Goncalo Amaral's thesis trashed by SY and PJ

[gilet]

Did your reply relate to what I said at all? >@@(*&)

Where's the evidence that confirms what your claiming? Statements made on TV and in newspapers don't count. Who's going to believe anything said off the cuff just ten days after the debut of Blue Peter man?

Only official documents count as evidence, gilet. Not TV stunts.

And yes it did relate directly to what you originally posted.

The demand for evidence is not normal. The police deal with evidence (not online internet tecs). Till there is a charge or a court appearance that evidence is not public.

I don't know of any case (even in Portugal) where evidence has been given to the public so casually as in the McCann case before the case was closed (or even after).

I have asked previously and nobody has been able to show a single case where the full body of evidence (virtually) has been given to the public on a DVD in the way that the evidence in this case was.

When cases are closed in Portugal it is normal to make the evidence available, that is true. But that is done by giving journalists and others with a direct interest access to the files within a police station. Not by giving the public DVDs full of everyone's names and addresses and witness statements.

As I said, you have been spoiled by that. It is simply not the norm.

The evidence is held by the Police who inform us of the developments.

Your description of the Crimewatch episode and the statements by SY officers as "TV stunts" is despicable and tells us a great deal.

[gilet]

I am willing to trust the SY and the PJ but I also think that we shouldn't forget that they don't actually know what happened to Madeleine that night and they themselves admit that this might never be fully uncovered.

So, when saying that "the SY say this" or the "PJ believe that" we should always remember that they don't know what happened, all they have are sketchy theories.

We should also remember that they have interviewed and been with these individuals. They have investigated these individuals and they have gone through the full details of the case with a fine toothcomb.

We are not privy to the evidence they have gathered in this way and in my view that is how it should be.

[gilet]

Has anyone with actual experience of the case so far (besides Amaral himself) even tried to defend his thesis against these claims by the new investigation teams?

[Lyall]

And yes it did relate directly to what you originally posted.

The demand for evidence is not normal. The police deal with evidence (not online internet tecs). Till there is a charge or a court appearance that evidence is not public.

I don't know of any case (even in Portugal) where evidence has been given to the public so casually as in the McCann case before the case was closed.

I have asked previously and nobody has been able to show a single case where the full (virtually) has been given to the public on a DVD in the way that the evidence in this case was.

When cases are closed in Portugal it is normal to make the evidence available, that is true. But that is done by giving journalists and others with a direct interest access to the files within a police station. Not by giving the public DVDs full of everyone's names and addresses and witness statements.

As I said, you have been spoiled by that. It is simply not the norm.

The evidence is held by the Police who inform us of the developments.

Your description of the Crimewatch episode and the statements by SY officers as "TV stunts" is despicable and tells us a great deal.

Us? >@@(*&)

I do call the immediate production of efits never shown before a stunt, yes. Someone had them for five years, and the Met may have had them for two or more.

Your OP asks a question, but when people answer it you say you're not allowed to give that answer because "the demand for evidence is not normal"?

You're missing the point. The public is asked to look for POI and also for Madeleine, and you also say there is evidence not being given to the public, for whatever reason. After so much time it's unfortunately a fact that most of the public will assume there is no point looking... unless they can be convinced otherwise, with facts, with evidence. Crimewatch did not do that.

[icabodcrane]

I'm  less and less convinced by this claim from the McCanns  (  via their lawyer, Rogerio Alves  )  that they have been excluded by the Portugeuse police from  having had anything to do with their daughter's disappearance  ) 

I'll tell you why

...  the McCanns are too subdued  for that to be the case

All we have had is a downbeat statement from them saying they are  'pleased'  whilst asking for press restraint,  followed by a terse   'Kate and Gerry will not be commenting further'

I can't help thinking that if the Portuguese police  had  said they were sure the McCanns had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance that Clarence Mitchell would have been all over it  like a cheap suit  ...  and predictable headlines would have followed

It's all strangely  different  lately  ...  don't you think  ? 

