CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[G-Unit]

I  agree with the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Constabulary.

"While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

The Foreign Office;

'You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.'
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/75july13/AllVoices_09_07_2013.htm

[sadie]

I  agree with the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Constabulary.

"While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

The Foreign Office;

'You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.'
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/75july13/AllVoices_09_07_2013.htm

Oh, Gunit.  How misleading.     
You post two now out of date snippets, one from 2008 and the other from 2009, which both state that there is no evidence to prove that the Mccanns are innocent... and that was correct, THEN


BUT YOU FAIL to post from the results of the more recent  INVESTIGATIVE REVIEW dated JULY 2013. also in the same article by the two snippets you have posted!   


"Neither her parents or any of the member (sic) of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects."

Cherry picking at its worst.


'http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/75july13/AllVoices_09_07_2013.htm

JULY 2013
 
1.  Last week, as part of Scotland Yard's decision to update the public on the progress of their 'investigative review' into the Madeleine McCann case, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood stated: "Neither her parents or any of the member (sic) of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects."



2.  the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police, who stated in July 2008 that "While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance." At that time the McCanns were attempting to gain access to all the documents held by Leicester Police regarding the disappearance of their daughter. The request was denied.



3.  The British government's Foreign & Commonwealth Office also made their view clear, post-arguido, in December 2009, when responding to a Freedom of Information request about the missing child, Ben Needham. They wrote: 'You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.'


As , there was no proof then, both 2 and 3 were correct at the time they were stated, but things have moved on. After the investigation, seems there is.

Why did you pick the two old pre-investigation reports to post up, but fail to post the later after- investigation report? 



For them to be so positive, it seems SY and Porto PJ know who did it, IMO

But can they get enough evidence to prosecute?

[G-Unit]

Oh, Gunit.  How misleading.     
You post two now out of date snippets, one from 2008 and the other from 2009, which both state that there is no evidence to prove that the Mccanns are innocent... and that was correct, THEN


BUT YOU FAIL to post from the results of the more recent  INVESTIGATIVE REVIEW dated JULY 2013. also in the same article by the two snippets you have posted!   


"Neither her parents or any of the member (sic) of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects."

Cherry picking at its worst.


'http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/75july13/AllVoices_09_07_2013.htm

JULY 2013
 
1.  Last week, as part of Scotland Yard's decision to update the public on the progress of their 'investigative review' into the Madeleine McCann case, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood stated: "Neither her parents or any of the member (sic) of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects."



2.  the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police, who stated in July 2008 that "While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance." At that time the McCanns were attempting to gain access to all the documents held by Leicester Police regarding the disappearance of their daughter. The request was denied.



3.  The British government's Foreign & Commonwealth Office also made their view clear, post-arguido, in December 2009, when responding to a Freedom of Information request about the missing child, Ben Needham. They wrote: 'You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.'


As , there was no proof then, both 2 and 3 were correct at the time they were stated, but things have moved on. After the investigation, seems there is.

Why did you pick the two old pre-investigation reports to post up, but fail to post the later after- investigation report? 



For them to be so positive, it seems SY and Porto PJ know who did it, IMO

But can they get enough evidence to prosecute?

I agree with the two quotes I posted. Nothing which has been said since has changed my mind.

[Benice]

I find that stuffed with nonsense and disinformation, so much so that I will not bother replying to it point by point.

Just one allegation - the natural desire of the Portuguese to want the perpetrator to be a 'foreigner'.  What rubbish.  Have you actually looked at the photos or videos of the early days in Luz and the support and backing afforded by the Portuguese community in Luz?  Have you read Kate's book?  Did the Portuguese people immediately hope it was Johnny Brit wot dun it?

It would be helpful if your posts contained a degree of veracity when you are making such assertions.  Sticking AIMHO on it does not cut the mustard.

AIMHO.   

I'm not talking about the people of  Luz.    I'm aware that Kate and Gerry still have friends in Luz to this day.    I'm talking about the vicious smear campaign which began on day one with the 'swingers' allegation  - and the media smear campaign which followed and which has been continued by Amaral in the media ever since - as proved by this latest video.

The tourist industry is extremely important to Portugal.   It doesn't take rocket science to work out that anything which threatens to damage it - like the abduction of a holiday maker's child by one of their own for instance, would be regarded as highly undesirable.      For what other reason would the information regarding the UK children who had been sexually assaulted in their own beds in Portugal - be kept well away from holidaymakers if it wasn't to protect the tourist trade.

IMO it would be natural for Portuguese people to prefer the perpetrator to be proved to be a foreigner - especially in those particular circumstances -  and who would blame them.

