UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on September 22, 2013, 05:44:32 PM
-
Dr Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer told reporters outside the tribunal on the 12th September that he wanted to exclude reporters from the hearings in order to protect the integrity of the investigation.
Do you agree with his explanation or did he have an ulterior motive?
-
Dr Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer told reporters outside the tribunal on the 12th September that he wanted to exclude reporters from the hearings in order to protect the integrity of the investigation.
Do you agree with his explanation or did he have an ulterior motive?
He frankly admitted that he wanted proceedings in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
I remain stunned that such a frank admission didn't lead to an immediate collapse of Amaral's defence, but it clearly didn't.
In respect of proceedings being in camera, I'm just questioning whether the McCanns have any say in the matter.
I'm not convinced they do.
-
Dr Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer told reporters outside the tribunal on the 12th September that he wanted to exclude reporters from the hearings in order to protect the integrity of the investigation.
Do you agree with his explanation or did he have an ulterior motive?
I think his justification was to "preserve Madeleine's memory" or something like that. That's rubbish as he clearly doesn't give a stuff about Madeleine.
My take on it as that he knew what would be presented in evidence and didn't want Joe Public hearing about it. Amaral is neither altruistic nor a man of honour or courage.
-
Dr Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer told reporters outside the tribunal on the 12th September that he wanted to exclude reporters from the hearings in order to protect the integrity of the investigation.
Do you agree with his explanation or did he have an ulterior motive?
Doesn't make much sense to try to muzzle reportage and opinion when you consider that his argument is freedom of expression.
-
Doesn't make much sense to try to muzzle reportage and opinion when you consider that his argument is freedom of expression.
Well said Sherlock 8@??)(
-
Doesn't make much sense to try to muzzle reportage and opinion when you consider that his argument is freedom of expression.
Good post, Sherlock. Moriarty himself would have applauded you!
What you say is right. If this is all about his freedom of expression, and if he is so sure of his case then why try to exclude the press?
Methinks there may be further revelations (as if the 3As business was not bad enough).
-
I think his justification was to "preserve Madeleine's memory" or something like that. That's rubbish as he clearly doesn't give a stuff about Madeleine.
My take on it as that he knew what would be presented in evidence and didn't want Joe Public hearing about it. Amaral is neither altruistic nor a man of honour or courage.
His lawyer said:
We asked to the court to deal with this trial behind closed doors to protect anything about the disappearance of Maddie McCann, because we don't know if the girl is dead or alive. And we asked that, the McCanns opposed that and want the publicity of the trial.
-
His lawyer said:
We asked to the court to deal with this trial behind closed doors to protect anything about the disappearance of Maddie McCann, because we don't know if the girl is dead or alive. And we asked that, the McCanns opposed that and want the publicity of the trial.
Cheers DCI. Bit of a blooper from Amaral's lawyer there, eh!
-
Good post, Sherlock. Moriarty himself would have applauded you!
What you say is right. If this is all about his freedom of expression, and if he is so sure of his case then why try to exclude the press?
Methinks there may be further revelations (as if the 3As business was not bad enough).
Yep, it seems, so far, that this trial is merely serving to bring out the contradictions in the arguments of both sides.
It is hard to imagine that the victor will walk out of court with any considerable net gain, given the losses of face in the mean time.
Ironic in a case about reputation
-
Cheers DCI. Bit of a blooper from Amaral's lawyer there, eh!
Just a bit. But since, when has Amaral wanted to protect anything about the disappearance of Madeleine?
-
His lawyer said:
We asked to the court to deal with this trial behind closed doors to protect anything about the disappearance of Maddie McCann, because we don't know if the girl is dead or alive. And we asked that, the McCanns opposed that and want the publicity of the trial.
Thank you for the exact words, DCI.
Amaral's lawyer doesn't know whether Madeleine is dead or alive, and his client, Amaral, wants the right to say, not merely that Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry know she is dead, caused her death and launched a fraudulent fund in their (deceased!) daughter's name ...
Why is this trial continuing?
Does anyone know?
I sure as hell don't ...
-
Thank you for the exact words, DCI.
Amaral's lawyer doesn't know whether Madeleine is dead or alive, and his client, Amaral, wants the right to say, not merely that Madeleine is dead, but that Kate and Gerry know she is dead, caused her death and launched a fraudulent fund in their (deceased!) daughter's name ...
Why is this trial continuing?
Does anyone know?
I sure as hell don't ...
Well that's easy to answer.
The Mccann's want more money.
-
In what sense is libel not proved when Amaral's own lawyer doesn't know whether Madeleine is alive or dead?
-
Yep, it seems, so far, that this trial is merely serving to bring out the contradictions in the arguments of both sides.
It is hard to imagine that the victor will walk out of court with any considerable net gain, given the losses of face in the mean time.
