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: AnneGuedes on September 25, 2013, 10:49:25 PM
-
Mr Pike said he was sent by Mrs McCann a translation of Mr Amaral's book. Which translation ? AnnaEsse's translation ? Had it been Anna's translation, Mrs McCann would likely have acknowledged it and thanked, don't you think ?
-
Mr Pike said he was sent by Mrs McCann a translation of Mr Amaral's book. Which translation ? AnnaEsse's translation ? Had it been Anna's translation, Mrs McCann would likely have acknowledged it and thanked, don't you think ?
Michael Wright said the Mccans read the english translation he sent them in august 2008.... Yet the Mccanns went on PT TV in September 8 and said theyhad not read it, why would they it was alot of rubbish with nothng new in it
>@@(*&)
-
Mr Pike said he was sent by Mrs McCann a translation of Mr Amaral's book. Which translation ? AnnaEsse's translation ? Had it been Anna's translation, Mrs McCann would likely have acknowledged it and thanked, don't you think ?
Are you certain she knew whose translation it was?
I have no doubt she thanked Mr. Pike.
-
Michael Wright said the Mccansk read the english translation he sent them in august 2008.... Yet the Mccanns went on PR TV in September 8 and said theyhad not read it, why would they it was alot of rubbish with nothng new in it
>@@(*&)
Did he say they read it before September 2008. If they only received it mid or late August perhaps they hadn't got round to it by then.
Why do you always presume the worst in people? And presume they are lying? Its such an unappealing way of reacting to everything.
-
Did he say they read it before September 2008. If they only received it mid or late August perhaps they hadn't got round to it by then.
Why do you always presume the worst in people? And presume they are lying? Its such an unappealing way of reacting to everything.
IIRC, the McCanns said that they had no intention of reading the book either because it was rubbish.
-
Did he say they read it before September 2008. If they only received it mid or late August perhaps they hadn't got round to it by then.
Why do you always presume the worst in people? And presume they are lying? Its such an unappealing way of reacting to everything.
that did cross my mind but he said they read it when he sent it to them after it had been published online in august 2008.......seeing as he was their internet monitor im sure they got it PDQ.....!!!
i will stick with my beliefs if thats ok with you, if the mccanns say on tv when asked three weeks after they have decided with their lawyer to sue mr amaral, that they havent ruled it out, excuse me if I dont believe everything they say is bleeding gospel!!!!
-
that did cross my mind but he said they read it when he sent it to them after it had been published online in august 2008.......seeing as he was their internet monitor im sure they got it PDQ.....!!!
i will stick with my beliefs if thats ok with you, if the mccanns say on tv when asked three weeks after they have decided with their lawyer to sue mr amaral, that they havent ruled it out, excuse me if I dont believe everything they say is bleeding gospel!!!!
What he actually said (and yes, I know we cannot be certain its the precise words as it is not a verbatim report)
was:
ID - When did they read the book and watch the documentary?
MW – They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.
He does not even say he sent it in August if you notice.
He simply says that it was on the Internet in August.
Just shows how careful reading is needed before implying nasty things about people.
-
You may be right here you be wrong, but there is a precedent for the mccanns not actually twlling the truth, i know its hard for you to bear though
Why are your posts becoming slurred?
Do you mean I may be right?
I believe I am right, there is no way of being certain as you claimed that they lied about the reading of that book in the way you suggested from the report of the trial as we read it.
As for your allegation that the McCanns lied about suing Mr Amaral. Show the evidence for that and I will gladly comment on it but your telling me such a thing happened is not going to convince me. I don't comment on mere hearsay.
-
What he actually said (and yes, I know we cannot be certain its the precise words as it is not a verbatim report)
was:
He does not even say he sent it in August if you notice.
He simply says that it was on the Internet in August.
Just shows how careful reading is needed before implying nasty things about people.
The problem is there was no translation of the book on Internet in August 2008...
-
Are you certain she knew whose translation it was?
I have no doubt she thanked Mr. Pike.
When you download a translation for free, it's ethically correct to memorize who did it, don't you think ?
What should Mrs McCann thank Mr Pike for ?
-
The problem is there was no translation of the book on Internet in August 2008...
How do you know that as a fact? By being on the internet, it could have been on a private site to which you had no access. This is however not particularly likely, I admit.
Alternatively MW could have got the date wrong, or you could have misheard August 2008 for August 2009 when there clearly was a translation on the internet.
Perhaps you could check the date when next at court?
-
When you download a translation for free, it's ethically correct to memorize who did it, don't you think ?
What should Mrs McCann thank Mr Pike for ?
Well, that depends if the translation on the internet acknowledges the translator, although I would personally be wary of unacknowledged translations.
Pike may not have told Kate who the translator was. The document may have been a print out without that information.
As for what she would thank Pike for, I would have thought that was obvious. For getting a copy for her.
-
How do you know that as a fact?
I never read that translation, but I know it was translated from the French translation. I don't know this one either, but I know the French version of Mr Amaral's book was published in May 2009.
-
Why are your posts becoming slurred?
Do you mean I may be right?
I believe I am right, there is no way of being certain as you claimed that they lied about the reading of that book in the way you suggested from the report of the trial as we read it.
