanns, family and 'associates'.

In reality, not the case.

[Benice]

Lee Rainbow's report was also described as a turning point.

I'm not at all knowledgeable about Lee Rainbow Faith.     This is all I can find on the Rainbow report.  Is there more plz?


Quote
The potential involvement of the family in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be discarded, and it can be considered that, when pondering the basis for research, this hypothesis deserves as much attention as the criminal with sexual motivations that has been previously prioritised.

“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.”    At court last week, Mr Amaral’s lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, read out a section of 37-year-old Mr Rainbow’s report which said: “The family is a lead that should be followed.”
Unquote

I understand this report was submitted a couple of months after Madeleine's disappearance (July 2007?)

Apart from recommending that the family should be investigated - which is normal procedure anyway - in order to rule them in or out  -  I cannot see anything which would denote his report would be regarded as a turning point in the case.   

What is in the report which the PJ didn't already know about and came as such big news to them that it put a whole new complexion on the case?

[pathfinder73]

The last person to see a missing person in a possible homicide case is always investigated very closely because they are usually involved in it. So it's no surprise Lee Rainbow looked at Gerry as he claims to be the last witness. As soon as he saw contradictions in his statements he becomes a possible prime suspect like Smithman now is.

[pathfinder73]

I'm not at all knowledgeable about Lee Rainbow Faith.     This is all I can find on the Rainbow report.  Is there more plz?


Quote
The potential involvement of the family in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be discarded, and it can be considered that, when pondering the basis for research, this hypothesis deserves as much attention as the criminal with sexual motivations that has been previously prioritised.

“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.”    At court last week, Mr Amaral’s lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, read out a section of 37-year-old Mr Rainbow’s report which said: “The family is a lead that should be followed.”
Unquote

I understand this report was submitted a couple of months after Madeleine's disappearance (July 2007?)

Apart from recommending that the family should be investigated - which is normal procedure anyway - in order to rule them in or out  -  I cannot see anything which would denote his report would be regarded as a turning point in the case.   

What is in the report which the PJ didn't already know about and came as such big news to them that it put a whole new complexion on the case?

There's never any witnesses to what happens behind closed doors. Remember that important point. You have to get evidence in other ways e.g. from statements, dogs, forensics etc.

[Mr Gray]

There's never any witnesses to what happens behind closed doors. Remember that important point. You have to get evidence in other ways e.g. from statements, dogs, forensics etc.

Mccann statements are non arguido and therefore can't be used in court
Dogs alerts can't be used in court
No forensic evidence

That's about it