Ironic in a case about reputation
As with Bennett, Kate and Gerry McCann just want him to STOP, Sherlock. It's not just the book and the film, Amaral has been touring round giving interviews to all and sundry promoting his lies. They just want him to stop.
-
Just a bit. But since, when has Amaral wanted to protect anything about the disappearance of Madeleine?
Never. He wanted Kate and Gerry McCann stitched up and when that failed he tried to make money. He does not give a stuff about Madeleine McCann.
-
In what sense is libel not proved when Amaral's own lawyer doesn't know whether Madeleine is alive or dead?
That is the question, ferryman. Surely his lawyer's comments drive a coach and horses through the book and the vile "defrosting remains" business?
-
As with Bennett, Kate and Gerry McCann just want him to STOP, Sherlock. It's not just the book and the film, Amaral has been touring round giving interviews to all and sundry promoting his lies. They just want him to stop.
Indeed he has.
Amaral claimed that there were "frozen cadaver remains" from the car.
-
Cheers DCI. Bit of a blooper from Amaral's lawyer there, eh!
More of a totally unnecessary trauma for the twins as they must now cope with their friends telling them they may be kidnapped at any moment.
You supporters really have no concern for those poor children, do you ? Point scoring against Amaral seems to be your only goal and to hell with the twins emotional welfare !
-
Indeed he has.
Amaral claimed that there were "frozen cadaver remains" from the car.
This has proven to be rubbish, yet on and on he went - knowing it was rubbish. Which proves that he does not give a stuff about Madeleine McCann.
-
no concern for those poor children
Do you exempt yourself from the category, Faith ...
And d'accord, Rachel ...
-
More of a totally unnecessary trauma for the twins as they must now cope with their friends telling them they may be kidnapped at any moment.
You supporters really have no concern for those poor children, do you ? Point scoring against Amaral seems to be your only goal and to hell with the twins emotional welfare !
Not point scoring, faithlilly - simply telling the plain, unvarnished truth.
I care plenty about the McCann family, because I have empathy and compassion for people.
Can those who post foul insults about Madeleine's Mum and Dad say the same?
-
More of a totally unnecessary trauma for the twins as they must now cope with their friends telling them they may be kidnapped at any moment.
You supporters really have no concern for those poor children, do you ? Point scoring against Amaral seems to be your only goal and to hell with the twins emotional welfare !
How do you imagine that the friends of the twins will tell them they could be kidnapped at any moment? Do you think that the friends parents' are about to inform their children about this case and what has been said in court. That would be a lovely way to start the day as the kids eat their cornflakes wouldn't it? "Oh by the way kids did I mention the threats to kidnap your little playmates at school?
-
Not point scoring, faithlilly - simply telling the plain, unvarnished truth.
I care plenty about the McCann family, because I have empathy and compassion for people.
Can those who post foul insults about Madeleine's Mum and Dad say the same?
Indeed.
The real trauma for the twins would be seeing their parents spend the next 25 years in a Portuguese prison for the crimes of others against Madeleine ...
-
Not point scoring, faithlilly - simply telling the plain, unvarnished truth.
I care plenty about the McCann family, because I have empathy and compassion for people.
Can those who post foul insults about Madeleine's Mum and Dad say the same?
You talk the talk Rachel but you don't walk the walk and when push comes to shove when any decent, compassionate adult would want to protect the McCanns remaining children from the further trauma of seeing the headlines from the trial over the last couple of days, you supporters merely want to use the situation as a stick to beat Amaral with.
What do you REALLY care about more, the emotional welfare of the twins or the destruction of Amaral because from where I'm standing, to be honest, it's hard to tell ?
-
You talk the talk Rachel but you don't walk the walk and when push comes to shove when any decent, compassionate adult would want to protect the McCanns remaining children from the further trauma of seeing the headlines from the trial over the last couple of days, you supporters merely want to use the situation as a stick to beat Amaral with.
What do you REALLY care about more, the emotional welfare of the twins or the destruction of Amaral because from where I'm standing, to be honest, it's hard to tell ?
Has it been demonstrated that the McCanns had a say in whether proceedings should be in private or public?
-
How do you imagine that the friends of the twins will tell them they could be kidnapped at any moment? Do you think that the friends parents' are about to inform their children about this case and what has been said in court. That would be a lovely way to start the day as the kids eat their cornflakes wouldn't it? "Oh by the way kids did I mention the threats to kidnap your little playmates at school?
You do know about the internet don't you drummer ? Or indeed adult conversations little ears shouldn't hear .
-
Has it been demonstrated that the McCanns had a say in whether proceedings should be in private or public?
Yes it has.
-
Yes it has.
Where?
-
Where?
I'm sure if you have a scout around you'll find it ferryman.