As for your allegation that the McCanns lied about suing Mr Amaral. Show the evidence for that and I will gladly comment on it but your telling me such a thing happened is not going to convince me. I don't comment on mere hearsay.
there was nothng *slurred about my post* and nothing ambiguous I clearly said you may be right or wrong
oh and I dont do hearsay dear
Here is the evidence your heros lied, copy and paste of a recent post of mine
*****
What about what the Mccanns were reporting vis a vis the libel action?
From a SIC interview given 12 May 2009
Q There's also been Gonçalo Amaral's book and at the time there was a lot of talk about possible legal charges bought up by you against Gonçalo Amaral. Are you still considering these legal charges against him?
Gerry McCann: We certainly haven't ruled it out. The reason we haven't done it to date is we didn't want to create... and I think there's been enough Anglo-Portuguese angst, particularly in the media and we certainly, errr... didn't want to exacerbate that but, you know, he clearly is getting, errr... more outrageous and we certainly wouldn't rule it out.
Kate McCann: At the same time, you know, it... it's a distraction, you know, what Mr Amaral is doing. I mean, it's... it's damaging to our search, errm... but at the same time, you know, we want to find Madeleine. We want to move forward and get new information and we don't want to be derailed by negative people who have their own agendas, you know, so...
Gerry McCann: That is... I mean, that's a very good point, you know; we don't want to look back, we are trying to do things, but it gets to the point, errr... where you just think: 'enough's enough'.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/mccanns-interview-to-sic.html
So how is Kate Mccann writing in her book Madeleine that conversations with their lawyer had been ongoing since November 2008, Gerry made a trip in January 2009 to see the lawyer about suing Amaral and by April 20 2009 they made the decision to sue!
Why was Gerry Mccann keeping the decision/legal action a secret?
Some quotes from kates book here
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/kate-mccanns-deep-harted-for-goncalo.html
-
Well, that depends if the translation on the internet acknowledges the translator, although I would personally be wary of unacknowledged translations.
Pike may not have told Kate who the translator was. The document may have been a print out without that information.
As for what she would thank Pike for, I would have thought that was obvious. For getting a copy for her.
But Mr Pike said Mrs McCann sent him the translation..
-
How do you know that as a fact? By being on the internet, it could have been on a private site to which you had no access. This is however not particularly likely, I admit.
Alternatively MW could have got the date wrong, or you could have misheard August 2008 for August 2009 when there clearly was a translation on the internet.
Perhaps you could check the date when next at court?
It could not have been August 2009 because the McCanns had obtained the injunction on the book in September 2009 after having failed their first two attempts when judges refused to take the case. Therefore, they would have had to make the decision to sue long before August 2009 because something like this takes a long time to prepare. Also, they had trouble finding a lawyer to take their case in Portugal. No doubt that he said August 2008.
-
Actually a summary and some extracts were published on Internet in Summer 2008, but I don't think there was a complete translation before June 2009, when they required the providência cautelar.
-
It could not have been August 2009 because the McCanns had obtained the injunction on the book in September 2009 after having failed their first two attempts when judges refused to take the case. Therefore, they would have had to make the decision to sue long before August 2009 because something like this takes a long time to prepare. Also, they had trouble finding a lawyer to take their case in Portugal. No doubt that he said August 2008.
Exactly and issued the writ months earlier
-
It could not have been August 2009 because the McCanns had obtained the injunction on the book in September 2009 after having failed their first two attempts when judges refused to take the case. Therefore, they would have had to make the decision to sue long before August 2009 because something like this takes a long time to prepare. Also, they had trouble finding a lawyer to take their case in Portugal. No doubt that he said August 2008.
In which case could it have been a reference to this summary version with extracts by Claudia Proud of the PJ?
http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/ouch.html
That was certainly online in August 2008.
-
Actually a summary and some extracts were published on Internet in Summer 2008, but I don't think there was a complete translation before June 2009, when they required the providência cautelar.
You are possibly right and injunction provoked the translation being put online in full.
I have posted above the likely source which MW was referring to, that which you also referred in this post.
-
Actually a summary and some extracts were published on Internet in Summer 2008, but I don't think there was a complete translation before June 2009, when they required the providência cautelar.
Yes the extracts appear on McCann Files and Proud of the PJ blog
Both extracts also conclude with this.
CONCLUSIONS:
- Madeleine McCanns died in aprtment 5A on May the 3rd 2007.
- There was a simulation/fake of an abduction.
- Kate and Gerry are suspects in the involvement of the disposal of their daughter's body.
- Madeleine's death may have been caused by a tragic accident.
- There is evidence of negligence regarding the guard and security of the children.
1. A menor Madeleine McCann morreu no apartamento 5Ado Ocean Club, da Vila da Luz, na noite de 3 de Maio de2007;
2. Ocorreu uma simulação de rapto;
3. Kate Healy e Gerald McCann são suspeitos de envolvi-mento na ocultação do cadáver da sua filha;
4. A morte poderá ter sobrevindo em resultado de um trá-gico acidente;
5. Existem indícios de negligência na guarda e segurançados filhos.
Page 211
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24710509/Maddie-A-Verdade-Da-Mentira
-
You are possibly right and injunction provoked the translation being put online in full.
I have posted above the likely source which MW was referring to, that which you also referred in this post.
Ridiculous to assume any injunction had any power over the internet LoooooL
-
there was nothng *slurred about my post* and nothing ambiguous I clearly said you may be right or wrong
oh and I dont do hearsay dear
Here is the evidence your heros lied, copy and paste of a recent post of mine
*****
What about what the Mccanns were reporting vis a vis the libel action?
