Cause and effect. Dated articles that predate Amaral's book.

[C.Edwards]

In the spirit of bringing evidence to the hearsay and opinion party, how about some dated articles that predate Amaral's book?  If these articles are out there and being discussed at a time before the book appears on the scene, how can Amaral's book be blamed for whatever it is he's currently being blamed for?

A few links to articles. I'm neither condoning nor condemning the articles, merely demonstrating what was being discussed widely long before Amaral's book.

Item 1: September 13th, 2007
http://aconservatives.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/how-mccanns-killed-madeleine.html
(for the sensitive among you, it's not what it appears from the article title)

Item 2: September 9th, 2007
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070909155458AARSGMG

Item 3: Various - between September 2007 and February 2008 I think
http://www.helium.com/debates/100229-thinking-the-unthinkable-did-madeleine-mccanns-parents-kill-her/side_by_side

Item 4: October 2007
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2007/disliking_mccanns.html
(I find this quite an interesting article. Pros will hate it as it explains the lady's thoughts towards the McCanns cogently and expressively and is obviously written by an intelligent person therefore not fitting the "thick [ censored word ]"-shaped hole they like to store such people in normally.

Item 5: September 2007
http://www.today.com/id/20726999/ns/msnbc/t/rumor-vs-evidence-madeleine-mccann-case/

There are dozens - if not hundreds - of such articles and opinion pieces all dated before 2008. Many of them discuss hiding bodies, fridges, DNA, cars, the church, you name it...  I don't see how this can be blamed on Amaral's book as it hadn't come out by the time these articles were written.  What seems more likely from the articles is that the Arguido status kicked off the change in public perception/feeling.

[carlymichelle]

In the spirit of bringing evidence to the hearsay and opinion party, how about some dated articles that predate Amaral's book?  If these articles are out there and being discussed at a time before the book appears on the scene, how can Amaral's book be blamed for whatever it is he's currently being blamed for?

A few links to articles. I'm neither condoning nor condemning the articles, merely demonstrating what was being discussed widely long before Amaral's book.

Item 1: September 13th, 2007
http://aconservatives.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/how-mccanns-killed-madeleine.html
(for the sensitive among you, it's not what it appears from the article title)

Item 2: September 9th, 2007
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070909155458AARSGMG

Item 3: Various - between September 2007 and February 2008 I think
http://www.helium.com/debates/100229-thinking-the-unthinkable-did-madeleine-mccanns-parents-kill-her/side_by_side

Item 4: October 2007
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2007/disliking_mccanns.html
(I find this quite an interesting article. Pros will hate it as it explains the lady's thoughts towards the McCanns cogently and expressively and is obviously written by an intelligent person therefore not fitting the "thick [ censored word ]"-shaped hole they like to store such people in normally.

Item 5: September 2007
http://www.today.com/id/20726999/ns/msnbc/t/rumor-vs-evidence-madeleine-mccann-case/

There are dozens - if not hundreds - of such articles and opinion pieces all dated before 2008. Many of them discuss hiding bodies, fridges, DNA, cars, the church, you name it...  I don't see how this can be blamed on Amaral's book as it hadn't come out by the time these articles were written.  What seems more likely from the articles is that the Arguido status kicked off the change in public perception/feeling.

well said and   GA  became the cmanns and pros scapegoat

[C.Edwards]

And the silence is deafening. Quelle surprise.

[Lyall]

And the silence is deafening. Quelle surprise.

They know very well it was the newspapers, who folded to the lawyers and compensated. Now it's like seeking compensation twice.

That's the UK arena anyway. They never did take action against Portuguese papers did they >@@(*&) (bar the one that folded)

[C.Edwards]

Good point. I can't help but feel that sometimes the McCanns follow the line that they feel the public thinks they should - basically so that they keep the perception going that they are doing all that "people in their situation" would do. Hence them almost being forced into continuing with the legal action once Amaral turned down their offer to settle as pulling out would have been a PR disaster for them.  Actually losing would be less of a problem than not having fought the battle at all, so they seem to feel stuck on this rollercoaster at the moment.

[drummer]

From rhe first link:

At some point in time it seems the McCann's had a key to a local church, which may have had a fridge or freezer.


Oh dear.

[LagosBen]

Perhaps someone should list the horrible press articles etc that appeared after Amarals book -only fair.

