LOL it's so easy for some to be sceptics. Anything that doesn't suit - just question it's veracity. Anything which does suit - then it's written in stone.
You can make a case against anyone about anything using those tactics.
Incidentally Amaral wasn't there either - and as he never once met or spoke to Kate - and only once briefly met Gerry - then everything thereafter came to him second-hand - and never from his own first hand personal experience of them. A crucial point - but one which he studiously avoids mentioning in his book. In fact quite the opposite impression is given to his readers both in his book and also in TV interviews.
From Kate's book:-
And so it was that on 11 December 2009 I first laid eyes on Sr. Goncalo Amaral. It was also the first time he had laid eyes on me. It is extraordinary that could had said and written so many awful things about a person he had never met.
unquote.
LOL! It's equally easy to be a supporter. Anything that doesn't suit - just question it's veracity; statements which contradict the group's statements, interpreter's credentials and skills, amateur translator's motives, the nature of 'listening services', the integrity of a dog handler, the scents a cadaver dog alerts to, the nature of what constitutes 'neglect', the skills of Portuguese investigators.
Anything which does suit; certain parts of the otherwise unreliable files, reports showing unsuccessful work by cadaver dogs, the success of 'listening services' in other resorts, anything said by the arguidos, the superiority, integrity and skill of UK police forces is set in stone.