ETA Just for you FM :
'We asked to the court to deal with this trial behind closed doors to protect anything about the disappearance of Maddie McCann, because we don't know if the girl is dead or alive. And we asked that, the McCanns opposed that and want the publicity of the trial.'
-
You talk the talk Rachel but you don't walk the walk and when push comes to shove when any decent, compassionate adult would want to protect the McCanns remaining children from the further trauma of seeing the headlines from the trial over the last couple of days, you supporters merely want to use the situation as a stick to beat Amaral with.
What do you REALLY care about more, the emotional welfare of the twins or the destruction of Amaral because from where I'm standing, to be honest, it's hard to tell ?
Yes I talk the talk. I also walk the walk by finding it in my heart to have empathy and compassion for a struggling family.
You talk about the "destruction of Amaral", let's have a little toot at that shall we. "He lost his job" people cry. He didn't - he left the PJ of his own accord after being taken off the Madeleine case.
"He lost his family!" is the dramatic cry from some. What has that to do with Kate and Gerry McCan
"He has lost his assets!". The bloodmoney that he made cashing in on another family's misery has quite rightly been frozen. Let's not forget that he has a lot of other debts. Or is that the McCanns fault as well?
He is quite rightly being sued for a book that amongst other things claims that Madeleine's defrosting remains were carried in the Scenic.
So all in all, I would say that Amaral has been the architect of his own misfortune.
-
Amaral has been touring round giving interviews to all and sundry promoting his lies. They just want him to stop.
There's no evidence whatsoever he does lie and they do say the truth.
I reckon nevertheless that Mr Amaral didn't try to stop the McCanns "touring round giving interviews to all and sundry promoting their lies".
-
There's no evidence whatsoever he does lie and they do say the truth.
I reckon nevertheless that Mr Amaral didn't try to stop the McCanns "touring round giving interviews to all and sundry promoting their lies".
So, Anne - the defrosting remains in the Scenic.
Discuss.
-
The real trauma for the twins would be seeing their parents spend the next 25 years in a Portuguese prison for the crimes of others against Madeleine ...
Are you kidding, Ferryman ? 25 years ! Up to 2 years or a fine of up to 240 days for concealment of body.
-
So, Anne - the defrosting remains in the Scenic.
Discuss.
Why do you think this implausible fact was made up ?
-
Are you kidding, Ferryman ? 25 years ! Up to 2 years or a fine of up to 240 days for concealment of body.
So why did Leonor Cipriano get 16 years, for a crime she didn't commit?
-
Yes I talk the talk. I also walk the walk by finding it in my heart to have empathy and compassion for a struggling family.
You talk about the "destruction of Amaral", let's have a little toot at that shall we. "He lost his job" people cry. He didn't - he left the PJ of his own accord after being taken off the Madeleine case.
"He lost his family!" is the dramatic cry from some. What has that to do with Kate and Gerry McCan
"He has lost his assets!". The bloodmoney that he made cashing in on another family's misery has quite rightly been frozen. Let's not forget that he has a lot of other debts. Or is that the McCanns fault as well?
He is quite rightly being sued for a book that amongst other things claims that Madeleine's defrosting remains were carried in the Scenic.
So all in all, I would say that Amaral has been the architect of his own misfortune.
You see Rachel, not one mention of the twins welfare ! Now do you see what I mean ?
-
You see Rachel, not one mention of the twins welfare ! Now do you see what I mean ?
Do you not understand what "I have compassion and empathy for a struggling family" means?
And it was you who mentioned "the destruction of Amaral". I simply countered that.
-
For me its absolutely important the trial gets as much publicity as possible, particularly in Portugal. The Portuguese people have believed what amaral has said so it will be great to see him publically proved wrong and the public understand that maddie may still be alive
-
Amaral has sold one million copies of a book called "THE TRUTH".
Now when a court may rule that the book is "THE LIES" he wants to supress publicity
hes frightened hes going to lose
-
Amaral has sold one million copies of a book called "THE TRUTH".
Now when a court may rule that the book is "THE LIES" he wants to supress publicity
hes frightened hes going to lose
Keep speculating dreaming and wishing....if it helps
-
Keep speculating dreaming and wishing....if it helps
its called an opinion and it fits like a glove
-
Amaral has sold one million copies of a book called "THE TRUTH".
Now when a court may rule that the book is "THE LIES" he wants to supress publicity
hes frightened hes going to lose
Yes. Why on earth would someone so bent on "freedom of expression" wish to exclude the media.
As Bet Lynch once said, "It will all come out in the wash".
-
its called an opinion and it fits like a glove
Yes but only on your particular paws...which makes it subjective and irrational
-
Yes but only on your particular paws...which makes it subjective and irrational
What an abusive comment from you or don't you actually count referring to fellow posters in animalistic ways as abusive? Does that kind of behaviour count as normal where you come from?