[C.Edwards]

From rhe first link:

At some point in time it seems the McCann's had a key to a local church, which may have had a fridge or freezer.


Oh dear.

Keep it on topic please. The content of those links is not under discussion other than to highlight the fact that such things were already being discussed prior to the release of Amaral's book.

[C.Edwards]

Perhaps someone should list the horrible press articles etc that appeared after Amarals book -only fair.

In what way?  If it was already out there and being discussed months if not years before the book, what relevance does Amaral's book have ?  I've clearly demonstrated that things were not all rosey in the McCann garden well before the book came out.  What evidence can you present to demonstrate that the book was the turning point the McCann team in Portugal at present are trying to claim?

[Lyall]

Perhaps someone should list the horrible press articles etc that appeared after Amarals book -only fair.

I don't think any in the UK, after the press libel settlements. I don't know where the witnesses get the idea GA had an impact in UK media from.

A witness says Channel 5 wanted to interview him, but there's no indication what the interview was going to be about. The injunction presumably. I can't remember he had much presence at all in the UK before that >@@(*&)

[Rachel Granada]

Kate and Gerry McCann should have been given the chance to try and get on with something resembling normal life after the arguido status was lifted in July 2008.  They should have been left in peace, and the pre-shelving articles would most likely have died away.

Amaral's book robbed them of that chance, the chance to be left in peace to try and rebuild their lives.

[C.Edwards]

Kate and Gerry McCann should have been given the chance to try and get on with something resembling normal life after the arguido status was lifted in July 2008.  They should have been left in peace, and the pre-shelving articles would most likely have died away.

Amaral's book robbed them of that chance, the chance to be left in peace to try and rebuild their lives.

That's actually the best description of their claim that I've yet seen put in plain words.  Without all the flowery side bits about mental anguish etc it fundamentally comes down to the McCanns and the disruption of what should have been their lives from that point on?

However...

As the case was only shelved pending further evidence AND it quite clearly stated there were still question marks isn't it right for such a high profile and interesting case to continue to be discussed?  If the contention is that, without Amaral's book, this would all have swiftly died away, I'm afraid that I disagree. Firstly not only Amaral wrote about the book - although I concede his words have more weight coming from the ex-coordinator of the investigation - and secondly it's inconceivable that people would just forget about something so high profile. Among my friends hardly any of them know of Amaral. They almost all refer exclusively to what is written in the papers.

[Rachel Granada]

That's actually the best description of their claim that I've yet seen put in plain words.  Without all the flowery side bits about mental anguish etc it fundamentally comes down to the McCanns and the disruption of what should have been their lives from that point on?

However...

As the case was only shelved pending further evidence AND it quite clearly stated there were still question marks isn't it right for such a high profile and interesting case to continue to be discussed?  If the contention is that, without Amaral's book, this would all have swiftly died away, I'm afraid that I disagree. Firstly not only Amaral wrote about the book - although I concede his words have more weight coming from the ex-coordinator of the investigation - and secondly it's inconceivable that people would just forget about something so high profile. Among my friends hardly any of them know of Amaral. They almost all refer exclusively to what is written in the papers.

Don't forget that Amaral's book was the backbone of the hate-leaflets penned by the "Madeleine Foundation" - leaflets that were posted through the doors of Kate and Gerry McCanns neighbours.  What kind of upset and distress do you think that must have caused? In fact, wasn't Bennett trying to use the fact that the injunction had been overturned to carry on his stalking campaign against the family.

[Lyall]

Don't forget that Amaral's book was the backbone of the hate-leaflets penned by the "Madeleine Foundation" - leaflets that were posted through the doors of Kate and Gerry McCanns neighbours.  What kind of upset and distress do you think that must have caused? In fact, wasn't Bennett trying to use the fact that the injunction had been overturned to carry on his stalking campaign against the family.

Incorrect. There's nothing substantial in GA's book we didn't already know before publication.

[LagosBen]

I don't think any in the UK, after the press libel settlements. I don't know where the witnesses get the idea GA had an impact in UK media from.

A witness says Channel 5 wanted to interview him, but there's no indication what the interview was going to be about. The injunction presumably. I can't remember he had much presence at all in the UK before that >@@(*&)

You miss the point. Because the book was written by the ex officer in charge and claiming that Madeleine was not abducted and the parents and friends blah blah blah.....The McCanns were quite rightly deeply concerned  that it did/would have an effect on the general public looking for Madeleine especially in Portugal.