Gonçalo Amaral's wife writes to Kate McCann asking her to tell the truth!!

[Rachel Granada]

My reply was in response to LagosBen's question (although looking back I see I hit the quote button on Redblossom's post for some reason):

“Just a thought... If Sofia Leal had wanted to genuinely reach out to Kate McCann, why didn't she just right to her -privately?”

My reply had nothing to do with whether or not I condone anything. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from my words.

You said "Under the circumstances I think I would've done the same thing".

So, if you were the wife of a police officer you would have published a letter to a devastated Mum, knowing how much pain it would cause?

[Rachel Granada]

Just my personal thoughts, considering the investigation was beginning to look at an accidental death rather than an abduction then I'm more inclined to believe that what might have been transported in the car was items that had been in contact with Madeleine's body. That's IF Madeleine died in Praia da Luz and IF her parents had something to do with hiding her body.

On what grounds were they beginning to look at an accidental death?

[Jacinta]

You said "Under the circumstances I think I would've done the same thing".

So, if you were the wife of a police officer you would have published a letter to a devastated Mum, knowing how much pain it would cause?

My full quote:

"Under the circumstances I think I would've done the same thing. An open letter means anyone can read it leaving no room for any words to be misconstrued at a later date when giving interviews, and it's there on the internet to check for accuracy should a sentence or paragraph be quoted."

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear Rachel. The mainstream media were (in my opinion) reading more into things than they should (hypodermic needle and bloody footprint as examples). This is an extraordinary case that has resulted in one persons word against another.

No, not normally, but in this case I would be nervous writing anything in private in case my words were later misquoted or misconstrued and expanded on by the mainstream media. So, under those circumstances I would have done the same.

I seem to be spending more time trying to explain what I mean than I am discussing the case 

[Rachel Granada]

My full quote:

"Under the circumstances I think I would've done the same thing. An open letter means anyone can read it leaving no room for any words to be misconstrued at a later date when giving interviews, and it's there on the internet to check for accuracy should a sentence or paragraph be quoted."

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear Rachel. The mainstream media were (in my opinion) reading more into things than they should (hypodermic needle and bloody footprint as examples). This is an extraordinary case that has resulted in one persons word against another.

No, not normally, but in this case I would be nervous writing anything in private in case my words were later misquoted or misconstrued and expanded on by the mainstream media. So, under those circumstances I would have done the same.

I seem to be spending more time trying to explain what I mean than I am discussing the case 

OK cheers Jacinta, but the point I am trying to make is that Leal should not have written anything at all.

She had no business having a go at Kate McCann.

Can you imagine the wife of a UK Officer writing a nasty letter to the Mum of Sarah Payne, thankfully it would never be allowed to happen in the UK.

[C.Edwards]

Oh strewth. I've tried staying out of this one for a few days but this is ridiculous. I just read the last three pages straight off. The primary two things that leap out are both from Rachel which are "he (amaral) never even met them, you know" and "Leal had no right"... "can you imagine the wife of a uk officer, etc." both repeated over and over and over...

This line of - not even argument - it's not much short of gossip is just pointless. It doesn't matter whether Amaral met the McCanns or not!  Good grief, he's using "we" as an investigative force not as an "I was there so I know" boast or something.  You were perfectly happy for him to get caned by the portuguese courts for being involved with the Leonor Cipriano debacle when he wasn't present at the time, but now it suits your argument suddenly you find it invalid for him to comment as he wasn't there.  Don't you think, as coordinator, that he was in a prime position to collate all this information and be in a position of authority to subsequently write about it.  Maybe he could have written it in a different style, but maybe he did and it was mistranslated or maybe he's not a great author. It doesn't matter as the facts he is describing are those that are in the official files and/or reported directly from his officers.

Once again you (Rachel and Benice) are assuming that all in Kate McCann's book is true and therefore anything that contradicts it is false. This is not an objective position to be taking.

As to the Sofia Leal thing.  Comparing Kate McCann to the parents of Wells/Chapman/Payne is not a fair comparison in the slightest.  None of those parents have been under investigation for involvement in what befell their daughters. Neither were any of the police roundly criticised and abused in the gutter UK press.  If, say, one of those parents did start to use the press to criticise the police handling of the case and started specifically picking on one particular senior officer and he received condemnation in the press for what happened I would fully support the wife of that officer writing an open letter to that parent stating the truth from her point of view if she found the criticism unfair.

The problem is there is no comparison. The McCanns caused the problem however you look at it (either directly or indirectly via their absence - regardless of what they could or could not have expected to happen).  They then went on the offensive rather than admit their mistake (please don't try and say they have admitted it, this is a pro myth. Do I have to mention "responsible parenting"?) and quite happily allowed (maybe even fed, who knows) the press furore and abuse towards amaral and his men.  Simply, it appears, because they had the temerity to disbelieve the McCann version of events.  Amaral came in for some furiously xenophobic treatment (remember the idiotic "f*ck the mccanns" stupidity from BBC EM?) and I do not blame Sofia Leal one bit for sticking up for her husband.

