Goncalo Amaral's thesis trashed by SY and PJ

[gilet]

What you say might be true but is certainly not in that article.

Again you say something is wrong but do not specify what. I suspect that is because you cannot be specific because there is nothing wrong.

[gilet]

Sorry, but I never called "item" nor "cadaver" a missing child.

With the very large number of posts deleted it is no longer possible for me to prove the claim.

[gilet]

The MP insisted on the necessity of total secret of justice and you pretend you got informations on the phone ? You're kidding certainly !

Again you make a wild presumption. There is nothing in my posting which has ever suggested that I telephoned the MP or the PJ. Don't guess what you don't know.

[Kazcutt]

Perhaps the intruder/abductor was hiding in the McCanns wardrobe and was carrying the death scent on their persons.....IF this was a planned abduction of a minor child, who would know what kind of perb would do this.

The death scent can be transferred.

When the perb picked the child off the bed, perhaps at first they touched the cuddle cat which again transferred the death scent etc.

IF the death scent was then transferred to the wardrobe, McCanns clothing were in there and perhaps they inadvertently transferred the same scent to articles of clothing.

These dogs are highly trained I believe the dogs. However, doesnt mean I believe the McCanns harmed their child etc, just that the dogs were telling their human they had found what they were trained for, not where it came from.

Pig man

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510082/Revealed-Madeleine-photofit-man-jailed-raping-British-girl.html

[Albertini]

Perhaps the intruder/abductor was hiding in the McCanns wardrobe and was carrying the death scent on their persons.....IF this was a planned abduction of a minor child, who would know what kind of perb would do this.

The death scent can be transferred.

When the perb picked the child off the bed, perhaps at first they touched the cuddle cat which again transferred the death scent etc.

IF the death scent was then transferred to the wardrobe, McCanns clothing were in there and perhaps they inadvertently transferred the same scent to articles of clothing.

These dogs are highly trained I believe the dogs. However, doesnt mean I believe the McCanns harmed their child etc, just that the dogs were telling their human they had found what they were trained for, not where it came from.

Are you referring to Gerry's famous, "he must have been hiding in the wardrobe" line clearly concocted in order to shoe horn in time for an abductor in line with Tannerman?

That ship has now sailed, and with it the ludicrous notion of a child snatcher hiding in the wardrobe.

Plus the presumption is he hid in the children's bedroom wardrobe not the Mccann's.

Also the wardrobe area which Eddie alerted to was shelved, unless he was a dwarf he wouldn't have got in there.

[gilet]

My comments in blue.

Are you referring to Gerry's famous, "he must have been hiding in the wardrobe" line clearly concocted in order to shoe horn in time for an abductor in line with Tannerman?

It is your supposition that it was 'concocted'. You have no way of knowing whether it was a genuinely held belief or otherwise.

That ship has now sailed, and with it the ludicrous notion of a child snatcher hiding in the wardrobe.

Says who? You? How do you know what the Oporto Inquiry or the SY Investigation are thinking?

Plus the presumption is he hid in the children's bedroom wardrobe not the Mccann's.

Presumptions on anyone's part can be wrong. And alternatives may actually be true.

Also the wardrobe area which Eddie alerted to was shelved, unless he was a dwarf he wouldn't have got in there.

He may have opened the doors and pulled them close towards him while remaining standing. Not a very effective cover but in an emergency perhaps the best he could find.

Also there is the statement by Grime about the alerts in the apartment in which he suggests that the location may not be accurate as the cadaver odour could have pooled in a particular place due to air currents.

Nothing should be ruled out just because amateurs like you or me simply can't see how it fits. These things are best left to the professionals in my view.

[Albertini]

Again you make a wild presumption. There is nothing in my posting which has ever suggested that I telephoned the MP or the PJ. Don't guess what you don't know.

Gilet, i have tried to leave this car crash of a thread alone but feel compelled to post.

Nowhere has any authority, either in the UK or PT, publicly come out and "trashed" the thesis of the PJ. In fact only a few days ago Hogan Howe came out publicly stating what a good job the PJ did in the initial investigation, against a difficult backdrop (mainly brought about by the parents media strategy).

You claim you are all about evidence and facts, yet you have no evidence or fact to support that assertion and you choose to ignore the one statement from SY supporting  the initial investigation.