[gilet]

I'm  less and less convinced by this claim from the McCanns  (  via their lawyer, Rogerio Alves  )  that they have been excluded by the Portugeuse police from  having had anything to do with their daughter's disappearance  ) 

I'll tell you why

...  the McCanns are too subdued  for that to be the case

All we have had is a downbeat statement from them saying they are  'pleased'  whilst asking for press restraint,  followed by a terse   'Kate and Gerry will not be commenting further'

I can't help thinking that if the Portuguese police  had  said they were sure the McCanns had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance that Clarence Mitchell would have been all over it  like a cheap suit  ...  and predictable headlines would have followed

It's all strangely  different  lately  ...  don't you think  ?

They won't be commenting further because of judicial secrecy. Don't you even get that yet?

I am convinced of this. Firstly the lawyer would not be so foolish as to make the claim so boldly when it was not true and secondly the fact that the McCanns were included at the end of the discussion about the work the PJ are doing indicates clearly that there are no suspicions of them on the part of the PJ.

[gilet]

Us? >@@(*&)

I do call the immediate production of efits never shown before a stunt, yes. Someone had them for five years, and the Met may have had them for two or more.

Your OP asks a question, but when people answer it you say you're not allowed to give that answer because "the demand for evidence is not normal"?

You're missing the point. The public is asked to look for POI and also for Madeleine, and you also say there is evidence not being given to the public, for whatever reason. After so much time it's unfortunately a fact that most of the public will assume there is no point looking... unless they can be convinced otherwise, with facts, with evidence. Crimewatch did not do that.

I am missing no point at all.

What is clear is that you are unable (as all previous posters seem to be) to offer any example of any case in the UK or Portugal where the full body of case evidence has been given freely to the public before the case was closed (or even after).

What is clear is that you are not making any effort to answer the actual question in the OP which was.

Can anyone explain why some people think this news is favourable to Amaral and unfavourable to the McCanns.

For those who have no faith in the police or in Crimewatch (as clearly you do not) and who are convinced there is no point in looking for a missing child then you are probably right.

Thankfully, though, the vast proportion of the public (evidenced by the hundreds of thousands who support the official Madeleine FB page) and the millions who regularly watch Crimewatch are not as cynical as you.

There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that both the PJ and SY have, after very thorough professional reviews of all the material available, indicated that they have no interest in the McCanns or their friends as suspects or persons of interest.

That thoroughly trashes the thesis by the cop who was thrown off the case, Amaral and that is the topic of this thread.

Whether there is a direct quote from the PJ or not, it is clear that at least SY has no interest whatsoever in the McCanns as suspects and that alone means they have no faith in Amaral or his thesis.

I have so far not seen a single person with genuine knowledge of the case support Amaral and his thesis after these revelations. Have there been any?

And no, I didn't miss your explanation of your calling Crimewatch and DCI Redwoods interviews "stunts". I still find your original post despicable.

[C.Edwards]

Why is every McCann supporter so insistent on nailing things down before the end of the investigation?  It's just been reopened.  Never in a million months of Sundays is any investigating force going to say, "oh yeah, we have the McCanns and their friend BANG in our sights and no mistake. Wrong 'uns, the lot of them" as the media explosion would take out half the planet and even an incompetent defence lawyer would get them off on an unfair trial call.

Wait until the dust settles and then come in here waving your metaphorical willy around about how right you are.

[Lyall]

I am missing no point at all.

What is clear is that you are unable (as all previous posters seem to be) to offer any example of any case in the UK or Portugal where the full body of case evidence has been given freely to the public before the case was closed (or even after).

What is clear is that you are not making any effort to answer the actual question in the OP which was.

Can anyone explain why some people think this news is favourable to Amaral and unfavourable to the McCanns.

For those who have no faith in the police or in Crimewatch (as clearly you do not) and who are convinced there is no point in looking for a missing child then you are probably right.

