« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 185 186 [187] 188 189 ... 391   Go Down

Author Topic: Goncalo Amaral.  (Read 406935 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2790 on: August 10, 2020, 05:43:09 PM »
Quote from: Eleanor on August 10, 2020, 05:38:50 PM
Much worse than that, until he saw The Light and then became a much loved saint.

No I mean after he saw the light....like SF.
Logged
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2791 on: August 10, 2020, 05:45:51 PM »
To suggest that SF ever persecuted the McCanns is just plain idiotic IMO.  She was “only asking questions”, isn’t that something sceptics view as an innocent and harmless activity?
Logged
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Eleanor

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2792 on: August 10, 2020, 05:46:29 PM »
Quote from: Faithlilly on August 10, 2020, 05:43:09 PM
No I mean after he saw the light....like SF.

Did she?
Logged

Offline faithlilly

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2793 on: August 10, 2020, 05:56:33 PM »
Quote from: Eleanor on August 10, 2020, 05:46:29 PM
Did she?

Surely you don’t think that she didn’t read the files when they were released on the DVD ? Really ?

Here’s what I don’t understand. As a supporter I would have been very unhappy about the way SF questioned the parents but would understand her position as she was sceptical with regard to the parent’s part in Madeleine’s disappearance. That we are now told that she knew there was no evidence against the parents, forensically at least, when carrying out the interview as a supporter I would trust her not one jot.

Oh well, none so blind.
Logged
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Eleanor

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2794 on: August 10, 2020, 06:04:51 PM »
Quote from: Faithlilly on August 10, 2020, 05:56:33 PM
Surely you don’t think that she didn’t read the files when they were released on the DVD ? Really ?

Here’s what I don’t understand. As a supporter I would have been very unhappy about the way SF questioned the parents but would understand her position as she was sceptical with regard to the parent’s part in Madeleine’s disappearance. That we are now told that she knew there was no evidence against the parents, forensically at least, when carrying out the interview as a supporter I would trust her not one jot.

Oh well, none so blind.

We are told that she knew?  No one told me so I don't know what she knew.

And anyway, I am much more interested in what Amaral thought he was doing by using her to spread disinformation.  That is a very nasty fact.
Logged

Offline faithlilly

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2795 on: August 10, 2020, 06:16:15 PM »
Quote from: Eleanor on August 10, 2020, 06:04:51 PM
We are told that she knew?  No one told me so I don't know what she knew.

And anyway, I am much more interested in what Amaral thought he was doing by using her to spread disinformation.  That is a very nasty fact.

Every journalist had the DVD in July 2008....of course she knew.
Logged
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2796 on: August 10, 2020, 06:20:43 PM »
Quote from: Faithlilly on August 10, 2020, 06:16:15 PM
Every journalist had the DVD in July 2008....of course she knew.


Your posts are sounding obsessive and out of touch with reality...very odd
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 07:03:51 PM by Davel »
Logged

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2797 on: August 10, 2020, 06:26:06 PM »
Perhaps Davel you could send her a link to this thread, as her integrity is being called into question she might like to have her say, or send a Cease and Desist.
Logged
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2798 on: August 10, 2020, 06:29:07 PM »
Quote from: Vertigo Swirl on August 10, 2020, 06:26:06 PM
Perhaps Davel you could send her a link to this thread, as her integrity is being called into question she might like to have her say, or send a Cease and Desist.

Tbh....I doubt she would lower herself
Logged

Offline Eleanor

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2799 on: August 10, 2020, 06:32:45 PM »
Quote from: Davel on August 10, 2020, 06:29:07 PM
Tbh....I doubt she would lower herself

Howzat!
Logged

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2800 on: August 10, 2020, 07:11:23 PM »
I just got a warning for “generalising”.   @)(++(*
Logged
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2801 on: August 10, 2020, 07:14:03 PM »
Generalising -
make a general or broad statement by inferring from specific cases.

Folks, don’t be tempted to follow my example and generalise, it’s against forum rules now.

What next?  A warning for asking a rhetorical question maybe?
Logged
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2802 on: August 10, 2020, 07:24:44 PM »
Quote from: Vertigo Swirl on August 10, 2020, 07:11:23 PM
I just got a warning for “generalising”.   @)(++(*
You know where you went wrong for you asked to be reprimanded.   
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2803 on: August 10, 2020, 07:26:44 PM »
Davel's communication with SF.  I'll leave it to the forum to comprehend what it all means.

Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #2804 on: August 10, 2020, 07:33:46 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on August 10, 2020, 07:26:44 PM
Davel's communication with SF.  I'll leave it to the forum to comprehend what it all means.



I didn't mean you to post it...just to confirm its existence and content
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 185 186 [187] 188 189 ... 391   Go Up
« previous next »