The parents of a missing child don't matter.

[stephen25000]

you talk rubbish as usual..amaral will not bring justice for maddie as his gullible supporters claim...try addressing the post ...you can't

What have the mccanns brought Madeleine dave ?

Amaral and his colleagues tried to solve a crime, before he was removed, and we know what the mccanns did.

[Mr Gray]

What have the mccanns brought Madeleine dave ?

Amaral and his colleagues tried to solve a crime, before he was removed, and we know what the mccanns did.

as you have admitted amaral misunderstood the evidence so how could he solve the crime

[stephen25000]

as you have admitted amaral misunderstood the evidence so how could he solve the crime

The forensics were misinterpreted.

It does mean that Madeleine did not die in the apartment.

Even Redwood admitted that was a possibility.

[Mr Gray]

The forensics were misinterpreted.

It does mean that Madeleine did not die in the apartment.

Even Redwood admitted that was a possibility.

if amaral didn't understand the evidence ...how could he solve the crime

[Miss Taken Identity]

Tell me, do you approve of the "pro Amaral" propaganda on this forum, Stephen?

Define pro amaral propaganda... Are you referring to what he has written in 'the truth of the lie'? or the fact people like me support his right to freedom of expression. Not necessarily agreeing or liking what he wrote?

[Mr Gray]

Define pro amaral propaganda... Are you referring to what he has written in 'the truth of the lie'? or the fact people like me support his right to freedom of expression. Not necessarily agreeing or liking what he wrote?

pro amaral propaganda...lies repeated on the website to build support....

Fact, evidence confirms someone died in apartment 5a.

[stephen25000]

if amaral didn't understand the evidence ...how could he solve the crime

He was removed dave.

[Mr Gray]

He was removed dave.

yes..because he was rubbish

[Alfred R Jones]

Define pro amaral propaganda... Are you referring to what he has written in 'the truth of the lie'? or the fact people like me support his right to freedom of expression. Not necessarily agreeing or liking what he wrote?

Tell me, does the right to freedom of expression include the right to tell malicious lies about someone?  Not specifically talking about Amaral, but generally speaking.  For example would it be ok with you for a journalist to track you down and write in a national newspaper that you are a vicious McCann bashing troll, with a deeply ugly personality and looks to match?  I guess you'd support the journo's right to do that unconditionally, yes?

[stephen25000]

yes..because he was rubbish

No dave.

He was removed after complaining about interference in the case.

[Jean-Pierre]

Define pro amaral propaganda... Are you referring to what he has written in 'the truth of the lie'? or the fact people like me support his right to freedom of expression. Not necessarily agreeing or liking what he wrote?

Stephen was complaining about "pro McCann propaganda" on this forum.  I was merely asking what he though about the "pro Amaral" propaganda here - form a few posters - (not you as it happens)

[Benice]

No dave.

He was removed after complaining about interference in the case.

Interference from whom? 

IIRC he was removed  for breaking the secrecy laws by whining to a journalist about the UK police.   His removal was totally self-inflicted and not before time.    Having been made an Arguido - he should never have been let near the case in the first place.

IMO

[stephen25000]

Interference from whom? 

IIRC he was removed  for breaking the secrecy laws by whining to a journalist about the UK police.   His removal was totally self-inflicted and not before time.    Having been made an Arguido - he should never have been let near the case in the first place.

IMO

Rubbish.

As if you didn't know.

[Mr Gray]

No dave.

He was removed after complaining about interference in the case.

I thought the view was the UK police supported him...more lies

[Benice]

Rubbish.

As if you didn't know.

Well prove me wrong then. 

 Interference in the case  by whom?   

 Where is your evidence that Amaral did not break the Secrecy laws by talking to a journalist?