I'm surprised that you feel able to state as a fact your opinion that  'the bulk of decent people in Portugal do not support the McCanns' -  but object because I gave my opinion as to why that could be the case -  IF indeed it is the case. .     

I can only assume you haven't watched the O Enigma video.   Perhaps you should start by reading the disgraceful allegations made against Dr. Payne as just one glaring example of blatant 'disinformation' before you question the veracity of my post.        How anyone can justify that crock of poison is beyond me. 

 Incidentally AFAIAC all posters on this forum always post their genuinely held opinions and it would never occur to me to question any poster's veracity simply because I didn't agree with or didn't like their opinion.   Your comment is offensive and uncalled for. 
   
And yes - there are many decent folk in Portugal.     I would definitely count  Henrique Monteiro, a past Chief Editor, of the highly respected Portuguese newspaper the Expresso as being  one of them.     How about you?

AIMHO

[Benice]

I  agree with the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Constabulary.

"While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

The Foreign Office;

'You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.'



http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/75july13/AllVoices_09_07_2013.htm

The McCanns were arguidos at the time.   No way would a senior UK police officer publicly say anything that would show disrespect for the decision of the Portuguese Judiciary to make them arguidos.    To do so would have caused a diplomatic incident.   Instead he chose the middle 'diplomatic' route IMO.

I doubt if he would repeat the same today.

As it happens I believe the McCanns were badly advised to request files whilst they were arguidos as it inevitably put our UK police in a difficult position.

AIMHO

[Brietta]

I agree with the two quotes I posted. Nothing which has been said since has changed my mind.

In O Enigma Goncalo Amaral continues to promote the 'accidental death' hypothesis he came up with at the time ... it involved overdosing on Calpol I believe.

If like him you believe that nothing changes and issues of the time remain set in stone that is indeed your prerogative.

However time does move on and it is a strange person who accepts the death inducing attributes ascribed to Calpol by Amaral as being remotely possible.
Just as it is extraordinary for anyone involved in the conduct of Madeleine's case to misunderstand the significance post Leveson of the reasoning behind your selective quotes which could be described as "o tempora o mores".

[Alice Purjorick]

In O Enigma Goncalo Amaral continues to promote the 'accidental death' hypothesis he came up with at the time ... it involved overdosing on Calpol I believe.

If like him you believe that nothing changes and issues of the time remain set in stone that is indeed your prerogative.

However time does move on and it is a strange person who accepts the death inducing attributes ascribed to Calpol by Amaral as being remotely possible.
Just as it is extraordinary for anyone involved in the conduct of Madeleine's case to misunderstand the significance post Leveson of the reasoning behind your selective quotes which could be described as "o tempora o mores".

Freely translated as "The Thunderer and The Revenuers"...
Tho' I doubt Cicero had that in mind.
Was the comment aimed at the inhabitants of Colchester? Britains Oldest recorded town inhabited yet by the odd Roman or two?

[sadie]

In O Enigma Goncalo Amaral continues to promote the 'accidental death' hypothesis he came up with at the time ... it involved overdosing on Calpol I believe.

If like him you believe that nothing changes and issues of the time remain set in stone that is indeed your prerogative.

However time does move on and it is a strange person who accepts the death inducing attributes ascribed to Calpol by Amaral as being remotely possible.
Just as it is extraordinary for anyone involved in the conduct of Madeleine's case to misunderstand the significance post Leveson of the reasoning behind your selective quotes which could be described as "o tempora o mores".

Strangely my post has been removed, but your post says it so much better IMO.  Thanks Brietta.

Gunit chose to cherry pick two very early opinions, and chose to ignore the statement by SY AFTER THE INVESTIGATION, which may have well found out things that we do not know about.


Well done Gunit.  True to form

[ShiningInLuz]

I'm not talking about the people of  Luz.    I'm aware that Kate and Gerry still have friends in Luz to this day.    I'm talking about the vicious smear campaign which began on day one with the 'swingers' allegation  - and the media smear campaign which followed and which has been continued by Amaral in the media ever since - as proved by this latest video.

The tourist industry is extremely important to Portugal.   It doesn't take rocket science to work out that anything which threatens to damage it - like the abduction of a holiday maker's child by one of their own for instance, would be regarded as highly undesirable.      For what other reason would the information regarding the UK children who had been sexually assaulted in their own beds in Portugal - be kept well away from holidaymakers if it wasn't to protect the tourist trade.

IMO it would be natural for Portuguese people to prefer the perpetrator to be proved to be a foreigner - especially in those particular circumstances -  and who would blame them.

