CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[Angelo222]

NSY are investigating the abduction.
Don't think they are investigating the flat earth theory.

And failed miserably on both counts!!

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with many of Amaral's theories but they are theories and he is entitled to them.

[Erngath]

And failed miserably on both counts!!

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with many of Amaral's theories but they are theories and he is entitled to them.

Is  he ?
Doesn't matter who he defames, does it?

[ferryman]

I'm a bit disgusted by the nonchalance with which a man's reputation can be sullied in a document released to the internet by Duarte Levy.

I'm a bit perplexed that having witnessed such an aberration supposedly directed toward an infant ... wasn't there something about finger sucking too? the supposedly concerned adult allowed bathing arrangements for the children to proceed unhindered.

It is precisely that detail that causes me to call into question, not so much Mrs Gaspar; more, the accuracy of the statement attributed to her we read on line.

How many mothers, harbouring suspicions about a man Mrs Gaspar, by the statement we read on line, harboured against DP, would allow  him anywhere near her daughter, let alone allow him to bath her?

I suggest, not many.

Amaral's version of the statement (of Mrs Gaspar's) in his book does not reflect what her statement (as we read it on line) says.

And I am far from convinced that the words ascribed to Mrs G (in the on-line statement) reflect what she said.

[stephen25000]

Is  he ?
Doesn't matter who he defames, does it?

The McCann's had their day in court and lost.

Tell me, do you hold the McCann's accountable in any way for their actions, in failing to protect their children ?

They claimed to have regularly checked their children.

As far as I know, on the record, we only have one instance, for each of them, doing that.

[stephen25000]

It is precisely that detail that causes me to call into question, not so much Mrs Gaspar; more, the accuracy of the statement attributed to her we read on line.

How many mothers, harbouring suspicions about a man Mrs Gaspar, by the statement we read on line, harboured against .... ......, would allow  him anywhere near her daughter, let alone allow him to bath her?

I suggest, not many.

Amaral's version of the statement (of Mrs Gaspar's) in his book does not reflect what her statement (as we read it on line) says.

And I am far from convinced that the words ascribed to Mrs G (in the on-line statement) reflect what she said.

So when was Kate McCann made aware of what the Gasper's said, especially Mrs. Gasper ?

[ferryman]

The McCann's had their day in court and lost.

Tell me, do you hold the McCann's accountable in any way for their actions, in failing to protect their children ?

They claimed to have regularly checked their children.

As far as I know, on the record, we only have one instance, for each of them, doing that.

Will Supreme Court judges have the humility to admit they screwed up royally?

Sadly I am pessimistic. 

[stephen25000]

Will Supreme Court judges have the humility to admit they screwed up royally?

Sadly I am pessimistic.

Why should they, as I and others have stated, they followed Portuguese Law.

[ferryman]

So when was Kate McCann made aware of what the Gasper's said, especially Mrs. Gasper ?

The McCanns will (in due course) have read all the statements, including many we don't see.

[ferryman]

Why should they, as I and others have stated, they followed Portuguese Law.

Portuguese law?

That you can concoct any old pile of eyewash that defames and traduces, call it a 'theory', and not be guilty of libel for having written it.

That law, you mean?

[stephen25000]

The McCanns will (in due course) have read all the statements, including many we don't see.

When did they read the Gasper's ?

Any idea ?

I am specifically referring here to Kate Mccann.

[Erngath]

The McCann's had their day in court and lost.

Tell me, do you hold the McCann's accountable in any way for their actions, in failing to protect their children ?

They claimed to have regularly checked their children.

As far as I know, on the record, we only have one instance, for each of them, doing that.

Yes I know they had many days in court, quite sad that such a disgraceful book (imo) was judged to me more important than their right not to be unjustly accused.

Why do you continually bring every debate/discussion back to the same question which has been discussed time after time..............deflection I assume.

We are discussing Amaral's video and my particular interest in this discussion is whether it is morally correct for him to make his accustions and bizarre (imo )theories

[stephen25000]

Portuguese law?

That you can concoct any old pile of eyewash that defames and traduces, call it a 'theory', and not be guilty of libel for having written it.

That law, you mean?

That sounds like sour grapes.

That case is over, and it is about time you dealt with that.

[Erngath]

Portuguese law?

That you can concoct any old pile of eyewash that defames and traduces, call it a 'theory', and not be guilty of libel for having written it.

That law, you mean?

Yes that law. As I've misquoted Mr Bumble before. If the law thinks that, then the law is an ass.

[stephen25000]

Yes I know they had many days in court, quite sad that such a disgraceful book (imo) was judged to me more important than their right not to be unjustly accused.

Why do you continually bring every debate/discussion back to the same question which has been discussed time after time..............deflection I assume.

We are discussing Amaral's video and my particular interest in this discussion is whether it is morally correct for him to make his accustions and bizarre (imo )theories

Indeed.

The whole point being of course that it is  'in your opinion'.

So what next.

You know full well, there is very little I will agree with you in this case.

So you can call that an impasse.

[stephen25000]

Yes that law. As I've misquoted Mr Bumble before. If the law thinks that, then the law is an ass.

The case is over, and what ever you think will not make a blind bit of difference.