-
What an abusive comment from you or don't you actually count referring to fellow posters in animalistic ways as abusive? Does that kind of behaviour count as normal where you come from?
here come the cries of abuse and dummy spitting, to be expected, grow a skin or two and grow up
-
Yes but only on your particular paws...which makes it subjective and irrational
oh...I think I'm getting too close to the truth and making people very angry... I post opinions and you post insults..
-
here come the cries of abuse and dummy spitting, to be expected, grow a skin or two and grow up
Simply a question about the abuse you clearly directed at a fellow poster.
And a complete failure on your part to explain that clear abuse.
-
Simply a question about the abuse you clearly directed at a fellow poster.
And a complete failure on your part to explain that clear abuse.
Zzzzzz
Enjoy your pseudo moralistic pathetic peurile campaign...which incidentally fails at every hurdle, always tara
-
Zzzzzz
Enjoy your pseudo moralistic pathetic peurile campaign...which incidentally fails at every hurdle, always tara
And another failure on your part to explain why you abused a fellow poster. Its a terrible habit you seem to have.
-
Do you not understand what "I have compassion and empathy for a struggling family" means?
And it was you who mentioned "the destruction of Amaral". I simply countered that.
I see the words Rachel, I just don't believe they really mean anything.
-
As with Bennett, Kate and Gerry McCann just want him to STOP, Sherlock. It's not just the book and the film, Amaral has been touring round giving interviews to all and sundry promoting his lies. They just want him to stop.
I hope that he does stop, Rachel. Question is if litigation is the best way to achieve that.
In the mean time, a Pandora's Box of anti- McCann material opens...
-
I hope that he does stop, Rachel. Question is if litigation is the best way to achieve that.
In the mean time, a Pandora's Box of anti- McCann material opens...
In what other ways could it be achieved ?
Hiring private detectives to look into Amaral's professional and private life with the intention of bringing about ruin in both ? .... the use of intimidation and strong-arm legal tactics that would ensure financial crippling ? ... hiring media experts to enable the smearing and denouncement of Amaral in the press ?
I think perhaps it is fair to assume that this court case is the Last Chance Saloon
-
How do you imagine that the friends of the twins will tell them they could be kidnapped at any moment? Do you think that the friends parents' are about to inform their children about this case and what has been said in court. That would be a lovely way to start the day as the kids eat their cornflakes wouldn't it? "Oh by the way kids did I mention the threats to kidnap your little playmates at school?
8 year olds can read i could when i was 6 or 7
-
I hope that he does stop, Rachel. Question is if litigation is the best way to achieve that.
In the mean time, a Pandora's Box of anti- McCann material opens...
What else could do they apart from litigation? Their names and reputations were being dragged through the mud and the book was damaging the search for Madeleine. IMO they had no choice. Amaral kept on and on and on.
-
Are you kidding, Ferryman ? 25 years ! Up to 2 years or a fine of up to 240 days for concealment of body.
No, I'm not kidding at all.
Mark Harrison's reports make abundantly plain that he was asked to investigate the murder of Madeleine McCann.
And the penultimate sentence of his third and final report makes equally plain that, while Harrison formed no firm personal opinion (about what happened to Madeleine), he expresses the hedged and qualified view that if death has occurred, it is possible, Madeleine's remains have been disposed of into the sea.
-
What else could do they apart from litigation? Their names and reputations were being dragged through the mud and the book was damaging the search for Madeleine. IMO they had no choice. Amaral kept on and on and on.
'..dragged through the mud..'
They did that all by themselves.
-
'..dragged through the mud..'
They did that all by themselves.
yep not leaving the kids would have prevented whatever did happen to maddie pros dance around that issue and then they cant understand the worldwide outrage
-
yep not leaving the kids would have prevented whatever did happen to maddie pros dance around that issue and then they cant understand the worldwide outrage
are you trying to say madeleine should be forgotten about and not looked for because her parents left her alone ????????
-
yep not leaving the kids would have prevented whatever did happen to maddie pros dance around that issue and then they cant understand the worldwide outrage
Can we have some examples of this "worldwide outrage", carlymichelle?
-
Can we have some examples of this "worldwide outrage", carlymichelle?
are you pros that thick the outrage of the mcanns being so neglectful unlike biased pros most people think what the mcanns did was selfish and cruel
-
are you pros that thick the outrage of the mcanns being so neglectful unlike biased pros most people think what the mcanns did was selfish and cruel
Who are "most people", carlymichelle?
-
8 year olds can read i could when i was 6 or 7
Mmmm. And writing?
-
'..dragged through the mud..'
They did that all by themselves.
No they did not.
Only in the minds of those who are fixated on a guilt for which there is no proof could your statement resemble the truth.
-
yep not leaving the kids would have prevented whatever did happen to maddie pros dance around that issue and then they cant understand the worldwide outrage
Pros do not, as you mistakenly claim, dance around that issue at all.
