Pick any sentence from Kate's book.

[Robittybob1]

Irrespective of the Portuguese, the English translation is simple enough.

"Short transcript on this topic from CM Special: "Maddie, the Mystery"

 Anchor João Ferreira - I would like for you to tell us in detail your explanation for the disappearance of the body, you have a thesis..

 Gonçalo Amaral - No, I don't have one."

Correio da Manha is a TV station in Portugal as well as a newspaper.  It is obvious the interview was on the TV side.

Amaral says the line that an extra body was placed in a coffin should be investigated, not that it happened.  Nor does he finger the McCanns as body placers.  And in 2014 he was about 6 years away from being an investigative officer.

Need I continue?

You would know about the structure of the paper or TV. But iirc the YT was clear that he is talking about the McCanns and MBM but that is only from memory and it was translated (on screen) as well, for I can't  understand Portuguese yet.

I never said this happened but that he proposed it as a hypothesis.

[Robittybob1]

Shining what is the background to this quote? 
http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/hidden-evidence.html

The former coordinator of the PJ of Portimão will face again today Gerry and Kate McCann at the Palácio da Justiça in Lisbon, for another hearing session of the trial in which the McCann couple demands 1,2 million euros for damages for the publication of the book 'Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira' [Maddie, The Truth of the Lie] written by Gonçalo Amaral. In the book, the former coordinator of the PJ sustains the thesis that the parents are responsible for the disappearance of the girls and the concealment of her body.

Gonçalo Amaral has no doubts that Maddie is dead.

"The girl's parents had a key to church, in that church a vigil took place a month after the disappearance. According to information, the child's body could have been placed in the coffin, at the feet of the woman that was later cremated".

He concluded by saying, "The mystery will only be over when they stop protecting the McCann couple. Only then we will learn the truth".

[Robittybob1]

Here is even another version that links the hire car to the cremation as well as blaming the British!
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9835-british-police-hiding-evidence-in-maddie-case

Madeleine McCann "cremated in another person's funeral"
Post  sallypelt on Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:39 am

I don't know If this has already been posted. It's been taken from today's Corrieo da Manha

Gonçalo Amaral says that information provided by a woman who saw Maddie's father walking towards the beach disappeared from the files.


A few days after Madeleine McCann disappeared from the Ocean Club holiday resort in Praia da Luz, Algarve, May 3, 2007 (seven years ago), a witness emerged: a British tourist who said she saw the girl's father to walk the beach at night. The revelation was made by the former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral, who adds that the data of the witness disappeared.

"We tried to recover this testimony and the documents that were in the British sphere and simply disappeared. Still do not know who this person is and where it is," said Goncalo Amaral. Today, the former coordinator of the PJ of Portimão will meet up again with Gerry and Kate in the Justice Palace, in Lisbon, since it will continue the trial in which the British couple seeks EUR 1.2 million compensation for publishing the book 'Maddie, The Truth of the Lie', written by Goncalo Amaral, in defending the thesis that parents are responsible for the disappearance of the girl and the concealment of the body (see box). Goncalo Amaral has no doubts that Maddie is dead. "The girl's parents had the key of the church and in the same church a funeral a month after the disappearance was performed. According to some reports, the child could well go to the feet of this woman who was going to be cremated," further explained Gonçalo Amaral.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/policia-inglesa-esconde-provas-no-caso-maddie


Could this be the reason why the priest felt "let down" by the McCann's?


Last edited by sallypelt on Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:43 am; edited 1 time in total

sallypelt

Posts : 3234
Join date : 2012-11-10

[Robittybob1]

Here's a reply from the McCanns to these hypotheses:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gerry-kate-mccann-furious-claims-3707478

Gerry and Kate McCann furious at claims they hid daughter Madeleine's body in coffin

Also "Maddie's parents' anguish over disgraced detective's coffin claims" http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-hid-body-7277975

[ShiningInLuz]

You would know about the structure of the paper or TV. But iirc the YT was clear that he is talking about the McCanns and MBM but that is only from memory and it was translated (on screen) as well, for I can't  understand Portuguese yet.

I never said this happened but that he proposed it as a hypothesis.

Not in this he didn't.  He said it was just one alternative to be pursued.

These happen all the time in Luz.  I remember shortly after the time of the OG 2014 excavation of Luz, some red top came out with the sensational story that there was a well in the vicinity that OG had been digging.  It was attributed to an ex-SY officer of high rank now living in or around Luz.

The alleged well was considerably to the east of Luz.

For some reason, DCI Retired was allegedly aware that the well had not been checked in 2007.  Plus DCI Retired was aware that it was used as a dumping ground by local criminals.  DCI Retired did not explain how he knew of this, but the PJ, the GNR, the locals, and the investigative media were all blissfully ignorant.  Or why he (DCI R)did not report this gem in 2007, but decided to wait for the OG dig.

