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

[stephen25000]

Wouldn't you like to know?

But to you and others like you. I say simply, "Mind your own business! What difference would it make if I was? Would I not be entitled to an opinion?"

This is a free country.

However, you are also bringing in personal bias. >@@(*&)

[C.Edwards]

Why would any guilty party, pester, petition, give TV and Newspaper interviews. Plead with the Police / Prime Minister. In fact doing everything in their power to keep their case (An abducted child) to the forefront of everyone?

I can think of a reason why someone who was guilty would do that... because that's what they believe the public would want supposedly-innocent people to do.  I realise this is a "damned if you don't, damned if you do" scenario, but it is a valid reason. If someone is deeply embedded in a lie of any kind then it's hard to get out.

[C.Edwards]

You may not believe the book did not turn public opinion against the McCanns.

But you seem to be forgetting something.

This trial is nothing to do with the UK.

How would you know what the situation is regarding the book in Portugal?

When you offer evidence related to the trial which is taking place then we can start a proper discussion.

And its odd that you rule the comment from me out of order but ignored it when the point I was replying was made. Two-faced?

Ah, so in your mind all the evidence we've heard is entirely relating to Portugal and is nothing to do with the UK?

[C.Edwards]

Wouldn't you like to know?

But to you and others like you. I say simply, "Mind your own business! What difference would it make if I was? Would I not be entitled to an opinion?"

Yes. But you present it as a fact, not an opinion. That's why you're being challenged on it.

[gilet]

I can think of a reason why someone who was guilty would do that... because that's what they believe the public would want supposedly-innocent people to do.  I realise this is a "damned if you don't, damned if you do" scenario, but it is a valid reason. If someone is deeply embedded in a lie of any kind then it's hard to get out.

Not that difficult at all in this case. Simply do not undertake litigation. Simply retire from media exposure. Very easy to become almost anonymous in fact.

But the McCanns do not do that. And your reason while potentially true does not cover the sheer determination of the McCanns to keep their daughter's name not just in the spotlight but in the very centre of that spotlight where it belongs.

[gilet]

Yes. But you present it as a fact, not an opinion. That's why you're being challenged on it.

Because I have seen the reasons given in live interviews and have no reason at all to believe those reasons are lies. Therefore I believe they are accurate. Therefore I present them as accurate. And for all you know I may be able to present it as fact from personal knowledge. No way for you to know otherwise is there?

[C.Edwards]

Because I have seen the reasons given in live interviews and have no reason at all to believe those reasons are lies. Therefore I believe they are accurate. Therefore I present them as accurate. And for all you know I may be able to present it as fact from personal knowledge. No way for you to know otherwise is there?

Very true and with my connections to the police force that have been publicised here and elsewhere, I'm hardly going to claim it's unfair of you to potentially have connections.  But you do seem prepared to take the words of those who have most to lose if proven to be lying at face value whereas I am not. Both viewpoints are valid and it's nothing to do with "presuming innocence" as that's a legal definition.  It's clearly possible for people to lie to avoid being caught out - it happens all the time.  I'm not saying they are lying, but neither am I prepared to just take their word for it when other people far more clued up than me doubt their word and it can be proven that they've been "economical with the truth" in the past.

[TTSOFAFM]

How do you know that ?

Are you an associate of the Mccanns ?

That thought has crossed my mind a couple of times due to their immense knowledge of this case.  Gilet's posts are spot on and backed up with evidence to dispute the many falsehoods that surround this case.

Totally agree with you Gilet, it is none of their business as to whom you may be.  Could we not accuse some people on here of being associates of Goncalo Amaral?  As it is abundantly clear that some people ignore the facts, when produced, and prefer to believe a man who has been convicted in a court for falsifying documents, than the truth.

[C.Edwards]

That thought has crossed my mind a couple of times due to their immense knowledge of this case.  Gilet's posts are spot on and backed up with evidence to dispute the many falsehoods that surround this case.

Totally agree with you Gilet, it is none of their business as to whom you may be.  Could we not accuse some people on here of being associates of Goncalo Amaral?  As it is abundantly clear that some people ignore the facts, when produced, and prefer to believe a man who has been convicted in a court for falsifying documents, than the truth.

He didn't falsify documents. *sigh*

[gilet]

That thought has crossed my mind a couple of times due to their immense knowledge of this case.  Gilet's posts are spot on and backed up with evidence to dispute the many falsehoods that surround this case.

Totally agree with you Gilet, it is none of their business as to whom you may be.  Could we not accuse some people on here of being associates of Goncalo Amaral?  As it is abundantly clear that some people ignore the facts, when produced, and prefer to believe a man who has been convicted in a court for falsifying documents, than the truth.

Very true. Actually, only today I was asked via a private message whether I thought there was a connection between the person doing the reporting from the court and Amaral. I had to reply that I had no idea but as with all evidence the reports should be taken as potentially biased.  They are not verbatim historical records but have been processed by at least two people whose underlying motive hopefully is pure truth but may not be.

[stephen25000]

That thought has crossed my mind a couple of times due to their immense knowledge of this case.  Gilet's posts are spot on and backed up with evidence to dispute the many falsehoods that surround this case.

Totally agree with you Gilet, it is none of their business as to whom you may be.  Could we not accuse some people on here of being associates of Goncalo Amaral?  As it is abundantly clear that some people ignore the facts, when produced, and prefer to believe a man who has been convicted in a court for falsifying documents, than the truth.

It is a reasonable question to ask when people who dare question the Mccanns version of events are called '[ censored word ]s' and far worse ?

Of course you believe gilet, because you have the same views too.

[gilet]

He didn't falsify documents. *sigh*

I have seen this stated before. Please for the benefit of us all, do tell us precisely what the criminal act was that got Amaral his conviction and suspended sentence.

He must have done something or are you saying the Portuguese Judiciary are corrupt fools?

[TTSOFAFM]

He didn't falsify documents. *sigh*

Pardon me it was far more serious than that.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/428782/Brave-mum-Kate-McCann-faces-new-ordeal-in-Portuguese-courtroom-over-Madeleine

He was given a jail sentence, suspended for 18 months, over an unrelated conviction of perjury by falsifying documents in May 2009.

[gilet]

It is a reasonable question to ask when people who dare question the Mccanns version of events are called '[ censored word ]s' and far worse ?

Of course you believe gilet, because you have the same views too.

I think if you ever look in on Twitter you will understand that the "far worse" is the profanity which emanates from those devoted followers of Goncalo Amaral. Some of them would be quite at home in the sewers with the most vile creatures imaginable down there.

Would you like me to go and find some of the more recent examples of that profanity and debased name calling of pros by [ censored word]?

[Montclair]

Pardon me it was far more serious than that.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/428782/Brave-mum-Kate-McCann-faces-new-ordeal-in-Portuguese-courtroom-over-Madeleine

Gonçalo Amaral was not convicted for falsifying documents, it was for false testimony. There was another inspector who was convicted for falsifying documents.