From a SIC interview given 12 May 2009
Q There's also been Gonçalo Amaral's book and at the time there was a lot of talk about possible legal charges bought up by you against Gonçalo Amaral. Are you still considering these legal charges against him?
Gerry McCann: We certainly haven't ruled it out. The reason we haven't done it to date is we didn't want to create... and I think there's been enough Anglo-Portuguese angst, particularly in the media and we certainly, errr... didn't want to exacerbate that but, you know, he clearly is getting, errr... more outrageous and we certainly wouldn't rule it out.
Kate McCann: At the same time, you know, it... it's a distraction, you know, what Mr Amaral is doing. I mean, it's... it's damaging to our search, errm... but at the same time, you know, we want to find Madeleine. We want to move forward and get new information and we don't want to be derailed by negative people who have their own agendas, you know, so...
Gerry McCann: That is... I mean, that's a very good point, you know; we don't want to look back, we are trying to do things, but it gets to the point, errr... where you just think: 'enough's enough'.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/mccanns-interview-to-sic.html
So how is Kate Mccann writing in her book Madeleine that conversations with their lawyer had been ongoing since November 2008, Gerry made a trip in January 2009 to see the lawyer about suing Amaral and by April 20 2009 they made the decision to sue!
Why was Gerry Mccann keeping the decision/legal action a secret?
Some quotes from kates book here
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/kate-mccanns-deep-harted-for-goncalo.html
Bump for gilet LoooooL any ideas????
at 8.40 on this video too
http://blip.tv/joana-morais-tv/especial-maddie-entrevista-2118038
-
Ridiculous to assume any injunction had any power over the internet LoooooL
Once again you have misread. There is nothing in my post suggesting the injunction had power over the internet.
I correctly stated that the injunction may have provoked the publication of the translation on the internet. And I stand by that. Because anti McCanns believed that following the injunction there was less likelihood of the UK public after the injunction ever being able to read the book in English they decided to post it on the Internet. One provoked the other.
-
Bump for gilet LoooooL any ideas????
Seems gilet has turned in for the night Red. Perhaps she'll answer your question tomorrow eh ?
-
Seems gilet has turned in for the night Red. Perhaps she'll answer your question tomorrow eh ?
Ha ha LOL look forward to the explanatio /excuse
Off myself now
-
For info: This off topic thread has been renamed and tidied up, hopefully it makes sense now.
-
The problem is there was no translation of the book on Internet in August 2008...
But your friend, Joana translated it Anne!
(http://i73.servimg.com/u/f73/14/67/69/80/morais12.png)
-
In order not to take this thread off topic I have posted a reply to Redblossom's post here.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2400.new#new
-
Seems gilet has turned in for the night Red. Perhaps she'll answer your question tomorrow eh ?
I am not as omnipresent on this forum as some would suggest. But I have posted a full reply above as promised.
-
Anne, it seems that Joana Morais translated this book very soon after it came out???
-
Mr Pike said he was sent by Mrs McCann a translation of Mr Amaral's book. Which translation ? AnnaEsse's translation ? Had it been Anna's translation, Mrs McCann would likely have acknowledged it and thanked, don't you think ?
Naughty, naughty 8(0(*
I may be wrong but I think that Anna Andress didn't conclude the translation of the book until the beginning of 2010.
Edited:
Yeap, I can say that it was in 2010, January, 11th as her homepage displays http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.pt/2010/01/maddie-truth-of-lie.html
-
Joana Morais didn't translate the book, she merely used extracts when it was opportune. As many other people did.
-
Perhaps you could check the date when next at court?
???
I checked my notes : no doubt about 2008 (and "eight" sounds quite different from "nine", don't you think ?). He himself says before that he read the translation shortly after the book was published.
If you know of another Internet translation, please tell us !
Why Anna Esse would have wasted time translating from French ?
-
Seems odd, don't you think, why would Anna esse translate his second book on 3/05/2009, before the first one.
Who translated it from Portuguese, to French. I would have thought it was written in Portuguese.
-
Once again you have misread. There is nothing in my post suggesting the injunction had power over the internet.
I correctly stated that the injunction may have provoked the publication of the translation on the internet. And I stand by that. Because anti McCanns believed that following the injunction there was less likelihood of the UK public after the injunction ever being able to read the book in English they decided to post it on the Internet. One provoked the other.
That might be true. And Luz seems to confirm, as she says the book was translated in January 2010 (after being published in French, the language it was translated from, in May 2009).
Up to the injunction, there were proceedings (imo) to have the book published in the UK.
That doesn't explain though how Mr Pike, Mr Wright and Mr and Mrs McCann, among possible others, read the book in 2008 or 2009.
-
Seems odd, don't you think, why would Anna esse translate his second book on 3/05/2009, before the first one.
Who translated it from Portuguese, to French. I would have thought it was written in Portuguese.
Yes, that seems a bit odd DCI.
-
Seems odd, don't you think, why would Anna esse translate his second book on 3/05/2009, before the first one.
Who translated it from Portuguese, to French. I would have thought it was written in Portuguese.
What are you saying, DCI ? To my knowledge Anna translated only one book, the truth...