I'm surprised that you feel able to state as a fact your opinion that  'the bulk of decent people in Portugal do not support the McCanns' -  but object because I gave my opinion as to why that could be the case -  IF indeed it is the case. .     

I can only assume you haven't watched the O Enigma video.   Perhaps you should start by reading the disgraceful allegations made against Dr. Payne as just one glaring example of blatant 'disinformation' before you question the veracity of my post.        How anyone can justify that crock of poison is beyond me. 

 Incidentally AFAIAC all posters on this forum always post their genuinely held opinions and it would never occur to me to question any poster's veracity simply because I didn't agree with or didn't like their opinion.   Your comment is offensive and uncalled for. 
   
And yes - there are many decent folk in Portugal.     I would definitely count  Henrique Monteiro, a past Chief Editor, of the highly respected Portuguese newspaper the Expresso as being  one of them.     How about you?

AIMHO

I do wish you would cut down on propaganda that you can't substantiate.  Adding an AIMHO as a standard ending to 100% of your posts does not make it anything other than propaganda.

I didn't give an opinion based on nothing.  I have already quoted the CdM poll re the SC decision which was overwhelmingly in favour of the result against the McCanns.

I have seen so much rubbish on this forum, much of it dished out by supporters who are sitting in England, most who have never visited Portugal let alone Luz.  Frankly, I have had my fill, and whenever this tripe is trotted out, it is going to get savaged.

The allegation that the tourist trade was hiding sexual assaults in the Algarve.  Either prove that a representative of the Ocean Club knew of these, or pipe down.

The allegation that the Portuguese people want it to be a foreigner.  Either prove that this is the case or stop churning it out as a given.

London is a major tourist destination.  DCI Nicola Wall did a cold case review of an American who was stabbed to death whilst jogging through a London park.  She failed to crack it.  By your illogic, this would be down to DCI Wall and the British public not wanting the murderer to be a Brit, in case it adversely affected the tourist industry.

It's nonsense in DCI Wall's case.  And it is nonsense in Madeleine's case.  And churning such propaganda out does not help Madeleine one iota.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, when that broadcasts an entirely negative view of our host country and is based purely on supposition, don't be surprised to find I counter it.

[Innominate]

This is, I believe, the relevant section (chapter 15) in The Truth of the Lie:

-- snip ---

In order to conceal his crime, the murderer can hide the body, or alter the crime scene in such a way as to divert suspicion. But this is not always the case. Someone may also get rid of a body without having committed a criminal act. For what reasons? Fear, for example, of being judged by his peers.

Imagine a couple of doctors going on holiday abroad, to a country they hardly know. They leave their three children to sleep alone in their apartment to go to a restaurant, a hundred metres away. When they come back, one of the children is dead. It could be an accident or murder. What do they do? They call the police and, in a way, admit that they were more than negligent. And what will happen when they go back home? What will the consequences be? Will their professional future be compromised? Will they be charged? Will they retain custody of the younger ones?

As I said at the start of the book, no lead must be abandoned while it has not technically been ruled out.

-------

Mr Amaral is merely pointing out various possibilities. I do not see any reason he is promoting "Death by Calpol" as being his hypothesis.

For instance, he is pointing out that "Someone may also get rid of a body" even though they did not commit a criminal act.

I have no idea what happened, but Mr Amaral is, on my interpretation, stating that MBM could have died in an accident or been murdered.

A murder would involve a third party, but there is no guarantee that the murderer moved the body. Another third party could have moved the body.

MBM could have died in a 'hit and run' and, again, another third party could have moved the body.

It seems to me to be fair game to scrutinise his theories, but I do not believe that he has limited himself to one particular theory as there is no strong evidence as to what happened.

He does appear to be giving weight to the 'intelligence' from the dog alert in the apartment, which in his view indicates that either MBM died in the apartment or her body was temporarily moved to the apartment.

AFAIK there is no evidence at present to implicate any third party, and it is my understanding that no third party (especially the parents) are currently suspects.

Abduction is another valid theory.

Mr Amaral states:

At a certain stage in the investigation, to explain Madeleine's disappearance, we had considered the scenario of the concealment of a body. But before coming to that conclusion, we had to exhaust all leads that favoured the theory of abduction.

They are all theories (of course, not all theories are created equal). At present SY are trying to determine what happened to MBM. I hope they are successful.

[stephen25000]

I'm not talking about the people of  Luz.    I'm aware that Kate and Gerry still have friends in Luz to this day.    I'm talking about the vicious smear campaign which began on day one with the 'swingers' allegation  - and the media smear campaign which followed and which has been continued by Amaral in the media ever since - as proved by this latest video.