Perhaps you have not seen the McCanns express the deep regret they have for having made this flawed decision? Perhaps you have never made a mistake in your own life which you regret?
But your harping on about that fact is neither beneficial to the missing child Madeleine nor will it ever in any way help with determining what actually happened to this little girl.
When you eventually lose that fixation and realise that your rather unreal position of never having done something you later regret and which will live as the deepest and darkest regret in your heart for the rest of your life then you may be able to understand the position that pro McCanns hold. There but for the grace of God...
-
are you trying to say madeleine should be forgotten about and not looked for because her parents left her alone ????????
Indeed, there is no logic whatsoever in this harping on about something which will every day of their lives bring these parents despair in their hearts.
That CarlyMichelle can show no empathy whatsoever with the parents of a missing child, that she cannot realise that her constant fixation on this aspect of the case will never solve the case or help Madeleine McCann is a great shame.
-
are you pros that thick the outrage of the mcanns being so neglectful unlike biased pros most people think what the mcanns did was selfish and cruel
So, Carlymichelle, instead of explaining this worldwide outrage against the McCanns you simply call the people asking you to do so, "thick".
How does that calling of people "thick" demonstrate the truth of your argument? How does calling other people "thick" help Madeleine McCann? How does calling people "thick" help solve this case?
Perhaps a better approach would be to offer some evidence of your claim, otherwise it is not the people you are referring to as "thick" who appear so to the reader here.
For example, lets take one of the most distant countries from the UK, Australia, as an example of your "worldwide outrage". What proportion of the Australian population has written to the papers to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion have written to the government to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion of the Australian population has signed petitions to show their outrage?
As you are claiming "most people" I presume you are going to show us that more than 50% of the population have expressed this outrage in the papers, petitions, etc.
But I fear that you will have trouble actually showing that more than 0.00005% of the population have actually done so. That would not in any sensible persons mind constitute "most people".
I await your evidence with interest.
-
In what other ways could it be achieved ?
Hiring private detectives to look into Amaral's professional and private life with the intention of bringing about ruin in both ? .... the use of intimidation and strong-arm legal tactics that would ensure financial crippling ? ... hiring media experts to enable the smearing and denouncement of Amaral in the press ?
I think perhaps it is fair to assume that this court case is the Last Chance Saloon
Ultimately, it would be very hard to get him to 'stop' because in today's world there are so many different ways of raising one's public profile and expressing opinion.
The McCanns cannot control what he does, but they can control what they do. Given that their main thrust against Amaral seems to be that his writings are harming the search, they can decide whether their own money is better spent on searching; raising awareness, etc., or on trying to silence Amaral. As we have discussed, the latter is a huge gamble, because they may end up spending enormous sums on litigation and sill in the end fail in their task of silencing Amaral, meanwhile diverting funds away from a search. And even if they succeed in suing Amaral, that doesn't silence other detractors.
Meanwhile, the point is moot, isn't it, because a search is currently in place. Personally I find it hard to understand how the McCanns can argue that the searching is being impeded, at the very same time that a multi million pound government-funded investigation is in progress. SY and the UK government don't dance to the tune of the likes of Amaral.
-
Ultimately, it would be very hard to get him to 'stop' because in today's world there are so many different ways of raising one's public profile and expressing opinion.
The McCanns cannot control what he does, but they can control what they do. Given that their main thrust against Amaral seems to be that his writings are harming the search, they can decide whether their own money is better spent on searching; raising awareness, etc., or on trying to silence Amaral. As we have discussed, the latter is a huge gamble, because they may end up spending enormous sums on litigation and sill in the end fail in their task of silencing Amaral, meanwhile diverting funds away from a search. And even if they succeed in suing Amaral, that doesn't silence other detractors.
Meanwhile, the point is moot, isn't it, because a search is currently in place. Personally I find it hard to understand how the McCanns can argue that the searching is being impeded, at the very same time that a multi million pound government-funded investigation is in progress. SY and the UK government don't dance to the tune of the likes of Amaral.
But the case is not simply about what is happening today. The crucial point is that they claim the search was impeded during from the publication of the book five years ago when no police search was underway.
Had the key document available in public in mid 2008 been the one from the AG stating that there still is a chance (however slim) that Madeleine is alive and that there is no evidence of any involvement in the disappearance from her parents the situation would have, I suggest, been very different to the situation which Amaral engineered for profit.
That situation was that a book by the senior detective on the case (a man very willing to spread the word far and wide on TV and elsewhere) making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report stating that the child was dead, there was no hope of finding her alive and that her parents had covered it all up was being sold all over Portugal and potentially all over the world.
There is no way that his book had no damaging effect on the search.
-
But the case is not simply about what is happening today. The crucial point is that they claim the search was impeded during from the publication of the book five years ago when no police search was underway.
