Are the Tapas Rogatory statements as released by Duarte Levy genuine?

[John]

Is it just coincidence that Duarte (Levy) removed all the internet links to the dog videos?

[Anna]

Is it just coincidence that Duarte (Levy) removed all the internet links to the dog videos?

They are on you tube and I'm sure some people have copies

Spelling edited

[gilet]

I think his former g/f, Joana Morais - got there first.   

Indeed she did and she can hardly be deemed by anyone as being in the pocket of the McCanns.

However to address Jassi's initial question about Levy being the "latest ENEMY".  I fear that like other posters who equate asking pertinent questions about the actions of individuals as "attacking" them as Icabodcrane has done recently, Jassi is failing to realise that the purpose of these threads is to get to the truth.

If Jassi and Icabodcrane believes that simply not asking these questions and attempting as in this case to determine just what reliability can be placed on the evidence which this person has put in the public domain is the best way to pursue the truth then, I for one do not agree with them.

I know from discussing the matter with various acquaintances who have knowledge of police procedure that one of the principal initial questions which is asked is how reliable is the evidence? How did the person come to gain the knowledge, material etc that they are offering? Is there any possibility that the evidence is not accurate? Is there any possible motive for the witness to offer inaccurate evidence? All these matters pertain just as much to the likes of Levy as they do to the McCanns.  But Jassi and Icabodcrane seem to think that acceptance of such as Levy's evidence without question is OK while every detail of McCann evidence is to be scrutinised over and over and over again. I can only guess as to why posters should maintain that position.

Just to re-iterate a crucial point which some seem to forget. There was never a general release to the public of the PJ files. Those files were released only to accredited journalists for reference purposes. The files in the public arena (as the dog videos in the public arena) have come only from Amaral's friend, the extremely dodgy journalist Levy. No other source exists, no other journalist, newspaper, news outlet or official body has ever posted the PJ files. Every detail we rely on comes via the person Joana Morais described as a con man and swindler. I really don't understand why people even after Joana Morais has described him thus seem to think Levy is beyond reproach.

[gilet]

Is it just coincidence that Duarte (Levy) removed all the internet links to the dog videos?

No more than it is a coincidence that he plastered over the videos a ridiculous claim to copyright.

[jassi]

This is why it is incumbent on posters to question every single detail about the case and not for whatever reason to claim that such questioning is attacking people or creating enemies of people. It is not, it is simply the most sensible way of attempting to get a little closer to the underlying truth.

A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ Files which are hosted on a blog site.  They may be the most accurate details of the case we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ. Given the way in which they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.

I couldn't say, but considering that Kate has had everything translated to her satisfaction and hasn't once  complained about misrepresentation, one can conclude that they must be reasonably accurate.

[gilet]

I couldn't say, but considering that Kate has had everything translated to her satisfaction and hasn't once  complained about misrepresentation, one can conclude that they must be reasonably accurate.

You may make that supposition. I most certainly do not.

Do you really think that Kate McCann or anyone else who has access to her copies of the files has gone through both sets side by side to check whether they are the same. Really? Personally, I don't imagine for one minute that she has wasted her time in that way.

I doubt she has the remotest interest these days in what people host on blogs such as that where the files are held. She has the more reassuring knowledge that the Police of two countries are investigating the case based entirely on the full, complete and real files.

[jassi]

You may make that supposition. I most certainly do not.

Do you really think that Kate McCann or anyone else who has access to her copies of the files has gone through both sets side by side to check whether they are the same. Really? Personally, I don't imagine for one minute that she has wasted her time in that way.

I doubt she has the remotest interest these days in what people host on blogs such as that where the files are held. She has the more reassuring knowledge that the Police of two countries are investigating the case based entirely on the full, complete and real files.

She may be now, but these files have been out for a long time and given the litigious nature of the McCanns, I'm sure they would have been unwilling to let blatant injustices lie unchallenged.

[gilet]

She may be now, but these files have been out for a long time and given the litigious nature of the McCanns, I'm sure they would have been unwilling to let blatant injustices lie unchallenged.

Litigious? Seriously?

Have you not noticed that they have only undertaken a tiny number of cases whereas there are thousands of people posting about them online in the most grotesque manner possible?

Claims such as that certainly do not relate to expertise as the most basic reading of the facts tells us you are wrong.

[Jean-Pierre]

The old "well, nobody has challenged it / sued / corrected - so it must be true" chestnut.   

[jassi]

The old "well, nobody has challenged it / sued / corrected - so it must be true" chestnut.   

Difficult to disprove.

[pegasus]

Is it not Mr Levy who is also our only source of the videos of Eddie and Keela in PDL?
With all his faults, I think everyone here should be grateful to him for this.

[Mr Gray]

It makes a lot more sense than the opposite viewpoint. After all one would think LP could easily scupper the authenticity if the rogs were untrue.

as neither Gerry nor Payne have denied the gaspar statements then they must be true too

[John]

as neither Gerry nor Payne have denied the gaspar statements then they must be true too

Gapar statements are merely observations of conduct perceived to be something else imo.

Back on topic, re Duarte.  We have no alternative but to be grateful to him for releasing the files into the public domain otherwise there would have been very little known about what went on in this case.  His conduct over other undertakings is certainly to be condemned but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the released files.  One has to take a sensible position in all of this and strike a balance.  If Joana Morais was in any way suspicious that the files were corrupted she wouldn't have spent the time promoting them.

[Jean-Pierre]

Gapar statements are merely observations of conduct perceived to be something else imo.

Back on topic, re Duarte.  We have no alternative but to be grateful to him for releasing the files into the public domain otherwise there would have been very little known about what went on in this case.  His conduct over other undertakings is certainly to be condemned but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the released files.  One has to take a sensible position in all of this and strike a balance.  If Joana Morais was in any way suspicious that the files were corrupted she wouldn't have spent the time promoting them.

My dear John.  You are relatively new to this case, so you may not be aware of some of the history.  Joana Morais no doubt has many fine qualities.  But being a source of unbiased information on the McCann case is not one of them.  She will happily post anything which either supports Amaral or denigrates the McCanns.  For an example, you have only to look at the banner for her blogspot, and the quote from article 37.   

[John]

My dear John.  You are relatively new to this case, so you may not be aware of some of the history.  Joana Morais no doubt has many fine qualities.  But being a source of unbiased information on the McCann case is not one of them.  She will happily post anything which either supports Amaral or denigrates the McCanns.  For an example, you have only to look at the banner for her blogspot, and the quote from article 37.   

I am on record as stating she is biased as recently as a few days ago.  That said though, I doubt very much whether she would waste her time on case files if they were knowingly corrupted.  Gilet has raised a very good point about the rogatory statements but others have responded with equally persuasive responses.