She doesn't know Portuguese, but she knows French. That's why she translated from French. I don't know who translated the book in French, I even never saw the book itself and I have therefore no idea about the quality of the translation. All translations from GA's book that are in the reports are mine.
-
That might be true. And Luz seems to confirm, as she says the book was translated in January 2010 (after being published in French, the language it was translated from, in May 2009).
Up to the injunction, there were proceedings (imo) to have the book published in the UK.
That doesn't explain though how Mr Pike, Mr Wright and Mr and Mrs McCann, among possible others, read the book in 2008 or 2009.
Jeez!!
Surely you don't need Einstein, to work it out Anne. The book was on sale from July 24th 2008 in Portugal.
Could only the Portuguese people buy it, when it was released?
-
What are you saying, DCI ? To my knowledge Anna translated only one book, the truth...
She doesn't know Portuguese, but she knows French. That's why she translated from French. I don't know who translated the book in French, I even never saw the book itself and I have therefore no idea about the quality of the translation. All translations from GA's book that are in the reports are mine.
My apologies, its the same book, under different title.
Complete English translation of L'Enquête Interdite - 'The Forbidden Investigation' - the French language version of 'The Truth about The Lie'
3/05/2009
Maddie, The Forbidden Investigation: Revelations of the Portuguese Coordinator in charge of the investigation
Gonçalo Amaral
Isbn: 9782849411254
SODIS code: 724523.5
Now do you believe they read it?
-
That might be true. And Luz seems to confirm, as she says the book was translated in January 2010 (after being published in French, the language it was translated from, in May 2009).
Up to the injunction, there were proceedings (imo) to have the book published in the UK.
That doesn't explain though how Mr Pike, Mr Wright and Mr and Mrs McCann, among possible others, read the book in 2008 or 2009.
They didn't, Mr. Wright made that up.
-
Seems odd, don't you think, why would Anna esse translate his second book on 3/05/2009, before the first one.
Who translated it from Portuguese, to French. I would have thought it was written in Portuguese.
An accredited translator from the Editors, either the french or the portuguese.
The french version "L'Enquête Interdite" ( http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/maddie-l-enquete-interdite-65869 ) was published around February 2009, so for Anna Andress to translate it, it would take as many months as she did.
-
there is no evidence the whole book was translated in August 2008 as far as I can see...unless someone can come up with it it makes Wrights statement false, doesnt it???
-
A summary of the key points from 'The Truth of the Lie'
This summary obviously cannot cover every single point raised in the book but it covers most of the main points
27 July 2008
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id137.html
-
A summary of the key points from 'The Truth of the Lie'
This summary obviously cannot cover every single point raised in the book but it covers most of the main points
27 July 2008
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id137.html
Nope, still doesnt constitute a book translation in august 2008 as WRIGHT ASERTED
-
Maybe this one is better.
3/05/2009
Maddie, The Forbidden Investigation: Revelations of the Portuguese Coordinator in charge of the investigation.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id271.html
-
If the administration allows me, let me translate a small slice of the article whose link I provided in my previous post:
«Maddie: L'Enquête Interdite»
( http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/maddie-l-enquete-interdite-65869 )
[La disparition de Maddie au Portugal à été surmédiatisée, malheureusement, à cause de pression politiques, la version des médias est celle des parents de maddie qui attaquent en justice tous ceux qui expriment une opinion sur cette affaire qui les accuse, même si cette opinion est basée sur des faits et des preuves récoltées durant l’enquête, il y a même une demande d’indemnisation des parents de Maddie qui veulent récupérer les bénéfices du livre.]
The disappearance of Maddie in Portugal was overmediated, unfortunately, due to political pressures, the version of the Media is that of Maddie's parents which attack in the justice system everyone that expresses an opinion about this case, that accuse them, even if those opinions are based on facts and proof gathered during the investigation, there is even a request for a compensation from Maddie's parents that want to recover all the benefits (money) from the book.
«L’aspect très mercantile des parents qui veulent visiblement récupérer de l’argent sur tout ce qui touche cette affaire est très dérangeant, comme d’accepter seulement des interview ou ils sont payés (curieux pour des parents qui veulent communiquer pour aider à ce que l’on retrouve leur fille présumée disparue). La disparition de leur fille est devenue pour eux l’occasion de gagner de l’argent via leur fond de recherche pour retrouver maddie, mais là aussi on trouve des informations qui indiquent que leur fond leur sert surtout à emmagasiner plein d’argent, ce qui est confirmé par le fait qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un fond charité mais d’une entreprise comme une autre »:
The very mercantile feature of the parents that visibly want to recover the money from everything that touches this case is very disturbing, like accepting to make interviews where they are payed (interesting for parents that want to communicate in order to help those that may find their daughter allegedly missing). The disappearing of their daughter became a means for them to make money through their searching Fund to look for Maddie, but there we also found informants that indicate that their Fund has been used especially to make money, which is confirmed by the fact that it is not a charity Fund but an enterprise/company as any other.
________________
Well, the article continues but I think this is enough to provide the vision that other countries have about this "business".
-
That might be true. And Luz seems to confirm, as she says the book was translated in January 2010 (after being published in French, the language it was translated from, in May 2009).
Up to the injunction, there were proceedings (imo) to have the book published in the UK.
That doesn't explain though how Mr Pike, Mr Wright and Mr and Mrs McCann, among possible others, read the book in 2008 or 2009.