Had the key document available in public in mid 2008 been the one from the AG stating that there still is a chance (however slim) that Madeleine is alive and that there is no evidence of any involvement in the disappearance from her parents the situation would have, I suggest, been very different to the situation which Amaral engineered for profit.
That situation was that a book by the senior detective on the case (a man very willing to spread the word far and wide on TV and elsewhere) making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report stating that the child was dead, there was no hope of finding her alive and that her parents had covered it all up was being sold all over Portugal and potentially all over the world.
There is no way that his book had no damaging effect on the search.
The search was stopped as the PJ could not find any evidence pointing to an abduction and the accounts of the Mccanns and associates were not in accordance and often contradicted each other.
-
The search was stopped as the PJ could not find any evidence pointing to an abduction and the accounts of the Mccanns and associates were not in accordance and often contradicted each other.
Of course there was evidence, Stephen. Gone over several times in previous threads.
Jane Tanners sighting was the most obvious, but then there was the Smiths, Mrs Caroline Carpenters etc
The trouble was
That the die was already cast. Amarals "theory" ruled the waves.
-
But the case is not simply about what is happening today. The crucial point is that they claim the search was impeded during from the publication of the book five years ago when no police search was underway.
Had the key document available in public in mid 2008 been the one from the AG stating that there still is a chance (however slim) that Madeleine is alive and that there is no evidence of any involvement in the disappearance from her parents the situation would have, I suggest, been very different to the situation which Amaral engineered for profit.
That situation was that a book by the senior detective on the case (a man very willing to spread the word far and wide on TV and elsewhere) making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report stating that the child was dead, there was no hope of finding her alive and that her parents had covered it all up was being sold all over Portugal and potentially all over the world.
There is no way that his book had no damaging effect on the search.
It's very true, gilet, that the SY investigation is relatively new, and we do have to remember that before that, there was a big gap.
I don't doubt that Amaral's thesis had a negative impact upon the McCanns in Portugal, where it was aggressively promoted, and possibly had a bad effect elsewhere as well. And I don't doubt that his intentions were simply financial / egoistic.
But can we really prove that his thesis was the main reason why the searches were absent or lacking? We could say that the McCann's own private detectives were incompetent / corrupt - as several of them proven to have been. Those detectives were not influenced by Amaral.
We could say that because of legal and other issues, it was hard for SY to get involved (even now it's not plain sailing for them in Portugal). Again, this has nothing to do with Amaral.
How, specifically, will the McCanns show that had Amaral not promoted his thesis, the search Madeleine would have been better conducted and presumably would have bourne more fruit? How are they actually going to prove that to a court?
-
So, Carlymichelle, instead of explaining this worldwide outrage against the McCanns you simply call the people asking you to do so, "thick".
How does that calling of people "thick" demonstrate the truth of your argument? How does calling other people "thick" help Madeleine McCann? How does calling people "thick" help solve this case?
Perhaps a better approach would be to offer some evidence of your claim, otherwise it is not the people you are referring to as "thick" who appear so to the reader here.
For example, lets take one of the most distant countries from the UK, Australia, as an example of your "worldwide outrage". What proportion of the Australian population has written to the papers to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion have written to the government to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion of the Australian population has signed petitions to show their outrage?
As you are claiming "most people" I presume you are going to show us that more than 50% of the population have expressed this outrage in the papers, petitions, etc.
But I fear that you will have trouble actually showing that more than 0.00005% of the population have actually done so. That would not in any sensible persons mind constitute "most people".
I await your evidence with interest.
She's from Tasmania you know
-
There's nothing to explore. Responding to the OP:
DECENCY and respect for Madeleine and her family.
-
So, Carlymichelle, instead of explaining this worldwide outrage against the McCanns you simply call the people asking you to do so, "thick".
How does that calling of people "thick" demonstrate the truth of your argument? How does calling other people "thick" help Madeleine McCann? How does calling people "thick" help solve this case?
Perhaps a better approach would be to offer some evidence of your claim, otherwise it is not the people you are referring to as "thick" who appear so to the reader here.
For example, lets take one of the most distant countries from the UK, Australia, as an example of your "worldwide outrage". What proportion of the Australian population has written to the papers to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion have written to the government to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion of the Australian population has signed petitions to show their outrage?
As you are claiming "most people" I presume you are going to show us that more than 50% of the population have expressed this outrage in the papers, petitions, etc.
But I fear that you will have trouble actually showing that more than 0.00005% of the population have actually done so. That would not in any sensible persons mind constitute "most people".
I await your evidence with interest.
Well, there is no way of answering the question you pose, of course, but we could have a 'focus group' of our own if Admin are willing
Shall we request a forum poll ?
