CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[slartibartfast]

They are not even that, let alone any forensic evidence of which there was none.

All they are evidence of is that there was dessicated blood from a living person there, which is highly likely, in fact inevitable, as the apartment was built many many years before .... and there would have been minor accidents involving minor bleeds in there at times over the years.

No forensic confirmation of anything.  Poor Amaral, he is on a loser there IMO

We know that the cadaver dog alerted where the blood dog didn't, therefore not blood alert.

[Mr Gray]

If a dog alerts and no forensic evidence is found does that mean the dog is wrong? No, there are other cases where the dogs were found to be right later.

Do these dogs alert to minor accidents and bleeds? That's unlikely because they'd alert everywhere they were deployed. In this case I would have expected them to alert in Murat's house, for example.

I don't know if the dogs were right or wrong and neither does anyone else. Scepticism about the dogs seems to reside mostly in those who support the parents. Some of their attempts to discredit the dogs and their handler have been quite ridiculous.

We don't know if the dogs are right or wrong but Amaral has assumed they are right
That's wrong

[stephen25000]

I am open to evidence on all scenarios.

I may favour one above another, but i do realize that facts, i.e. evidence, is required to show which one is correct.

This case, however, is highlighted by the lack of evidence.

[Mr Gray]

I am open to evidence on all scenarios.

I may favour one above another, but i do realize that facts, i.e. evidence, is required to show which one is correct.

This case, however, is highlighted by the lack of evidence.

You have stated you believe Maddie died in an accident
That opinion must have been based on your interpretation of the facts
Therefore you must accept that facts exist
These facts are evidence
That's basic stephen

[stephen25000]

You have stated you believe Maddie died in an accident
That opinion must have been based on your interpretation of the facts
Therefore you must accept that facts exist
These facts are evidence
That's basic stephen

Let's have the facts which you say support abduction.

Yet again an opinion, is an interpretation of what information is available. It doesn't make it true.

[Mr Gray]

Let's have the facts which you say support abduction.

Yet again an opinion, is an interpretation of what information is available. It doesn't make it true.

Its taken me ages to make you understand that facts exist yet you have used these facts to form your opinion. these facts are evidence...not strong evidence but indirect evidence. Therefore we have established taht evidence exists...that is not an opinion...thats a fact. This evidence imo supports abduction ...and it looks like SY agree with me as Rowley has said Maddie was abducted..he has stated this as a fact.

[ShiningInLuz]

Its taken me ages to make you understand that facts exist yet you have used these facts to form your opinion. these facts are evidence...not strong evidence but indirect evidence. Therefore we have established taht evidence exists...that is not an opinion...thats a fact. This evidence imo supports abduction ...and it looks like SY agree with me as Rowley has said Maddie was abducted..he has stated this as a fact.

Funny, I got the impression Rowley said OG relied on the first investigation.

Which the Supreme Court has made clear did not rule out any possibilities.

[stephen25000]

Funny, I got the impression Rowley said OG relied on the first investigation.

Which the Supreme Court has made clear did not rule out any possibilities.

That is precisely the situation.

[ferryman]

Funny, I got the impression Rowley said OG relied on the first investigation.

Which the Supreme Court has made clear did not rule out any possibilities.

I don't think the Supreme Court made anything clear.

I think the Supreme Court botched it.

[Mr Gray]

Funny, I got the impression Rowley said OG relied on the first investigation.

Which the Supreme Court has made clear did not rule out any possibilities.

then you rknowledge of the case is poor...rowley stated as a fact that maddie was abducted...the quote was posted by me last night

MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life.
However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone
missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the
heart of this has been an abduction.

[stephen25000]

then you rknowledge of the case is poor...rowley stated as a fact that maddie was abducted...the quote was posted by me last night

MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life.
However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone
missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the
heart of this has been an abduction.

That is an opinion in a one sided investigation.

It does not make abduction a fact.

[Benice]

Amaral has the right to question it because there is evidence from the McCanns that normal bath time was 6:30pm onwards in PDL.

Normal routine - return back from play area at 18:30 then baths before bed.

"The dinner ended at 17h30 the time at which the employee supervision ended and the parents took over watching the children in the play area until 18h30. Following this they returned to the apartment, the deponent opened the main door with his key and, then, the rear door through which KATE and the children entered.
----- The hygiene done, the children were put to bed about 19h30."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Gerry was at tennis on 3 May 2007 when Fiona said this in her rog interview - Kate was getting them bathed and ready for bed.

"Kate and the kids, I think, as I said earlier, weren't there and, you know, they, as Gerry said, were just absolutely knackered and Kate was getting them bathed and ready for bed."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

David visit was at around 6:30pm.

Fiona Payne is only saying what she THINKS happened.    Her memory of the gist of what Gerry said Kate was doing was largely correct - but she would not necessarily remember the conversation in absolute precise detail - and I wouldn't expect her to.   It's trivial  IMO. 

The most important fact is that at Gerry's request David popped into 5a on his way back to his own apartment to get his tennis gear - just to see if Kate was OK.  It wasn't his idea it was Gerry's.   Amaral's claim that he had another  motive for going to 5a is reprehensible and is also grossly libellous IMO. 
   
This is another example of  'Lying by Omission imo.      By deliberately omitting any mention of the real reason why David left the tennis courts - which was to go back to his own apartment -  Amaral was then able to claim (unchallenged)  that the only reason why he left the tennis courts was to go to apartment 5a - and for deviant reasons too.         Completely untrue -  but anyone not knowing all the facts would not know that he had just left out the most vital fact of them all - in his attempt to smear an innocent person in the most deplorable way.

How anyone could even attempt to justify that particular crock of poison is totally beyond me

AIMHO

[Mr Gray]

That is an opinion in a one sided investigation.

It does not make abduction a fact.

I didn't say it did
I said Rowely has stated it as a fact... And he has... Fact

[G-Unit]

Its taken me ages to make you understand that facts exist yet you have used these facts to form your opinion. these facts are evidence...not strong evidence but indirect evidence. Therefore we have established taht evidence exists...that is not an opinion...thats a fact. This evidence imo supports abduction ...and it looks like SY agree with me as Rowley has said Maddie was abducted..he has stated this as a fact.

Rowley's certainty seems to be limited. Very little evidence, a lot not know, no idea what happened - but it was an abduction. How the heck does he know that? Perhaps someone told him.

the evidence is limited at the moment.....there is still a lot of unknown on this case.....Until we get to the point where we have solved it, we’re unlikely to have definitive evidence as to exactly what happened at the time.
http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743

[stephen25000]

I didn't say it did
I said Rowely has stated it as a fact... And he has... Fact

What Rowley stated, in the one sided remit, does not make 'abduction' a fact.

It is an opinion.