Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

Amaral repeats what the investigation found and thought. Collins hasn't even checked the very simple easy to verify whereabouts of the McCanns on 3rd May. We know for sure they were not at the Paraiso that evening. There's no excuse for such a lack of research.

in his book amaral says a lot more ...much of it total BS....thers no excuse for total ignorance......which is much worse as amaral was the coordinator of the investigation

[barrier]

Theres just something about Mr Amaral and the dogs that irk.

[Mr Gray]

Theres just something about Mr Amaral and the dogs that irk.

simply that the less informed do not understand them...and it seems that includes amaral...im perfectly happy with what grime and harrison say about the alerts

[Robittybob1]

simply that the less informed do not understand them...and it seems that includes amaral...im perfectly happy with what grime and harrison say about the alerts

Careful you might offend someone.

[G-Unit]

in his book amaral says a lot more ...much of it total BS....thers no excuse for total ignorance......which is much worse as amaral was the coordinator of the investigation

You make many claims about Amaral's book. but seem unable to provide cites to support your allegations. Rumours of what he said are worthless, provide cites!

There's no excuse for total ignorance whoever you are. If Collins can't get the simple facts right it nullifies anything else he might say.

[Brietta]

Theres just something about Mr Amaral and the dogs that irk.

I'm coming round to the point of view that constant referral to the mistaken analysis of the dog indications may be a libel directed at Kate and Gerry McCann.
The dog owner's report and the FSS report is very clear on the matter; thinking it is otherwise does not make it so.

[slartibartfast]

I'm coming round to the point of view that constant referral to the mistaken analysis of the dog indications may be a libel directed at Kate and Gerry McCann.
The dog owner's report and the FSS report is very clear on the matter; thinking it is otherwise does not make it so.

The alerts happened, as the experts have said, it doesn't point the finger at anyone and cannot be used in court. Discussion of the alerts is not libel.

[Mr Gray]

The alerts happened, as the experts have said, it doesn't point the finger at anyone and cannot be used in court. Discussion of the alerts is not libel.

There is no discussion re the alerts
No inference can be drawn from them according to the experts and they have no evidential reliability in or out of court
The only thing that irks is the sceptics inability to understand this

[stephen25000]

The alerts happened, as the experts have said, it doesn't point the finger at anyone and cannot be used in court. Discussion of the alerts is not libel.

Precisely Slarti.

Discussion of the alerts is not libel.

The alerts happened.

What has been repeatedly shown on this forum, and elsewhere, including Gerry McCann's attempt, FAILED, to bring the matter up in court , is how the McCann's and their main backers are totally obsessed with the dogs.

[Robittybob1]

Precisely Slarti.

Discussion of the alerts is not libel.

The alerts happened.

What has been repeatedly shown on this forum, and elsewhere, including Gerry McCann's attempt, FAILED, to bring the matter up in court , is how the McCann's and their main backers are totally obsessed with the dogs.

You always play this mind game method, and never put up a convincing argument.

[stephen25000]

You always play this mind game method, and never put up a convincing argument.

It is not a mind game.

What I stated is fact.

[barrier]

The alerts happened, as the experts have said, it doesn't point the finger at anyone and cannot be used in court. Discussion of the alerts is not libel.

If the alerts cannot be used in court what is the point of the dogs in any case?

[Robittybob1]

It is not a mind game.

What I stated is fact.

It might be factual somewhere in the past but there was no fact in what you said.
"What has been repeatedly shown on this forum, and elsewhere, including Gerry McCann's attempt, FAILED, to bring the matter up in court , is how the McCann's and their main backers are totally obsessed with the dogs."

Show us proof of that?

If the alerts cannot be used in court what is the point of the dogs in any case?

They may have identified where a body was hidden. 

[barrier]

They may have identified where a body was hidden.

In the apartment months after the reported disappearance?

[Mr Gray]

If the alerts cannot be used in court what is the point of the dogs in any case?

Do you not understand why the dogs were brought in
They are brought in to find evidence
It's in the files as to why they were brought in