Do you have a note of the actual words which were spoken by Pike and Wright as spoken in the court room?
Then we can make a proper decision as to what was said.
Were the words clear that this was a full and complete translation of the book or could they have been referring to the translations from the books which we know were availaible on the internet back in August 2008.
As it stands we know that all the most important parts of the book were online in English by August 2008. Without a verbatim record of what was actually said it is impossible to know whether the reference was to these lengthy excerpts or to a full translation.
-
If the administration allows me, let me translate a small slice of the article whose link I provided in my previous post:
«Maddie: L'Enquête Interdite»
( http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/maddie-l-enquete-interdite-65869 )
Please explain what this has to do with the topic of this thread or please open a new thread to discuss the matter.
-
Maybe this one is better.
3/05/2009
Maddie, The Forbidden Investigation: Revelations of the Portuguese Coordinator in charge of the investigation.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id271.html
Why would it be better if its dated 2009
@)(++(*
-
Why would it be better if its dated 2009
@)(++(*
When you don't have defense you attack, even if shooting your foot.
That reference puts the book being released in French in March 2009, I wonder how Mr. Pike or Wright or whoever got hold of an English language translation in 2008!!!!
-
Please explain what this has to do with the topic of this thread or please open a new thread to discuss the matter.
The first English translation was made after the French version, I obtained that link when googling for the first french version of the book.
-
Perhaps you pair should try reading posts correctly before abusing
That might be true. And Luz seems to confirm, as she says the book was translated in January 2010 (after being published in French, the language it was translated from, in May 2009).
Up to the injunction, there were proceedings (imo) to have the book published in the UK.
That doesn't explain though how Mr Pike, Mr Wright and Mr and Mrs McCann, among possible others, read the book in 2008 or 2009.
-
When you don't have defense you attack, even if shooting your foot.
That reference puts the book being released in French in March 2009, I wonder how Mr. Pike or Wright or whoever got hold of an English language translation in 2008!!!!
Sorry, the translation was rather poor and I missed that, but can you prove that either Pike or Wright were referring to that full translation or were they referring to translations from the book (some of them quite lengthy and covering all the most important parts of the book) which both you and I know were online in August 2008.
-
The first English translation was made after the French version, I obtained that link when googling for the first french version of the book.
You should have asked. I could have told you the French version does not appear to be online.
-
Jeez!!
Surely you don't need Einstein, to work it out Anne. The book was on sale from July 24th 2008 in Portugal.
Could only the Portuguese people buy it, when it was released?
Are you insulting me for supposedly ignoring that UK people could order the book to a Portuguese library and have it sent to the UK ? Or insulting me because I seem to ignore that buying a book equals reading it ? Or insulting me because in fact Mr and Mrs McCann, thanks to their terrible misfortune, have at least learnt Portuguese and read the book in the text ?
-
You should have asked. I could have told you the French version does not appear to be online.
The book is still on sale. Any version on line would prejudice the publisher.
-
Sorry, the translation was rather poor and I missed that, but can you prove that either Pike or Wright were referring to that full translation or were they referring to translations from the book (some of them quite lengthy and covering all the most important parts of the book) which both you and I know were online in August 2008.
More crucial than your rich English, my poor English, you ignorance of Portuguese, my poor Portuguese, there's a simple issue : words have meanings, if you start twisting their meanings, no communication will ever occur. A translated book is a complete book. Extracts are selected parts of a book. Are you aware of that or do you only read the Reader's Digest ?
-
When you don't have defense you attack, even if shooting your foot.
That reference puts the book being released in French in March 2009, I wonder how Mr. Pike or Wright or whoever got hold of an English language translation in 2008!!!!
Yes i kniw its quite pathetic, still...they will have to prove it all in a court of LAW
-
The book is still on sale. Any version on line would prejudice the publisher.
So the Annaesse version doesn't prejudice the publisher? It is online.
I know it does because had it not existed I would in the past have bought the book in French or at a pinch in Portuguese. The version in English online (which I presume probably breaks copyright) is enough for my needs. No point in paying out money when one of Amaral's mates offers his book for free is there?
-
Please explain what this has to do with the topic of this thread or please open a new thread to discuss the matter.
Everything. It is related to the french transcription of the book that only close to an year later was translated in english and released in the internet by our most appreciated Anna Andress.
-
More crucial than your rich English, my poor English, you ignorance of Portuguese, my poor Portuguese, there's a simple issue : words have meanings, if you start twisting their meanings, no communication will ever occur. A translated book is a complete book. Extracts are selected parts of a book. Are you aware of that or do you only read the Reader's Digest ?
I have twisted no words. I have asked you to confirm the verbatim phrases which these witnesses spoke.
The problem is that we do not know what Pike's words or Wright's words actually were. Your report from notes and memory cannot be considered a 100% verbatim report can it?
So can you guarantee that those witnesses were not referring to translations from the book rather than translations of the book? That is the crucial point.
Unless your haphazard notes and now fading memory can guarantee that, then we simply don't know do we?
-
I have twisted no words. I have asked you to confirm the verbatim phrases which these witnesses spoke.
The problem is that we do not know what Pike's words or Wright's words actually were. Your report from notes and memory cannot be considered a 100% verbatim report can it?
So can you guarantee that those witnesses were not referring to translations from the book rather than translations of the book? That is the crucial point.
Unless your haphazard notes and now fading memory can guarantee that, then we simply don't know do we?