Thrust into the mix, DCI Retired claimed the involvement of gypsies who were known to camp out this particular piece of land.

After this exciting report, the truth began to set in.

One of the local newspapers sent in a reporter.  I cannot remember which one did it, but the results were simple.

The landowner said he had never had instances of gypsies camping on his land.

And the reporter followed the directions of DCI Retired to check out the well.  The only problem being, where X marks the spot, there wasn't a well.  Not a well in sight.

[Robittybob1]

Interesting story SiL. Thanks for not ticking me off. 
In my scientific language " one alternative to be pursued" = a hypothesis .  In science a hypothesis has to have tests that can prove it wrong. It is proved wrong by proving the null hypothesis right.  Like if there is no well that is the null hypothesis of there is a well.  And so on.  There could still be a well somewhere else but that becomes another hypothesis. If there were enough linking hypotheses one could formulate a theory.
I think he got close to having a theory but maybe he jumped the gun a bit.  Personally I think he tried hard (even if he had long lunches).
What test would he have to apply to see if MBM was cremated along with the older lady  - maybe there would be small teeth amongst the ashes.  (I've never studied cremains.) Were the ashes still available?

[Alfie]

So what's the general consensus?  Did Amaral have the right to say what he did in the media or not?  If so, then is there any reason why should Kate be denied the right to say whatever she feels like in her book?

[ferryman]

So what's the general consensus?  Did Amaral have the right to say what he did in the media or not?  If so, then is there any reason why should Kate be denied the right to say whatever she feels like in her book?

In so far as I can make sense of it, the key point is that Kate, in exercising her right, expunges rights she (and Gerry) would (otherwise) have to object to Amaral's lies and distortions ....

[faithlilly]

So what's the general consensus?  Did Amaral have the right to say what he did in the media or not?  If so, then is there any reason why should Kate be denied the right to say whatever she feels like in her book?

Yes and no.

[Alfie]

Yes and no.

Quite.  IMO Kate didn't go nearly far enough in excoriating her persecutors in her book, and throwing in a bit of unsubstantiated rumour and speculation for good measure.  Maybe she's saving it all up for volume 2 

[Alice Purjorick]

So what's the general consensus?  Did Amaral have the right to say what he did in the media or not?  If so, then is there any reason why should Kate be denied the right to say whatever she feels like in her book?

Someone convince me both parties did not write books to show the author in the best light and the "opposing side" in the worst light rather than be on some high moral plane as purported.
Sr Amaral's book has the advantage that it was declared in court there was nothing in the book that was not in the files and the book did not infringe the McCanns rights.

[Robittybob1]

Quite.  IMO Kate didn't go nearly far enough in excoriating her persecutors in her book, and throwing in a bit of unsubstantiated rumour and speculation for good measure.  Maybe she's saving it all up for volume 2 

The twins are going to need to be tough to read about their Mummy and Daddy.  So the McCanns should try and write a bestseller.  Goncalo would have run out of ammo.

[G-Unit]

Quite.  IMO Kate didn't go nearly far enough in excoriating her persecutors in her book, and throwing in a bit of unsubstantiated rumour and speculation for good measure.  Maybe she's saving it all up for volume 2 

I think the key difference is that Amaral was speculating about the case. Kate was speculating about unnamed, uninvolved members of Portugal's population.

Turn it around;
The UK media alone would have been outraged if Amaral had said "Surely there were intelligent and knowledgeable people in positions of authority [in the UK] who could see through the abduction story. Why were they all staying quiet? Was it because it wasn’t their problem? Were they scared to speak out?"

[Alfie]

I think the key difference is that Amaral was speculating about the case. Kate was speculating about unnamed, uninvolved members of Portugal's population.

Turn it around;
The UK media alone would have been outraged if Amaral had said "Surely there were intelligent and knowledgeable people in positions of authority [in the UK] who could see through the abduction story. Why were they all staying quiet? Was it because it wasn’t their problem? Were they scared to speak out?"

How is that any more offensive or outrageous than accusing specific individuals of heinous crimes including, cover up, body occultation and fraud? 

Whilst we're at it can you answer my question about rights please?  Would Amaral have had no right whatsoever to say the above in your view?

[Carana]

Someone convince me both parties did not write books to show the author in the best light and the "opposing side" in the worst light rather than be on some high moral plane as purported.
Sr Amaral's book has the advantage that it was declared in court there was nothing in the book that was not in the files and the book did not infringe the McCanns rights.

Regarding the underlined bit.... are you sure about that??

That's not my recollection.