All this tugging at the heartstrings, Barbara Cartland-esque prose you come out with about "poor hurt, grieving Kate" is nonsensical. Whilst one or both of them may well be completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's "disappearance", they have manifestly failed to demonstrate that thus far, which is exactly why we are still having conversations like this 6 years on.



Simply devastated, poor love.

[Benice]

Cherrypicking photographs in an attempt to prove a point is a cheapshot as there are far more photos of them looking absolutely distraught which could also be produced. 

As far as Kate's book is concerned, I remain convinced that it will have been examined to the Nth degree before it went to publication to ensure that there is nothing in it that can be proved to be a untrue -  and there is nothing in it that can be construed as libellous.   No-one is suing the McCanns for libel re her book.

If the fact that Amaral has never met or spoken to the McCanns is so unimportant, then why does he conceal that fact in his book?   It appears it was very important to him to hide that particular fact from his readers and IMO it was a deceitful action to convince the readers of the veracity of some of his claims - which would not be so convincing if they knew they were based on 'hearsay' or on second/third hand opinions of other people.





     

[gilet]

This line of - not even argument - it's not much short of gossip is just pointless.

I agree absolutely with this quote from your post above.

To pretend that your pathetic cherry-picking of photographs is in any way relevant to what happened to Madeleine McCann is pointless.

It is no more than the harridan cackling of nasty women picking on each other at the school gate, gossiping  over the way each of them act.  It is no more valid than the squawking from some anti McCanns about the fact that Kate felt it important to dress properly. Yes, she did smile occasionally, she has two other children to support and life must continue for them. Yes, she and Gerry do believe that dressing appropriately is important. A certain other person who is currently in the dock in regard to this case clearly does not believe the same. Gossip works two ways, you know.

And I disagree with you completely that it is irrelevant that Amaral met the McCanns. He made personal judgements based on their character and did not even look them in the face before doing so. Then he made allegations about them in his book (designed to rescue his lost honour and make him substantial monies) whilst hiding the fact that he had never even been in contact with them.

Your attitude about the lead detective in the case of missing Madeleine claiming its perfectly natural for him not to bother even talking to the parents of the missing child he is searching for is quite shocking.

Can anyone believe that the lead detective in a British case would not meet the parents of a missing toddler simply to reassure them that his team was doing everything possible?

Can anyone believe that a caring parent coordinating a team of detectives in the hunt for a missing child would not think that part of his duties? 

Can anyone truly believe that a father of a child the same age would not want at least to offer his assurances that he was doing his best for the parents of a missing toddler?

And as for your harping on about Kate's book not being truthful Well when you manage to prove a single lie in the book, then and only then might we take your cynicism with anything other than a very large pinch of salt.

The fact remains that the letter from Sofia Leal to Kate McCann has no equivalent that I know of from any other officer's wife in any other case. It is a spiteful letter defending the indefensible.  And the oddest thing about it is that even Joana Morais could only describe it as having been written "ironically" when she published it. It is one of the few things on which I agree with the woman.

[stephen25000]

I find the hypocrisy of the Mccann supporters increasingly stupid and downright pathetic.

The Mccans directly or indirectly through friends and associates have attacked others.

Amaral's wife whether they like it or not had every right to write a letter.

The obvious abuse and hatred is evident in km's work of fiction, ignoring the Mill's and Boon element.

It is all about her and her husband, and their pursuit of revenge and money.

[carlymichelle]

I find the hypocrisy of the Mccann supporters increasingly stupid and downright pathetic.

The Mccans directly or indirectly through friends and associates have attacked others.

Amaral's wife whether they like it or not had every right to write a letter.

The obvious abuse and hatred is evident in km's work of fiction, ignoring the Mill's and Boon element.

It is all about her and her husband, and their pursuit of revenge and money.

they clearly are damaged people it shows   by their menacing tone about  GA layers child  it doesnt matyter how old     someones child is  if they are adult or not    they are still that persons child at least they didnt abandon the child like the mcanns no matter how old the person is  as  i   say i wonder if some pros were sent away  as a child they are cold hearted 

[gilet]

I find the hypocrisy of the Mccann supporters increasingly stupid and downright pathetic.

The Mccans directly or indirectly through friends and associates have attacked others.

Amaral's wife whether they like it or not had every right to write a letter.

The obvious abuse and hatred is evident in km's work of fiction, ignoring the Mill's and Boon element.

