CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[Mr Gray]

You really haven't been taking notice ferryman.

The prosecutors as call them, gave an opinion.

An opinion is not proof of 'abduction'.

Pray tell, when will you understand that ?

abduction can be proved on the balance of probabilities

[stephen25000]

abduction can be proved on the balance of probabilities

You can't prove abduction, when the facts of  how Madeleine disappeared remain unknown.

[ferryman]

You really haven't been taking notice ferryman.

The prosecutors as call them, gave an opinion.

An opinion is not proof of 'abduction'.

Pray tell, when will you understand that ?

Whose opinion (in your opinion) is better-informed or more knowledgeable than those of the prosecutors?

[Mr Gray]

You can't prove abduction, when the facts of  how Madeleine disappeared remain unknown.

read my post again...you talk about proving but you dont define what you mean by proof as i do

[stephen25000]

Whose opinion (in your opinion) is better-informed or more knowledgeable than those of the prosecutors?

What 'facts' did the prosecutors have ?


They didn't of course, have any.

There was no evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

Nothing has changed in that regard.

They were speculating.

[Alice Purjorick]

abduction can be proved on the balance of probabilities

Go on then.

[ferryman]

Go on then.

1. Had Inspector Carlos got it wrong (that Gerry was at the table at the point of Kate's alert and the point of the Smith sighting) you would have expected Gerry's absence to be noted immediately.  More, you would expect to read detailed commentary in the files on efforts to find Gerry to tell him what had happened, including where he was when found and who found him.

2.  The provenance of Eddie's reaction to the car is known and innocent.  Eddie ignored the boot and the forensic analysis of material from the boot just told nothing at all.

3. The reason why more time was spent in apartment 5a than any of the other apartments combined, stands in need of explanation, and should be explained.

[G-Unit]

Sorry G - I don't understand your first couple of sentences.

IIRC the confusion referred to by the UK police  officer was to confusion caused in the past not during her interview with JT.        Also IIRC in order to prevent it happening  during this interview they agreed to call the patio doors the 'poolside door' and the other door the ' roadside door'. 

I've noticed that other people also described the patio door as the front door.   The 4 ex policemen (can't remember their names) who went over to PDL had a chart on the wall with the  patio door clearly marked as the front door.    I've always thought of the patio door as the back door.

As IMO there is not a single sensible credible reason why Gerry would make the ridiculous claim - of going in via the front door, (i.e. the roadside door)   then common sense alone dictates that a misunderstanding probably occurred between the PJ officer, the interpreter and Gerry during what was the very first interview of this case for all of them.  Not only would Gerry be exhausted and traumatised, he would also be finding it very difficult to concentrate - hoping and praying that news would arrive any second that Madeleine had been found.

AIMHO

The UK police interviewers may have been confused, but there's no evidence that the PJ were. I don't know why Gerry said he unlocked the door with his KEY and neither do you, but he said it.

Perhaps the single sensible credible reason why Gerry made the (not at all) ridiculous claim - of going in via the front door, was that he went in by the front door? That's more credible to me than the proposal that he forgot what he'd done the evening before and every evening since Sunday.

The bit of your post I've bolded is your opinion and cannot be verified.

[Benice]

The UK police interviewers may have been confused, but there's no evidence that the PJ were. I don't know why Gerry said he unlocked the door with his KEY and neither do you, but he said it.

Perhaps the single sensible credible reason why Gerry made the (not at all) ridiculous claim - of going in via the front door, was that he went in by the front door? That's more credible to me than the proposal that he forgot what he'd done the evening before and every evening since Sunday.

The bit of your post I've bolded is your opinion and cannot be verified.

We shall have to agree to disagree then G - as I don't believe Gerry did say it.   IMO he may have said 'the front door' but was talking about the patio door.     I believe he and the PJ officer were genuinely at cross-purposes over which door was which. 

For what possible reason would he decide to say he went all the way round to the front door - after already confirming that the patio door, a couple of seconds walk away, was open?   He would need to have a good reason for making that claim - as it doesn't make any sense for him to do that - (especially if he needed the loo).     

Sorry but as you give no reason why Gerry would suddenly decide do something so inexplicable -  then just giving ''he went in by the front door'' as a credible reason doesn't work for me.    What was his motive?