Not my business, but you are making a fool of yourself.
-
Everything. It is related to the french transcription of the book that only close to an year later was translated in english and released in the internet by our most appreciated Anna Andress.
It may or may not be relevant as we are not even sure that it was a full translation which was being discussed in the court and the title given to this thread retrospectively by Admin, does not in fact reflect that focus of the thread.
-
Not my business, but you are making a fool of yourself.
How would you possibly know that unless you can furnish us with a verbatim transcript of what was said in court?
Can you?
If not, please don't be so abusive.
-
Why is everyone so adamant that the McCanns had to wait for an online translation of Amaral's book? It could have been bought in Portugal, in Portuguese, the first day it was on sale and translated specifically for them by a professional translation service.
No need to wait for amateurs on the internet.
-
Why is everyone so adamant that the McCanns had to wait for an online translation of Amaral's book? It could have been bought in Portugal, in Portuguese, the first day it was on sale and translated specifically for them by a professional translation service.
No need to wait for amateurs on the internet.
Yes. I guess Marinho Pinto could have done a nice photoshop of the book cover as he did with Leonor Cipriano's photos.
And as we say, by the cover you take the content, isn't it?!!!!
-
Yes. I guess Marinho Pinto could have done a nice photoshop of the book cover as he did with Leonor Cipriano's photos.
And as we say, by the cover you take the content, isn't it?!!!!
Are you now libelling Marinho Pinto, Luz?
-
Why is everyone so adamant that the McCanns had to wait for an online translation of Amaral's book? It could have been bought in Portugal, in Portuguese, the first day it was on sale and translated specifically for them by a professional translation service.
No need to wait for amateurs on the internet.
I think that is a very logical assumption ... and is probably exactly what happened
Why pretend otherwise though ? ( especially under oath ! )
-
I think that is a very logical assumption ... and is probably exactly what happened
Why pretend otherwise though ? ( especially under oath ! )
Who lied under oath?
-
Who lied under oath?
Didn't Michael Wright say ( in court ) that he forwarded a translated version of the book to McCanns, that he had accessed on the internet very soon after it had been published ?
-
Didn't Michael Wright say ( in court ) that he forwarded a translated version of the book to McCanns, that he had accessed on the internet very soon after it had been published ?
Yes, but it doesn't mean they read it...
-
Yes, but it doesn't mean they read it...
Well, then we start going into Judge Judy territory again
"If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true"
... and it doesn't make sense that Kate and Gerry McCann would not read what Amaral had written about them as soon as they had the chance ... does it ?
-
Well, then we start going into Judge Judy territory again
"If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true"
... and it doesn't make sense that Kate and Gerry McCann would not read what Amaral had written about them as soon as they had the chance ... does it ?
No, but didn't Gerry say they had better things to do than read the book?
-
No, but didn't Gerry say they had better things to do than read the book?
Do you believe that ?
-
Do you believe that ?
My views on Gerry McCann are not for a late night sitting...will try to formulate something soon, though
-
My views on Gerry McCann are not for a late night sitting...will try to formulate something soon, though
I wasn't asking for your views on Gerry McCann Sherlock ... I was asking whether you believe the McCanns didn't read Amaral's book at the earliest opportunity because they 'had better things to do' ?
-
I wasn't asking for your views on Gerry McCann Sherlock ... I was asking whether you believe the McCanns didn't read Amaral's book at the earliest opportunity because they 'had better things to do' ?
That would be pure speculation.
-
That would be pure speculation.
I thought you might have an opinion ( which are speculative, more often than not )
-
I thought you might have an opinion ( which are speculative, more often than not )
It's a hard one to answer.
If we take the McCanns at their word, and they had a genuine concern even at that point that Amaral's views were affecting the search, then presumably the more information they could access with regard to anything about how the case was being / had been handled would be important for them to know.
I am inclined to go with this, as I do accept their belief that the search was being hindered as genuine (even though I don't see the logic of that myself).
What are the alternatives? They didn't read it then, as they didn't really connect it with the search, and only read it after deciding to get round to suing Amaral for libel?
You have many ideas about the machinations of the McCanns, Icabod..what else?
-
It's a hard one to answer.
If we take the McCanns at their word, and they had a genuine concern even at that point that Amaral's views were affecting the search, then presumably the more information they could access with regard to anything about how the case was being / had been handled would be important for them to know.
I am inclined to go with this, as I do accept their belief that the search was being hindered as genuine (even though I don't see the logic of that myself).
What are the alternatives? They didn't read it then, as they didn't really connect it with the search, and only read it after deciding to get round to suing Amaral for libel?
You have many ideas about the machinations of the McCanns, Icabod..what else?
That was exactly my train of thought
Either this book devastated their lives, and brought Kate to the brink of suicide, as they are now claiming in court ... or it was so inconsequential to them that it lay downloaded on their computer for weeks ( as sent by Michael Wright ) unread, beacuse they had 'better things to do' than read it
Which is true ?
-
That was exactly my train of thought
Either this book devastated their lives, and brought Kate to the brink of suicide, as they are now claiming in court ... or it was so inconsequential to them that it lay downloaded on their computer for weeks ( as sent by Michael Wright ) unread, beacuse they had 'better things to do' than read it
Which is true ?
Well I think suicide is a bit too stark, and I think they were ill-advised to bring this up in court without medical back-up.