Thankfully, though, the vast proportion of the public (evidenced by the hundreds of thousands who support the official Madeleine FB page) and the millions who regularly watch Crimewatch are not as cynical as you.

There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that both the PJ and SY have, after very thorough professional reviews of all the material available, indicated that they have no interest in the McCanns or their friends as suspects or persons of interest.

That thoroughly trashes the thesis by the cop who was thrown off the case, Amaral and that is the topic of this thread.

Whether there is a direct quote from the PJ or not, it is clear that at least SY has no interest whatsoever in the McCanns as suspects and that alone means they have no faith in Amaral or his thesis.

I have so far not seen a single person with genuine knowledge of the case support Amaral and his thesis after these revelations. Have there been any?

And no, I didn't miss your explanation of your calling Crimewatch and DCI Redwoods interviews "stunts". I still find your original post despicable.

Personally I found one dismissed suspect being immediately substituted by another despicable. It was a tactical move. Two commentators were brave enough to express concern about this last week, but most of the rest are thinking it.

I don't care about your "revelations" actually. You only see what goes on in public, and make mountains out of tiny snippets of information - when almost all of what's happening we know nothing about whatsoever.

[Lyall]

Why is every McCann supporter so insistent on nailing things down before the end of the investigation?  It's just been reopened.  Never in a million months of Sundays is any investigating force going to say, "oh yeah, we have the McCanns and their friend BANG in our sights and no mistake. Wrong 'uns, the lot of them" as the media explosion would take out half the planet and even an incompetent defence lawyer would get them off on an unfair trial call.

Wait until the dust settles and then come in here waving your metaphorical willy around about how right you are.

Perfick.

[gilet]

Why is every McCann supporter so insistent on nailing things down before the end of the investigation?  It's just been reopened.  Never in a million months of Sundays is any investigating force going to say, "oh yeah, we have the McCanns and their friend BANG in our sights and no mistake. Wrong 'uns, the lot of them" as the media explosion would take out half the planet and even an incompetent defence lawyer would get them off on an unfair trial call.

Wait until the dust settles and then come in here waving your metaphorical willy around about how right you are.

The problem anti McCanns have is explaining why the PJ (apparently) and SY (most definitely) have ruled out completely the McCanns as suspects.

By doing that they have totally binned Amaral's speculative thesis and instead turned to stranger abduction.

[Lyall]

The problem anti McCanns have is explaining why the PJ (apparently) and SY (most definitely) have ruled out completely the McCanns as suspects.

By doing that they have totally binned Amaral's speculative thesis and instead turned to stranger abduction.

Lawyers gilet. The 99% of what happens behind the scenes we know nothing about whatsoever.

[gilet]

Lawyers gilet. The 99% of what happens behind the scenes we know nothing about whatsoever.

But it wasn't behind the scenes when DCI Redwood so poignantly stated (twice) that the McCanns are not suspects.

[C.Edwards]

The problem anti McCanns have is explaining why the PJ (apparently) and SY (most definitely) have ruled out completely the McCanns as suspects.

By doing that they have totally binned Amaral's speculative thesis and instead turned to stranger abduction.

And I say again, IF that is the case come resolution, then let's talk about it at the correct time.  I'm perfectly willing to entertain all possible hypotheses right now, including abduction.

Your desire to draw a line under an ongoing process just comes across as desperation. It cannot be proved either way as a police force would not declare them as suspects even if they were.  If you're right at the end of all this, I'll happily admit the fact.  I suspect you would eat your own liver before reciprocating in kind, however.

[icabodcrane]

The problem anti McCanns have is explaining why the PJ (apparently) and SY (most definitely) have ruled out completely the McCanns as suspects.

By doing that they have totally binned Amaral's speculative thesis and instead turned to stranger abduction.

Who has said the PJ  have  'ruled out'  the McCanns  ? 

Their own lawyer,  that's who ...   not a word of any such  'exclusion'  by the Portuguese police themselves

By the way,  if they are so  'in the clear'  ...  why is a hired criminal lawyer involved,   and speaking for them  ?