It is all about her and her husband, and their pursuit of revenge and money.

What is increasingly evident is that you are calling Kate McCann's book a work of fiction without offering any evidence to show us why you actually believe that.

Your inability to provide a single example of a lie in the book is what is pathetic, because even without such you are continuing to lie about the book.

Your post above highlights perfectly the anti McCann stance. It is a very bitter and rather twisted post in fact.

You have no proof of your claims but still think it perfectly reasonable to post extremely abusive claims about the McCanns, the parents who are still hoping one day to be re-united with their missing daugther, Madeleine.

Your post is pure libel and I hope that the adimin of this forum realise that and deal with it.

And I repeat it is wholly significant in my view that Joana Morais, that staunch Amaral fan told us all that Sofia Leal was ironically writing such a letter.

[gilet]

they clearly are damaged people it shows   by their menacing tone about  GA layers child  it doesnt matyter how old     someones child is  if they are adult or not    they are still that persons child at least they didnt abandon the child like the mcanns no matter how old the person is  as  i   say i wonder if some pros were sent away  as a child they are cold hearted

It is not abandoning a child to allow an adult to go to hospital for a scheduled appointment for surgery on the hand. It is reneging on your professional duties to pretend that this is some kind of urgent request when you knew about it the night before, so that a whole group of people have their day disrupted so that you can be at the hospital before a small piece of surgery. Could the lawyer not have comforted the poor adult child before he or she left for the hospital?

It is not actually correct to state that the McCanns abandoned their child either. As that crime was dismissed by the Portuguese court it is libel to state that openly in the way you have done.

Your rather irrelevant comment about boarding schools really does you no favours. The lawyer's child is an adult. Are you seriously suggesting the world would be a better place if everyone, like you, lived at home with mummy and daddy till they were 34 years old?

The vast proportion of the population of Portugal, the UK and even Australia are able to cope with the perils of adulthood including minor pre-arranged surgery without the need for mummy and daddy to be permanently present in their lives. Indeed, I have known a good few Australians who over the years have travelled all the way across the world at the young age of 18 or 19 and worked in such perilous places as bars and clubs over here in the UK and they haven't to the best of my knowledge brought mummy and daddy with them.

[C.Edwards]

And I repeat it is wholly significant in my view that Joana Morais, that staunch Amaral fan told us all that Sofia Leal was ironically writing such a letter.

Are you really - REALLY - unable to see what is ironic in Sofia Leal's letter?  Honestly?  You are choosing an interpretation that suits your agenda and entirely missing the point, if that's so 

[stephen25000]

What is increasingly evident is that you are calling Kate McCann's book a work of fiction without offering any evidence to show us why you actually believe that.

Your inability to provide a single example of a lie in the book is what is pathetic, because even without such you are continuing to lie about the book.

Your post above highlights perfectly the anti McCann stance. It is a very bitter and rather twisted post in fact.

You have no proof of your claims but still think it perfectly reasonable to post extremely abusive claims about the McCanns, the parents who are still hoping one day to be re-united with their missing daugther, Madeleine.

Your post is pure libel and I hope that the adimin of this forum realise that and deal with it.

And I repeat it is wholly significant in my view that Joana Morais, that staunch Amaral fan told us all that Sofia Leal was ironically writing such a letter.

Well prove the entire contents of the book are true.

Meanwhile, we have the classic LIE in the book that only the mccanns searched for Madeleine, NEVER REMOVED.

Abusive claims, my derriere.

This pair ,left their children unprotected and open to any danger because of their arrogant stupidity.

You can argue til the end of time, but that won't change the truth of what they are...............

I suggest you get real and put the blame where it belongs for Madeleine's disappearance, HER PARENTS.

[C.Edwards]

It is not abandoning a child to allow an adult to go to hospital for a scheduled appointment for surgery on the hand. It is reneging on your professional duties to pretend that this is some kind of urgent request when you knew about it the night before, so that a whole group of people have their day disrupted so that you can be at the hospital before a small piece of surgery. Could the lawyer not have comforted the poor adult child before he or she left for the hospital?

It is not actually correct to state that the McCanns abandoned their child either. As that crime was dismissed by the Portuguese court it is libel to state that openly in the way you have done.

Your rather irrelevant comment about boarding schools really does you no favours. The lawyer's child is an adult.

For goodness' sake. The judge checked the request and admitted it was valid. Stop stamping your foot and crying "unfair" like a petulant schoolgirl.

[gilet]

Are you really - REALLY - unable to see what is ironic in Sofia Leal's letter?  Honestly?  You are choosing an interpretation that suits your agenda and entirely missing the point, if that's so 

I choose the interpretation which fits the dictionary definition of the word "ironically". Do you believe there is another interpretation? If so. please do specify what it might be.