Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine

[Alfie]

Bilton was asked to spy on Murat for 'exclusives'. How did that help find Madeleine ?

Who asked him?  Could it be that the McCann camp believed Murat was involved in Madeleine's disappearance at that time?  Turn it around - why if Gerry had dumped Madeleine's body in a bin would they be asking a Panorama reporter to "spy on Murat"?

[Alfie]

So no proof just a need to defend the McCanns at all costs.

I see you didn't answer my question some days ago regarding your need to still defend the McCanns even though they have been declared 'not suspects' by, it would seem, everyone in authority. Why was that?

Because it was an attempt by you to turn the thread into an examination of MY motives.  Do you want to do this here?  why not start a new thread about it or PM and I will gladly answer, though I fear you will be disappointed with the reply.

[Alfie]

So no proof just a need to defend the McCanns at all costs.

I see you didn't answer my question some days ago regarding your need to still defend the McCanns even though they have been declared 'not suspects' by, it would seem, everyone in authority. Why was that?

BTW, my reply does not "defend the McCanns at all costs", it simply points out that your opinion is based on nothing much, certainly not proof such as you have demanded of me!

[faithlilly]

Because it was an attempt by you to turn the thread into an examination of MY motives.  Do you want to do this here?  why not start a new thread about it or PM and I will gladly answer, though I fear you will be disappointed with the reply.

Yes I want to do this here.

[pathfinder73]

Who asked him?  Could it be that the McCann camp believed Murat was involved in Madeleine's disappearance at that time?  Turn it around - why if Gerry had dumped Madeleine's body in a bin would they be asking a Panorama reporter to "spy on Murat"?

"The McCann couple said that the attention of the police should be maintained focusing on the abduction hypothesis, which, in the couple's opinion, was the only scenario that occurred and that the police should not forget to continue to investigate the suspect Robert Murat."

Processos Vol X
Pages 2533 - 2534

Date: 2007/09/03

For : Goncalo Amaral

From Ricardo Paiva, Inspector

[Alfie]

Yes I want to do this here.

LOL, roll up your sleeves then.  Let's take this baby off topic, Faithlilly wants to have it out here and now....

[stephen25000]

LOL, roll up your sleeves then.  Let's take this baby off topic, Faithlilly wants to have it out here and now....

Well, cyber fisticuffs.

That's a new one on me.

[Alfie]

To answer your question Faithlilly - I am not defending the McCanns, they don't need me to defend them, what I post here makes very little difference whatsoever to anything or anybody.  I post for myself only, the case interests me, I used to post about other conspiracy theories because they interest me.  I used to argue daily with Holocaust deniers and they'd ask me why, if the Holocaust was established fact, I felt the need to defend the Jews especially when I am not Jewish - same answer really, although in the case of the "Holohoax" I think it's an example of a conspiracy that seems to have taken hold in a rather alarming way, so perhaps more people should spend more time challenging it online though the intransigence on the subject is similar to the intransigence in the debate on this case.  Ultimately it's a futile exercise as once the conspiracy has taken hold of a person's imagination and the propaganda has done its work there's nothing a sane, rational person can say that will change such a person's mind.
Basically I enjoy the debate and people's beliefs in conspiracies I do find fascinating. I can't help it, so sue me.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral's case has shown that a theory is not libellous, as long as it is a theory. (Gerry McCann has said he doesn't mind if someone has a theory.)

Amarals case has not shown that
The judgement only has jurisdiction in Portugal

[Mr Gray]

Can you think of any reason why they should be arrested and by whom? I can't. I can think of unanswered questions which they might to be able to help with, that's all. For example;

1. Were the bedroom curtains open (4th May statements) or closed as in subsequent interviews?
2. Why was no action taken to make sure the twins were OK, given that they slept so deeply as to cause concern?
3. Tell us, Kate, about the time Madeleine ran away and hid?
4. Why did your relatives think the apartment had been broken into?
5. Why did you let people advertise Madeleine's eye and tell the GMC she had a coloboma when she didn't?
6. You said you had no qualms about leaving the children/leaving the patio door open. Please explain why you discussed it at the table on 3rd May.

1. You are assuming the twice translated non verbatim statements are correct
2 the McCanns had more important things on their minds
3 isn't this a myth
4 because the window was open
5 you have no real evidence that the McCanns told the gmc this at all
6 you are taking statements out of context

[Mr Gray]

BTW, my reply does not "defend the McCanns at all costs", it simply points out that your opinion is based on nothing much, certainly not proof such as you have demanded of me!

Defend the McCanns at all costs
What typical sceptic rubbish

[G-Unit]

1. You are assuming the twice translated non verbatim statements are correct
2 the McCanns had more important things on their minds
3 isn't this a myth
4 because the window was open
5 you have no real evidence that the McCanns told the gmc this at all
6 you are taking statements out of context

It is the McCann's answers which would be interesting, not yours. I wonder if they would match with each other. (Obviously they'd have to let go of each other and go into separate rooms)

[Eleanor]

I can't believe I'm reading some of this.

[Mr Gray]

It is the McCann's answers which would be interesting, not yours. I wonder if they would match with each other. (Obviously they'd have to let go of each other and go into separate rooms)

The point I am making is that there are simple answers to your questions
The one re the GMC has been raised by you before
You are making an assumption that Gerry told this to the GMC
I have never heard the McCanns refer to the eye defect as a  coloboma you will not have a cite for this
It is another instance of someone else using a word and then sceptics assuming Gerry used it
Assumptions assumptions assumptions

[slartibartfast]

The point I am making is that there are simple answers to your questions
The one re the GMC has been raised by you before
You are making an assumption that Gerry told this to the GMC
I have never heard the McCanns refer to the eye defect as a  coloboma you will not have a cite for this
It is another instance of someone else using a word and then sceptics assuming Gerry used it
Assumptions assumptions assumptions

To use someone else's argument, if it is not denied.....