However, despite being unimpressed by our witnesses for the prosecution, I do wonder if the book didn't have a strong emotional impact. Traumas apparently peripheral to the central one that is being experienced can have just as profound an impact, sometimes a profounder one, than the original - a powerful phenomenon which is well researched and documented, and one I have experienced myself during and after a traumatic chapter.
I don't give much credence to the idea that A's thesis affected the search - for reasons we have gone over - but as far as emotional damage done, and damage to reputation, the McCanns were certainly aggrieved.
-
Didn't Michael Wright say ( in court ) that he forwarded a translated version of the book to McCanns, that he had accessed on the internet very soon after it had been published ?
That still doesn't have to mean that he was referring to one of translated versions we know of on the internet.
-
That still doesn't have to mean that he was referring to one of translated versions we know of on the internet.
LOL!!
If not, why bring the fact up?
-
Well I think suicide is a bit too stark, and I think they were ill-advised to bring this up in court without medical back-up.
However, despite being unimpressed by our witnesses for the prosecution, I do wonder if the book didn't have a strong emotional impact. Traumas apparently peripheral to the central one that is being experienced can have just as profound an impact, sometimes a profounder one, than the original - a powerful phenomenon which is well researched and documented, and one I have experienced myself during and after a traumatic chapter.
I don't give much credence to the idea that A's thesis affected the search - for reasons we have gone over - but as far as emotional damage done, and damage to reputation, the McCanns were certainly aggrieved.
Sorry, I must disagree with you here, Sherlock. I fear suicide might still be on the books
One only has to look at what Gawd-awful people have done to Kates beautiful face to see the extreme pain etched on it. There is only so much pain that any one person can carry. Kate is very strong, but there might well come a time when the final straw causes her to give in.
Obviously that book and all the subsequent Amaral pontifications will have been detrimental to the search. The search for a living child would have far greater fire and spirit than one for a dead child. Also if people believe her dead at her parents hands, and they start to hate them, then they will lose interest in doing anything to help them.
And this, of course, is without considering the impact that Amarals book might have had on the PJ and Judicary. Fortunately most would know that he is a perjurer and liar as proven by the Courts.
-
Sorry, I must disagree with you here, Sherlock. I fear suicide might still be on the books
One only has to look at what Gawd-awful people have done to Kates beautiful face to see the extreme pain etched on it. There is only so much pain that any one person can carry. Kate is very strong, but there might well come a time when the final straw causes her to give in.
Obviously that book and all the subsequent Amaral pontifications will have been detrimental to the search. The search for a living child would have far greater fire and spirit than one for a dead child. Also if people believe her dead at her parents hands, and they start to hate them, then they will lose interest in doing anything to help them.
And this, of course, is without considering the impact that Amarals book might have had on the PJ and Judicary. Fortunately most would know that he is a perjurer and liar as proven by the Courts.
Kate's beautiful face???? Give me a break!
It didn't take many of my acquaintances and I to read the book to disbelieve that pair. I didn't believe them from the first press statement they made, 4th May 2007.
And if she wanted to kill herself, why didn't she?! Invoking suicidal thoughts is a very cheap strategy.
-
Kate's beautiful face???? Give me a break!
It didn't take many of my acquaintances and I to read the book to disbelieve that pair. I didn't believe them from the first press statement they made, 4th May 2007.
And if she wanted to kill herself, why didn't she?! Invoking suicidal thoughts is a very cheap strategy.
You are one of the people on here who could be very correctly called a [ censored word ]. What a hateful person you are, Luz.
- Tearing down the posters of a missing stolen child,
- Throwing paint all over the contact details so that anyone who knows anything cannot pass the info on.
- trying to prevent a stolen child from being recovered
- bragging about it on the internet ... and elsewhere, no doubt
- Intimating that the mention of her suicide is a strategy. Have you ever been suicidal? Do you know what it does to you? Intimating that kate is a liar.
- Making assertions that kate is not beautiful, when she clearly is
Kate is a very beautiful woman, as is her Mother and her daughter. If she says she was suicidal then she was. Kate is a totally honest woman. The most honest person I have ever encountered. And the suicidal part is confirmed by her ?Psychologist in Court.
Get over yourself Luz. A few heartfelt apologies would be in order from you.
-
So the Annaesse version doesn't prejudice the publisher? It is online.
I know it does because had it not existed I would in the past have bought the book in French or at a pinch in Portuguese. The version in English online (which I presume probably breaks copyright) is enough for my needs. No point in paying out money when one of Amaral's mates offers his book for free is there?
It didn't seem to bother Amaral or his publishers. But it seems to bother the McCann for whom every penny counts. They must be mad that copyrights were not protected so they could request more millions in their plea.
-
You are one of the people on here who could be very correctly called a [ censored word ]. What a hateful person you are, Luz.
- Tearing down the posters of a missing stolen child,
- Throwing paint all over the contact details so that anyone who knows anything cannot pass the info on.
- trying to prevent a stolen child from being recovered
- bragging about it on the internet ... and elsewhere, no doubt
- Intimating that the mention of her suicide is a strategy. Have you ever been suicidal? Do you know what it does to you? Intimating that kate is a liar.
- Making assertions that kate is not beautiful, when she clearly is
Kate is a very beautiful woman, as is her Mother and her daughter. If she says she was suicidal then she was. Kate is a totally honest woman. The most honest person I have ever encountered. And the suicidal part is confirmed by her ?Psychologist in Court.