-
I don't doubt that Amaral's thesis had a negative impact upon the McCanns in Portugal, where it was aggressively promoted, and possibly had a bad effect elsewhere as well. And I don't doubt that his intentions were simply financial / egoistic.
I don't remember any "aggressive" promotion. The Fnac had huges piles of it, but the week before had huge piles of "The girl who played with fire"...
I'm curious to know what makes you have "no doubt that his intentions were simply financial/egoistic".
-
Amarals "theory" ruled the waves.
Certainly not yours.
-
"When you eventually lose that fixation and realise that your rather unreal position of never having done something you later regret and which will live as the deepest and darkest regret in your heart for the rest of your life then you may be able to understand the position that pro McCanns hold. There but for the grace of God..."
Indeed.
-
In what other ways could it be achieved ?
Hiring private detectives to look into Amaral's professional and private life with the intention of bringing about ruin in both ? .... the use of intimidation and strong-arm legal tactics that would ensure financial crippling ? ... hiring media experts to enable the smearing and denouncement of Amaral in the press ?
I think perhaps it is fair to assume that this court case is the Last Chance Saloon
Yes. If both parts just wanted the other one to put an end to its doxa.
-
I don't remember any "aggressive" promotion. The Fnac had huges piles of it, but the week before had huge piles of "The girl who played with fire"...
I'm curious to know what makes you have "no doubt that his intentions were simply financial/egoistic".
I understood that Amaral made a number of appearances on Portuguese TV, and also in Spain, and that his idea had been disseminated across the media in those countries and elsewhere in Europe too.
As to his motivations, professional people of all descriptions deal with interesting cases every day, and they don't choose to write books about the people they profess to be helping. Writing a book like that is not done in order to help a client/ former client, or someone one was serving in one's job, and it is not done to promote one's literary skills. Amaral chose to write about this case - rather than any other of the cases he had been involved in - having ample reason to believe it would be a bestseller.
-
I understood that Amaral made a number of appearances on Portuguese TV, and also in Spain, and that his idea had been disseminated across the media in those countries and elsewhere in Europe too.
As to his motivations, professional people of all descriptions deal with interesting cases every day, and they don't choose to write books about the people they profess to be helping. Writing a book like that is not done in order to help a client/ former client, or someone one was serving in one's job, and it is not done to promote one's literary skills. Amaral chose to write about this case - rather than any other of the cases he had been involved in - having ample reason to believe it would be a bestseller.
Amaral wrote in the preface of his book that it was the only way to defend his honor and to contribute to the search of truth in what concerns the disappearance of Madeleine.
He could have written about other cases, but he only did that later on a wider range book about missing minors. This particular book that implied him asking for his retirement from the PJ in order to do it, was, in my opinion, a way to show what he had found and that he feared would not be revealed, and to show that he wasn't the person that the British Media had tried to make him look like.
As a portuguese subject that started to doubt the parent's version since the first day, I welcomed and feel obliged that Amaral wrote that book. It only confirmed the suspicions I had since May 4th, 2007.
In early June 2007 I was an active member in the Mirror Forum, long before the book, and I was already questioning the McCann version of events.
-
Amaral wrote in the preface of his book that it was the only way to defend his honor and to contribute to the search of truth in what concerns the disappearance of Madeleine.
He could have written about other cases, but he only did that later on a wider range book about missing minors. This particular book that implied him asking for his retirement from the PJ in order to do it, was, in my opinion, a way to show what he had found and that he feared would not be revealed, and to show that he wasn't the person that the British Media had tried to make him look like.
As a portuguese subject that started to doubt the parent's version since the first day, I welcomed and feel obliged that Amaral wrote that book. It only confirmed the suspicions I had since May 4th, 2007.
Had you ? I never had before friends in Paris told me their suspicions, many months later.
But, yes and I believe it's difficult for another culture to understand it, Mr Amaral wrote that book because he felt he had to. People can criticize that feeling, but I'm pretty sure money wasn't at stake. And the McCanns weren't his clients, he worked for the people, as in all States of law.
-
Had you ? I never had before friends in Paris told me their suspicions, many months later.
But, yes and I believe it's difficult for another culture to understand it, Mr Amaral wrote that book because he felt he had to. People can criticize that feeling, but I'm pretty sure money wasn't at stake. And the McCanns weren't his clients, he worked for the people, as in all States of law.
I suppose the outcome of the trial will tell us something about his motivations. If he is convicted of libelling the McCanns, i.e. causing them harm, that has to have involved the intent to cause harm (as far as I understand).
If he is exonerated then we are obliged to take him at his word.
-
Amaral wrote in the preface of his book that it was the only way to defend his honor and to contribute to the search of truth in what concerns the disappearance of Madeleine.
He could have written about other cases, but he only did that later on a wider range book about missing minors. This particular book that implied him asking for his retirement from the PJ in order to do it, was, in my opinion, a way to show what he had found and that he feared would not be revealed, and to show that he wasn't the person that the British Media had tried to make him look like.