What you have is PUBLIC statements that state SY and the new PJ team are at this moment in time following abduction leads at this stage of a new and reopened investigation, which in the absence of clear and incriminating evidence against the family is the only place any investigation can start and restart respectively.

The results of SY's review (which it is not certain is even complete - it took 2 years for it to be two thirds complete in August, so logic would dictate the last third has not been completed in 3 months) is to eliminate the chief suspect, the one who the group built a narrative around over their later statements.

At this time that leaves Smithman as the sole concrete lead on an abduction. Now as much as your valiant, but ultimately intellectually lightweight arguments attempted to convince the forum Mr Smith was wrong in identifying with 60-80% certainty, Gerry, and lest we forget whose daughter identified trousers we know Gerry had in PT at the time, the fact remains the sole lead for abduction comes from an independent witness who was prepared to make a statement identifying Gerry McCann.

So based on public announcements together with information about the one remaining sighting, the number of suspects for abduction has just halved, and the remaining suspect has been identified (again to 60-80%) as being Gerry.

These are facts Gilet. Facts along with evidence you state you use. So why are you trying to bend these facts and suggest Mr Smith was wrong to fit in with your own theory? That's not using facts. That's twisting facts to suit your agenda.

You have then created this thread crowing about the "trashing" of Amaral's thesis because the investigations at this new stage are looking at abduction leads (and once again let's remember the witness for the one remaining lead identified Gerry McCann).

To suggest that a newly opened and reopened investigation which are at this stage looking at abduction, must automatically mean Amaral's thesis has been trashed, displays not just intellectual paucity but huge naivety as well.

In the absence of clear and compelling evidence against the McCann's it would have been tactically nonsensical and probably prejudicial to any future trial to publicly state they are suspects.

Given the history of the case it is natural to state publicly they are not suspects, and none of us know what is going on in the operation room and how true that statement is in the grist of the actual investigation.

Equally we know that suspects can change as leads and evidence change. In much the same way the Philpott's weren't suspects at the start of their case, and similarly Karen Matthews. Suspects and leads change as investigations progress and as lines of enquiry are exhausted and ruled out.

However the one things investigations do not do is to name suspects before they have what they think is enough evidence against them.

I am sure you know this, it is not rocket science, it is common sense.

The reason i have tried to avoid this thread because it is clear you simply wanted to come on here to gloat and you have over 10 or so pages displayed breathtaking arrogance, pomposity, an attempted air of superiority, condescension and rudeness coupled with faux outrage and disgust if others say something you do not like.

Then on top of this when posters have challenged you to name your main who gave Gerry an alibi at 10:00 you simply ignored them and the question!

I have no idea why you cannot simply engage with people in the correct manner. It does you and the forum a huge disservice.

[stephen25000]

Gilet, i have tried to leave this car crash of a thread alone but feel compelled to post.

Nowhere has any authority, either in the UK or PT, publicly come out and "trashed" the thesis of the PJ. In fact only a few days ago Hogan Howe came out publicly stating what a good job the PJ did in the initial investigation, against a difficult backdrop (mainly brought about by the parents media strategy).

You claim you are all about evidence and facts, yet you have no evidence or fact to support that assertion and you choose to ignore the one statement from SY supporting  the initial investigation.

What you have is PUBLIC statements that state SY and the new PJ team are at this moment in time following abduction leads at this stage of a new and reopened investigation, which in the absence of clear and incriminating evidence against the family is the only place any investigation can start and restart respectively.

The results of SY's review (which it is not certain is even complete - it took 2 years for it to be two thirds complete in August, so logic would dictate the last third has not been completed in 3 months) is to eliminate the chief suspect, the one who the group built a narrative around over their later statements.

At this time that leaves Smithman as the sole concrete lead on an abduction. Now as much as your valiant, but ultimately intellectually lightweight arguments attempted to convince the forum Mr Smith was wrong in identifying with 60-80% certainty, Gerry, and lest we forget whose daughter identified trousers we know Gerry had in PT at the time, the fact remains the sole lead for abduction comes from an independent witness who was prepared to make a statement identifying Gerry McCann.

So based on public announcements together with information about the one remaining sighting, the number of suspects for abduction has just halved, and the remaining suspect has been identified (again to 60-80%) as being Gerry.