It seems clear to me that the PJ officer was not familiar with the layout of 5A or the immediate area  - because if he was then surely he would have asked Gerry the obvious question i.e.  ''WHY did you walk past the open patio door and go all that long way round to the front door?'' during that interview.     

If he had  - then I think any misunderstanding about the doors would have been cleared up there and then.

AIMHO

[G-Unit]

We shall have to agree to disagree then G - as I don't believe Gerry did say it.   IMO he may have said 'the front door' but was talking about the patio door.     I believe he and the PJ officer were genuinely at cross-purposes over which door was which. 

For what possible reason would he decide to say he went all the way round to the front door - after already confirming that the patio door, a couple of seconds walk away, was open?   He would need to have a good reason for making that claim - as it doesn't make any sense for him to do that - (especially if he needed the loo).     

Sorry but as you give no reason why Gerry would suddenly decide do something so inexplicable -  then just giving ''he went in by the front door'' as a credible reason doesn't work for me.    What was his motive?

It seems clear to me that the PJ officer was not familiar with the layout of 5A or the immediate area  - because if he was then surely he would have asked Gerry the obvious question i.e.  ''WHY did you walk past the open patio door and go all that long way round to the front door?'' during that interview.     

If he had  - then I think any misunderstanding about the doors would have been cleared up there and then.

AIMHO

It's quite common for some to disbelieve the statements when it suits their purposes, I notice. The problem with doing that is no statement can then be used to support an argument. Cast doubt on one and you have to doubt them all. Perhaps Gerry was 'misunderstood' when he recounted what time he checked, when he talked of open doors, when he gave the time of Kate's alert, and so on. You can't cherry-pick what you believe.

[Benice]

It's quite common for some to disbelieve the statements when it suits their purposes, I notice. The problem with doing that is no statement can then be used to support an argument. Cast doubt on one and you have to doubt them all. Perhaps Gerry was 'misunderstood' when he recounted what time he checked, when he talked of open doors, when he gave the time of Kate's alert, and so on. You can't cherry-pick what you believe.

I'm afraid I have never regarded any non-verbatim statements as totally reliable.    In fact I think going over them with a microscope analysing every word as if they ARE totally accurate  is a waste of time and energy.      Similarly - although  I believe witnesses told the truth - that doesn't mean that all their recollections are accurate.

However what I don't do is throw common sense, logic and reasoned thought out of the window  - no matter what is being discussed/debated.   

[Mr Gray]

The  topic of the thread is anarals video. I have highlighted things he has said that are just palin wrong...why is he saying these things...saying that the children were put to bed each night with an antihistamine called calpol...saying that the alerts proved there was a cadaver in the apartment...is he just not very bright or is there another motive.

What he has shown is that the mccanns have no case to answer...well done amaral..

[G-Unit]

So what is the reason that Amaral gets so much wrong
The children were not put to sleep every night with an antihistamine called calpol
The dogs did not prove a cadaver had been in the apartment

So what is the explanation
Was he just not very bright and should not have been leading the investigation

In my opinion good detectives appear to develop a sense of when people are being less than honest. Amaral may not have worked out exactly what the truth is, but he's convinced something was hidden. John Stalker reached the same conclusion. Many ordinary people agree with them. That's why blogs and fora exist which promote this viewpoint.

[stephen25000]

The  topic of the thread is anarals video. I have highlighted things he has said that are just palin wrong...why is he saying these things...saying that the children were put to bed each night with an antihistamine called calpol...saying that the alerts proved there was a cadaver in the apartment...is he just not very bright or is there another motive.

What he has shown is that the mccanns have no case to answer...well done amaral..

You do not know what happened in the apartment.


You are also impugning another persons intelligence, and also indicating possible other motives for his actions, which you have no basis for.

Not one of the three main theories has been proved or disproved.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion good detectives appear to develop a sense of when people are being less than honest. Amaral may not have worked out exactly what the truth is, but he's convinced something was hidden. John Stalker reached the same conclusion. Many ordinary people agree with them. That's why blogs and fora exist which promote this viewpoint.

good detectives rely on evidence........what you are saying is that amaral relied on his intuition which is fine to guide an investigation but not to reach conclusions.....that is a disgrace and very poor policing. What amaral has proved is taht he has no evidence against the mccanns.....its about time he admitted it and stopped saying thisngs that are not true