there was nothng *slurred about my post* and nothing ambiguous I clearly said you may be right or wrong
oh and I dont do hearsay dear
Here is the evidence your heros lied, copy and paste of a recent post of mine
*****
What about what the Mccanns were reporting vis a vis the libel action?
From a SIC interview given 12 May 2009
Q There's also been Gonçalo Amaral's book and at the time there was a lot of talk about possible legal charges bought up by you against Gonçalo Amaral. Are you still considering these legal charges against him?
Gerry McCann: We certainly haven't ruled it out. The reason we haven't done it to date is we didn't want to create... and I think there's been enough Anglo-Portuguese angst, particularly in the media and we certainly, errr... didn't want to exacerbate that but, you know, he clearly is getting, errr... more outrageous and we certainly wouldn't rule it out.
Kate McCann: At the same time, you know, it... it's a distraction, you know, what Mr Amaral is doing. I mean, it's... it's damaging to our search, errm... but at the same time, you know, we want to find Madeleine. We want to move forward and get new information and we don't want to be derailed by negative people who have their own agendas, you know, so...
Gerry McCann: That is... I mean, that's a very good point, you know; we don't want to look back, we are trying to do things, but it gets to the point, errr... where you just think: 'enough's enough'.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/mccanns-interview-to-sic.html
So how is Kate Mccann writing in her book Madeleine that conversations with their lawyer had been ongoing since November 2008, Gerry made a trip in January 2009 to see the lawyer about suing Amaral and by April 20 2009 they made the decision to sue!
Why was Gerry Mccann keeping the decision/legal action a secret?
Some quotes from kates book here
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/kate-mccanns-deep-harted-for-goncalo.html
Seriously, you don't think that this is the perfect example of "slurred writing"?
You may be right here you be wrong, but there is a precedent for the mccanns not actually twlling the truth, i know its hard for you to bear though
---------
But to get to the nub of this post.
Your attempt to castigate Gerry McCann for what he said in that interview in early May is (as was your posting of a truly phenomenally silly claim about Redwood earlier) simply clutching at straws.
You seem to think there is something odd about Gerry not announcing in that interview that he was going to sue Amaral.
You introduce a date of November 2008 without a proper quote from Kate's book as some kind of evidence of your odd claim when a proper look at the section of Kate's book reveals that at that time though conversations has begun they were extremely reluctant to actually sue the man.
"We had first talked on the phone to Isabel Duarte on 28 November. She was very understanding and sounded nice. By this point we felt as though we had been condemned by an entire country, so to receive sympathy from someone in Portugal was like stepping into a welcoming warm bath. Six weeks later, Gerry went to Lisbon to meet her. Although we were still resisting the temptation to sue, her parting shot left a lasting impression on him. ‘Don’t forget! That man said you buried your daughter on the beach!’"There is then comment in the book about the further actions of Amaral against the McCanns which led to them finally deciding to sue him.
"On 20 April we took the decision with Isabel Duarte to sue him. While she did the preparatory work, we were off to the States again – to appear on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show."And on the day after the recording of the SIC interview you quote (it was recorded on the 11th and broadcast on the 12th), Kate (her first meeting with Duarte) and Gerry met with their lawyer and discussed how to proceed. First an injunction and only later the suing for libel.
On Madeleine’s sixth birthday, 12 May 2009, I met Isabel Duarte for the first time. I’d been reluctant to spend this emotional day in a meeting but our options were limited and, as Gerry pointed out, maybe this was exactly what we ought to be doing on Madeleine’s birthday. I was very impressed by Isabel. She was a pocket dynamo: tiny and attractive but immensely feisty, strong, intelligent and compassionate. You could see the desire for justice burning brightly in her.
Isabel suggested that first of all we should apply for an injunction against Amaral’s book and the DVD of his documentary with the aim of preventing the distribution and further repetition of his damaging theories. The next phase would be to sue Amaral for libel. It was an inspiring meeting and I will never forget Isabel’s words to me as she leaned across the table, looking me straight in the eye: ‘Today is a very important day for your daughter.’Are you seriously suggesting that Gerry on the day before he was to discuss the planning of the way in which they would proceed legally against Amaral would tell the world how it was all going to pan out?
All Gerry says on May 11th is that they haven't ruled out suing. They hadn't! And that they haven't done it "to date" thus leaving open the question as to whether it would happen. As, at that point they had not met with the lawyer face to face for months then it is perfectly natural he would not be giving details of any possible forthcoming case.
By trying to spin this into some terrible action on the part of Gerry McCann you are once again clutching at straws and making yourself look very foolish because I am sure people will realise that intelligent people do not, the day before they start to make arrangements for a forthcoming injunction and libel case, blab details of that to the media, especially media they have good reason not to trust.