These are facts Gilet. Facts along with evidence you state you use. So why are you trying to bend these facts and suggest Mr Smith was wrong to fit in with your own theory? That's not using facts. That's twisting facts to suit your agenda.

You have then created this thread crowing about the "trashing" of Amaral's thesis because the investigations at this new stage are looking at abduction leads (and once again let's remember the witness for the one remaining lead identified Gerry McCann).

To suggest that a newly opened and reopened investigation which are at this stage looking at abduction, must automatically mean Amaral's thesis has been trashed, displays not just intellectual paucity but huge naivety as well.

In the absence of clear and compelling evidence against the McCann's it would have been tactically nonsensical and probably prejudicial to any future trial to publicly state they are suspects.

Given the history of the case it is natural to state publicly they are not suspects, and none of us know what is going on in the operation room and how true that statement is in the grist of the actual investigation.

Equally we know that suspects can change as leads and evidence change. In much the same way the Philpott's weren't suspects at the start of their case, and similarly Karen Matthews. Suspects and leads change as investigations progress and as lines of enquiry are exhausted and ruled out.

However the one things investigations do not do is to name suspects before they have what they think is enough evidence against them.

I am sure you know this, it is not rocket science, it is common sense.

The reason i have tried to avoid this thread because it is clear you simply wanted to come on here to gloat and you have over 10 or so pages displayed breathtaking arrogance, pomposity, an attempted air of superiority, condescension and rudeness coupled with faux outrage and disgust if others say something you do not like.

Then on top of this when posters have challenged you to name your main who gave Gerry an alibi at 10:00 you simply ignored them and the question!

I have no idea why you cannot simply engage with people in the correct manner. It does you and the forum a huge disservice.

Well said.

[Mr Gray]

Gilet, i have tried to leave this car crash of a thread alone but feel compelled to post.

Nowhere has any authority, either in the UK or PT, publicly come out and "trashed" the thesis of the PJ. In fact only a few days ago Hogan Howe came out publicly stating what a good job the PJ did in the initial investigation, against a difficult backdrop (mainly brought about by the parents media strategy).

You claim you are all about evidence and facts, yet you have no evidence or fact to support that assertion and you choose to ignore the one statement from SY supporting  the initial investigation.

What you have is PUBLIC statements that state SY and the new PJ team are at this moment in time following abduction leads at this stage of a new and reopened investigation, which in the absence of clear and incriminating evidence against the family is the only place any investigation can start and restart respectively.

The results of SY's review (which it is not certain is even complete - it took 2 years for it to be two thirds complete in August, so logic would dictate the last third has not been completed in 3 months) is to eliminate the chief suspect, the one who the group built a narrative around over their later statements.

At this time that leaves Smithman as the sole concrete lead on an abduction. Now as much as your valiant, but ultimately intellectually lightweight arguments attempted to convince the forum Mr Smith was wrong in identifying with 60-80% certainty, Gerry, and lest we forget whose daughter identified trousers we know Gerry had in PT at the time, the fact remains the sole lead for abduction comes from an independent witness who was prepared to make a statement identifying Gerry McCann.

So based on public announcements together with information about the one remaining sighting, the number of suspects for abduction has just halved, and the remaining suspect has been identified (again to 60-80%) as being Gerry.

These are facts Gilet. Facts along with evidence you state you use. So why are you trying to bend these facts and suggest Mr Smith was wrong to fit in with your own theory? That's not using facts. That's twisting facts to suit your agenda.

You have then created this thread crowing about the "trashing" of Amaral's thesis because the investigations at this new stage are looking at abduction leads (and once again let's remember the witness for the one remaining lead identified Gerry McCann).

To suggest that a newly opened and reopened investigation which are at this stage looking at abduction, must automatically mean Amaral's thesis has been trashed, displays not just intellectual paucity but huge naivety as well.

In the absence of clear and compelling evidence against the McCann's it would have been tactically nonsensical and probably prejudicial to any future trial to publicly state they are suspects.

Given the history of the case it is natural to state publicly they are not suspects, and none of us know what is going on in the operation room and how true that statement is in the grist of the actual investigation.