As a portuguese subject that started to doubt the parent's version since the first day, I welcomed and feel obliged that Amaral wrote that book. It only confirmed the suspicions I had since May 4th, 2007.
In early June 2007 I was an active member in the Mirror Forum, long before the book, and I was already questioning the McCann version of events.
He is entitled to defend his honour, just like the rest of us - as long as he doesn't defame anyone else in the process.
I still don't understand, however, how his book can have contributed to the quest for truth as far as Madeleine goes, when his conclusions were based on unproven assertions and suspect and inconclusive science. At the end of the day, we still don't know what has happened to Madeleine -so how can we say that his book has been of assistance?
-
That situation was that a book by the senior detective on the case (a man very willing to spread the word far and wide on TV and elsewhere) making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report stating that the child was dead, there was no hope of finding her alive and that her parents had covered it all up was being sold all over Portugal and potentially all over the world.
But weren't the McCanns, with the authority of parents and victims, "making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report" stating the child had been abducted ?
Edited to change "abducted" into "abducted from bed", because any different kind of abduction is as taboo as all other theories.
-
He is entitled to defend his honour, just like the rest of us - as long as he doesn't defame anyone else in the process.
I still don't understand, however, how his book can have contributed to the quest for truth as far as Madeleine goes, when his conclusions were based on unproven assertions and suspect and inconclusive science. At the end of the day, we still don't know what has happened to Madeleine -so how can we say that his book has been of assistance?
About defamation, let's wait what the judge will say, the question being whether you'll accept it or not.
About the effect of the book, the collaboration of the McCanns would have certainly more influenced the search, especially if they had requested the instruction inquiry.
-
Had you ? I never had before friends in Paris told me their suspicions, many months later.
But, yes and I believe it's difficult for another culture to understand it, Mr Amaral wrote that book because he felt he had to. People can criticize that feeling, but I'm pretty sure money wasn't at stake. And the McCanns weren't his clients, he worked for the people, as in all States of law.
I have an aunt and uncle that own a small enterprise in the vicinity of Praia da Luz. They were alerted on the evening/morning of 3 to 4 May. They called my brother that lives in Faro and he immediately went there - he took a week vacation from his job in order to help with the searches. My aunt and uncle offered to pay the salary to their employees that chose to help with the searches as long as they managed to keep the company running. They called me too, but at the time I was living in Lisbon and very loaded with work.
In any case, I first learned about the case from SkyNews on that same evening, before my aunt called me. When I first saw the news on the portuguese TV channels and they said the children had been left alone in an apartment, a bell rang in my head.
After that I saw the McCann duo on TV and I learned from my brother that they, and their friends, had never moved their behinds to look for the little girl.
A few days later I went to Praia da Luz and I witnessed how the McCann and their relatives looked for little Madeleine gathering around the pool, taking tennis lessons, jogging, going to the beach, ...as if they were having the best days of their lives.
How could I believe them?!
-
I witnessed how the McCann and their relatives looked for little Madeleine gathering around the pool, taking tennis lessons, jogging, going to the beach, ...as if they were having the best days of their lives.
How could I believe them?!
At least getting the best possible out of horrible days. When the McCanns said that GA's theory of death prevented people to search for Madeleine, they knew what they were talking about, don't you think ?
-
But weren't the McCanns, with the authority of parents and victims, "making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report" stating the child had been abducted ?
Edited to change "abducted" into "abducted from bed", because any different kind of abduction is as taboo as all other theories.
Were on earth can you possibly get that rather obtuse idea?
By posting such inanity you are beginning to look like others today who are clutching at straws that are non-existent.
Have you not actually read the archival report?
Do you not realise that the archive report gave FOUR options as to what happened.
1 whether killed in a neglectful homicide
2. or an intended homicide,
3. whether the victim of a targeted abduction
4. or an opportunistic abduction
When the parents were claiming the abduction as what they believed happened they were in complete accord with the archival report.
And unlike Amaral who has definitively stated Madeleine is dead (though his lawyer has for some reason tried desperately to tone that down recently) they have not defintively (as you claim) ruled out other options.
Perhaps you have missed the interviews where the McCanns have admitted that there is a possibility that Madeleine is dead.
There is no proof of either scenario and the McCanns are entitled to suggest both are options but they believe the abduction is what happened.
Had they done as Amaral has done and rule out the alternative scenario to that which they believe in then and only then would they have been contradicting the Archival Report.
It is demonstrably Amaral who is contradicting the Archival Report not the McCanns.
-
Are you kidding, Ferryman ? 25 years ! Up to 2 years or a fine of up to 240 days for concealment of body.
I've just seen that Amanda Hutton was sentenced two-and-a-half years for preventing the lawful burial of her little boy.