The tourist industry is extremely important to Portugal.   It doesn't take rocket science to work out that anything which threatens to damage it - like the abduction of a holiday maker's child by one of their own for instance, would be regarded as highly undesirable.      For what other reason would the information regarding the UK children who had been sexually assaulted in their own beds in Portugal - be kept well away from holidaymakers if it wasn't to protect the tourist trade.

IMO it would be natural for Portuguese people to prefer the perpetrator to be proved to be a foreigner - especially in those particular circumstances -  and who would blame them.

I'm surprised that you feel able to state as a fact your opinion that  'the bulk of decent people in Portugal do not support the McCanns' -  but object because I gave my opinion as to why that could be the case -  IF indeed it is the case. .     

I can only assume you haven't watched the O Enigma video.   Perhaps you should start by reading the disgraceful allegations made against Dr. Payne as just one glaring example of blatant 'disinformation' before you question the veracity of my post.        How anyone can justify that crock of poison is beyond me. 

 Incidentally AFAIAC all posters on this forum always post their genuinely held opinions and it would never occur to me to question any poster's veracity simply because I didn't agree with or didn't like their opinion.   Your comment is offensive and uncalled for. 
   
And yes - there are many decent folk in Portugal.     I would definitely count  Henrique Monteiro, a past Chief Editor, of the highly respected Portuguese newspaper the Expresso as being  one of them.     How about you?

AIMHO

You have made several allegations there, which are really your opinion dressed up as facts.

I suggest you supply some cites to back up your claims.

[G-Unit]

In O Enigma Goncalo Amaral continues to promote the 'accidental death' hypothesis he came up with at the time ... it involved overdosing on Calpol I believe.

If like him you believe that nothing changes and issues of the time remain set in stone that is indeed your prerogative.

However time does move on and it is a strange person who accepts the death inducing attributes ascribed to Calpol by Amaral as being remotely possible.
Just as it is extraordinary for anyone involved in the conduct of Madeleine's case to misunderstand the significance post Leveson of the reasoning behind your selective quotes which could be described as "o tempora o mores".

I have examined the Portuguese files and I found no evidence which eliminates her parents from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. I also found no evidence that an abduction occurred.

Various pronouncements have been made since, but no new evidence has been released so until it is the situation remains as it was in my opinion.

[Mr Gray]

I have examined the Portuguese files and I found no evidence which eliminates her parents from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. I also found no evidence that an abduction occurred.

Various pronouncements have been made since, but no new evidence has been released so until it is the situation remains as it was in my opinion.

The way the law works is that evidence of incrimination needs to be found and there is no real evidence of incrimination
There is lots of evidence that the McCanns are not involved

[sadie]

I have examined the Portuguese files and I found no evidence which eliminates her parents from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. I also found no evidence that an abduction occurred.

Various pronouncements have been made since, but no new evidence has been released so until it is the situation remains as it was in my opinion.

Nor have you found any evidence that implicates The Mccanns

 ... but SY, who are not sharing the findings of their investigations and are working with Porto PJ, say

"Neither her parents or any of the member (sic) of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects."

That is the latest announcement AFTER the investigations ... yours were BEFORE the investigations.

[Mr Gray]

I do wish you would cut down on propaganda that you can't substantiate.  Adding an AIMHO as a standard ending to 100% of your posts does not make it anything other than propaganda.

I didn't give an opinion based on nothing.  I have already quoted the CdM poll re the SC decision which was overwhelmingly in favour of the result against the McCanns.

I have seen so much rubbish on this forum, much of it dished out by supporters who are sitting in England, most who have never visited Portugal let alone Luz.  Frankly, I have had my fill, and whenever this tripe is trotted out, it is going to get savaged.

The allegation that the tourist trade was hiding sexual assaults in the Algarve.  Either prove that a representative of the Ocean Club knew of these, or pipe down.

The allegation that the Portuguese people want it to be a foreigner.  Either prove that this is the case or stop churning it out as a given.

London is a major tourist destination.  DCI Nicola Wall did a cold case review of an American who was stabbed to death whilst jogging through a London park.  She failed to crack it.  By your illogic, this would be down to DCI Wall and the British public not wanting the murderer to be a Brit, in case it adversely affected the tourist industry.

It's nonsense in DCI Wall's case.  And it is nonsense in Madeleine's case.  And churning such propaganda out does not help Madeleine one iota.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, when that broadcasts an entirely negative view of our host country and is based purely on supposition, don't be surprised to find I counter it.

You make a statement that most supporters have never visited portugal
How do you know that
You dont