Equally we know that suspects can change as leads and evidence change. In much the same way the Philpott's weren't suspects at the start of their case, and similarly Karen Matthews. Suspects and leads change as investigations progress and as lines of enquiry are exhausted and ruled out.

However the one things investigations do not do is to name suspects before they have what they think is enough evidence against them.

I am sure you know this, it is not rocket science, it is common sense.

The reason i have tried to avoid this thread because it is clear you simply wanted to come on here to gloat and you have over 10 or so pages displayed breathtaking arrogance, pomposity, an attempted air of superiority, condescension and rudeness coupled with faux outrage and disgust if others say something you do not like.

Then on top of this when posters have challenged you to name your main who gave Gerry an alibi at 10:00 you simply ignored them and the question!

I have no idea why you cannot simply engage with people in the correct manner. It does you and the forum a huge disservice.

So how prejudicial to any future prosecution is the action of the lead investigator writing a book saying it was the parents what done it

[C.Edwards]

Gilet, i have tried to leave this car crash of a thread alone but feel compelled to post.

Nowhere has any authority, either in the UK or PT, publicly come out and "trashed" the thesis of the PJ. In fact only a few days ago Hogan Howe came out publicly stating what a good job the PJ did in the initial investigation, against a difficult backdrop (mainly brought about by the parents media strategy).

You claim you are all about evidence and facts, yet you have no evidence or fact to support that assertion and you choose to ignore the one statement from SY supporting  the initial investigation.

What you have is PUBLIC statements that state SY and the new PJ team are at this moment in time following abduction leads at this stage of a new and reopened investigation, which in the absence of clear and incriminating evidence against the family is the only place any investigation can start and restart respectively.

The results of SY's review (which it is not certain is even complete - it took 2 years for it to be two thirds complete in August, so logic would dictate the last third has not been completed in 3 months) is to eliminate the chief suspect, the one who the group built a narrative around over their later statements.

At this time that leaves Smithman as the sole concrete lead on an abduction. Now as much as your valiant, but ultimately intellectually lightweight arguments attempted to convince the forum Mr Smith was wrong in identifying with 60-80% certainty, Gerry, and lest we forget whose daughter identified trousers we know Gerry had in PT at the time, the fact remains the sole lead for abduction comes from an independent witness who was prepared to make a statement identifying Gerry McCann.

So based on public announcements together with information about the one remaining sighting, the number of suspects for abduction has just halved, and the remaining suspect has been identified (again to 60-80%) as being Gerry.

These are facts Gilet. Facts along with evidence you state you use. So why are you trying to bend these facts and suggest Mr Smith was wrong to fit in with your own theory? That's not using facts. That's twisting facts to suit your agenda.

You have then created this thread crowing about the "trashing" of Amaral's thesis because the investigations at this new stage are looking at abduction leads (and once again let's remember the witness for the one remaining lead identified Gerry McCann).

To suggest that a newly opened and reopened investigation which are at this stage looking at abduction, must automatically mean Amaral's thesis has been trashed, displays not just intellectual paucity but huge naivety as well.

In the absence of clear and compelling evidence against the McCann's it would have been tactically nonsensical and probably prejudicial to any future trial to publicly state they are suspects.

Given the history of the case it is natural to state publicly they are not suspects, and none of us know what is going on in the operation room and how true that statement is in the grist of the actual investigation.

Equally we know that suspects can change as leads and evidence change. In much the same way the Philpott's weren't suspects at the start of their case, and similarly Karen Matthews. Suspects and leads change as investigations progress and as lines of enquiry are exhausted and ruled out.

However the one things investigations do not do is to name suspects before they have what they think is enough evidence against them.

I am sure you know this, it is not rocket science, it is common sense.

The reason i have tried to avoid this thread because it is clear you simply wanted to come on here to gloat and you have over 10 or so pages displayed breathtaking arrogance, pomposity, an attempted air of superiority, condescension and rudeness coupled with faux outrage and disgust if others say something you do not like.

Then on top of this when posters have challenged you to name your main who gave Gerry an alibi at 10:00 you simply ignored them and the question!

I have no idea why you cannot simply engage with people in the correct manner. It does you and the forum a huge disservice.

Can I just nominate this for "post of the year" right now please?  Well said. 

