The one I posted a link to previously.post no 1127 if memory serves.
However in my opinion there is going to be a somewhat murky trail to get all the finances sorted out the least of which is historical in nature and well predates the McCann family setting foot on Portuguese soil.
One of the cases to which I referred earlier
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7920.msg383692#msg383692 is pretty small beer in comparison to the accusation that you have fabricated your daughter's abduction and hidden her body:
SnipHowever, according to the assessment made by the court, the estate of Gonçalo Amaral does not provide sufficient guarantees for payment in case of conviction. Olhão's house - which she bought with her wife in 2002 with a loan from the BIC but is registered only in her name -
was arrested in 2005 due to a debt of around 130 thousand euros.A year later, the National Treasury registered an attachment on the house as guarantee of payment of 16900 euros. Finally, two years ago, it was BES (to which BIC belongs now) to file an executive action against the couple to collect more than
300,000 euros - a new attachment.
The book "Maddie - The truth of the Lie" was released in July 2008 and in the following two months, until the end of September, it had 12 editions, or 120,000 copies. However, in September, also by court decision, its sale had already been banned.
Gonçalo Amaral retired from the Judicial Police in June last year, after 26 years of service. At the time, he said he was leaving to have "full freedom of expression" after being removed months earlier from the investigation into the disappearance of the English child due to statements made to the media. Currently, Amaral receives a pension for early retirement of 2039 euros.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/arquivo/tribunal-fica-com-jaguar-de-goncalo-amaral=f544234Therefore in my opinion the sceptics have understood nothing as far as the evidence in this case goes with most of the inbuilt prejudices and misconceptions directed at the McCann family arising from a lack of knowledge.
The evidence is there that Goncalo Amaral was living way beyond his means prior to 2005 and the evidence is there that sceptics are of the belief that it was the McCanns who drove him into penury.
The evidence is there that Martin Grime has attested that dog indications have to be proven by forensic evidence; but the sceptics know better and instead prefer to follow other theories which do not have a shred of supporting evidence.
Have sceptics looked beyond what they have been assured is evidence ... or have they dug a bit deeper for more information to inform their opinion?
In my opinion they have not - therefore their misunderstanding and misinterpretation of whatever evidence there is.