[Mr Gray]

Can I just nominate this for "post of the year" right now please?  Well said. 

im sure you would..its like your posts full of errors..on a serious note...how many votes do you think it would get..10..15..20... what an incredible barometer of public opinion

[Benice]

Gilet, i have tried to leave this car crash of a thread alone but feel compelled to post.

Nowhere has any authority, either in the UK or PT, publicly come out and "trashed" the thesis of the PJ. In fact only a few days ago Hogan Howe came out publicly stating what a good job the PJ did in the initial investigation, against a difficult backdrop (mainly brought about by the parents media strategy).

You claim you are all about evidence and facts, yet you have no evidence or fact to support that assertion and you choose to ignore the one statement from SY supporting  the initial investigation.

What you have is PUBLIC statements that state SY and the new PJ team are at this moment in time following abduction leads at this stage of a new and reopened investigation, which in the absence of clear and incriminating evidence against the family is the only place any investigation can start and restart respectively.

The results of SY's review (which it is not certain is even complete - it took 2 years for it to be two thirds complete in August, so logic would dictate the last third has not been completed in 3 months) is to eliminate the chief suspect, the one who the group built a narrative around over their later statements.

At this time that leaves Smithman as the sole concrete lead on an abduction. Now as much as your valiant, but ultimately intellectually lightweight arguments attempted to convince the forum Mr Smith was wrong in identifying with 60-80% certainty, Gerry, and lest we forget whose daughter identified trousers we know Gerry had in PT at the time, the fact remains the sole lead for abduction comes from an independent witness who was prepared to make a statement identifying Gerry McCann.

So based on public announcements together with information about the one remaining sighting, the number of suspects for abduction has just halved, and the remaining suspect has been identified (again to 60-80%) as being Gerry.

These are facts Gilet. Facts along with evidence you state you use. So why are you trying to bend these facts and suggest Mr Smith was wrong to fit in with your own theory? That's not using facts. That's twisting facts to suit your agenda.

You have then created this thread crowing about the "trashing" of Amaral's thesis because the investigations at this new stage are looking at abduction leads (and once again let's remember the witness for the one remaining lead identified Gerry McCann).

To suggest that a newly opened and reopened investigation which are at this stage looking at abduction, must automatically mean Amaral's thesis has been trashed, displays not just intellectual paucity but huge naivety as well.

In the absence of clear and compelling evidence against the McCann's it would have been tactically nonsensical and probably prejudicial to any future trial to publicly state they are suspects.

Given the history of the case it is natural to state publicly they are not suspects, and none of us know what is going on in the operation room and how true that statement is in the grist of the actual investigation.

Equally we know that suspects can change as leads and evidence change. In much the same way the Philpott's weren't suspects at the start of their case, and similarly Karen Matthews. Suspects and leads change as investigations progress and as lines of enquiry are exhausted and ruled out.

However the one things investigations do not do is to name suspects before they have what they think is enough evidence against them.

I am sure you know this, it is not rocket science, it is common sense.

The reason i have tried to avoid this thread because it is clear you simply wanted to come on here to gloat and you have over 10 or so pages displayed breathtaking arrogance, pomposity, an attempted air of superiority, condescension and rudeness coupled with faux outrage and disgust if others say something you do not like.

Then on top of this when posters have challenged you to name your main who gave Gerry an alibi at 10:00 you simply ignored them and the question!

I have no idea why you cannot simply engage with people in the correct manner. It does you and the forum a huge disservice.

I could not disagree more.   Gilets posts are calm, considered, and claims have obviously been properly researched and are backed up with evidence.     An asset to any debating forum where opposing views prevail IMO.   

[C.Edwards]

I could not disagree more.   Gilets posts are calm, considered, and claims have obviously been properly researched and are backed up with evidence.     An asset to any debating forum where opposing views prevail IMO.

Which is why he has such a high warning level, obviously. 

He spouts unevidenced propaganda masquerading as truth. Only those who are supportive of the McCanns are taken in by it.

[Luz]

Good morning.
It's so comforting to see that our usual posters have not been abducted.

[Albertini]

So how prejudicial to any future prosecution is the action of the lead investigator writing a book saying it was the parents what done it

He wrote his book AFTER he was removed from the case and after it was shelved.

Redwood is currently in charge of an active case.

Note the difference.