Get over yourself Luz. A few heartfelt apologies would be in order from you.
Kate is whatever you want her to be.
Unless you have proof for the accusations you are making, you have better shut up.
I have documents that prove that I was in Germany when the posters were ripped off, does your beloved Kate has proof that she didn't harm her child?!
-
It's Mrs. McCann that should apologize for the lies she has been telling the world.
You may choose to be at her side, but you can't make other people believe her or her husband.
In my country we are free to think and free to express our opinions. If you don't like it, it is your problem.
-
You are one of the people on here who could be very correctly called a [ censored word ]. What a hateful person you are, Luz.
- Tearing down the posters of a missing stolen child,
- Throwing paint all over the contact details so that anyone who knows anything cannot pass the info on.
- trying to prevent a stolen child from being recovered
- bragging about it on the internet ... and elsewhere, no doubt
- Intimating that the mention of her suicide is a strategy. Have you ever been suicidal? Do you know what it does to you? Intimating that kate is a liar.
- Making assertions that kate is not beautiful, when she clearly is
Kate is a very beautiful woman, as is her Mother and her daughter. If she says she was suicidal then she was. Kate is a totally honest woman. The most honest person I have ever encountered. And the suicidal part is confirmed by her ?Psychologist in Court.
Get over yourself Luz. A few heartfelt apologies would be in order from you.
Didn't Mr Wright just tell the court it's not a daily pressure for the couple?
Calm down Sadie.
-
Kate's beautiful face???? Give me a break!
It didn't take many of my acquaintances and I to read the book to disbelieve that pair. I didn't believe them from the first press statement they made, 4th May 2007.
And if she wanted to kill herself, why didn't she?! Invoking suicidal thoughts is a very cheap strategy.
What an extraordinary post...
-
Sorry, I must disagree with you here, Sherlock. I fear suicide might still be on the books
One only has to look at what Gawd-awful people have done to Kates beautiful face to see the extreme pain etched on it. There is only so much pain that any one person can carry. Kate is very strong, but there might well come a time when the final straw causes her to give in.
Obviously that book and all the subsequent Amaral pontifications will have been detrimental to the search. The search for a living child would have far greater fire and spirit than one for a dead child. Also if people believe her dead at her parents hands, and they start to hate them, then they will lose interest in doing anything to help them.
And this, of course, is without considering the impact that Amarals book might have had on the PJ and Judicary. Fortunately most would know that he is a perjurer and liar as proven by the Courts.
I don't have a medical opinion on Kate's mental state, and it would have been nice if the psychologist testifying in court had been able to present one. If Kate was suffering from severe depression or was suicidal, there would be documented medical evidence of the fact, as we discussed here last week. For reasons best known to Kate herself, no such evidence was presented.
As for the search, again, why decide not to present to the court actual evidence that it was hindered by Amaral? At the time in question, the 'search' was being carried out by private detectives hired by the McCanns - and they didn't buy Amaral's theory. They were being paid to search for a live child - and boasted she was findable. The fact that they didn't manage to do so was because they were variously crooked and / or incompetent - not because they were influenced by Amaral. If specific aspects of their searches were believed to have been impeded by Amaral's opinions, the detectives, and the McCanns, would have rushed to have made this known.
The other aspect of the 'search' from the early days was obviously the publicity campaign driven by the McCanns. This very British aspect of investigating - appealing to the public for help and information - sometimes does give results, but in Madeleine's case, where her identifiability would preclude her from being permitted into the public domain, this route is unlikely to bear fruit - nothing to do with Amaral either. Yes, it is possible that certain people who would otherwise have been alert to Madeleine's presence were not interested in helping the investigation because they believed what Amaral was saying, but once again, how is this proven? How do you show that an unknown, imaginary witness did not come forward, and prove the reason why?
SY, for their part, have said that they do not buy Amaral's theory either - after having gone over all the evidence on this case that so far exists. They are clearly going down a completely different track, unless the statements they have made so far have been nothing but bluff. And if they have been hitting brick walls in their investigation owing to Amaral, wouldn't they have been good witnesses to the Amaral effect?
Finally Sadie, you mention Amaral's convictions and his reputation, in the light of which, why assume that everyone reading his book or hearing about his thesis gives credence to his opinions? Are we all brainwashed into thinking Madeleine must be dead because one person said so? While it is true that Amaral's professional status gave his work a bit more oomph, that surely is more than counterbalanced by his convictions.
People are at liberty to evaluate his book as they wish, just like any other book they read. Those who respect Amaral may or may not agree with the claims he makes. People who do not give him any professional credit will probably discard them. Why assume - and how would you prove - a blanket negative effect?
Having said all of that, there would appear to be a certain amount of common sense, on the face of it , to the McCann's fears that his work was influential. Just very hard to prove. And where certain things are provable - such as medical evidence of emotional damage, or specific ways in which the search was hindered - the McCanns are choosing to leave them out.
-
I don't have a medical opinion on Kate's mental state, and it would have been nice if the psychologist testifying in court had been able to present one. If Kate was suffering from severe depression or was suicidal, there would be documented medical evidence of the fact, as we discussed here last week. For reasons best known to Kate herself, no such evidence was presented.
As for the search, again, why decide not to present to the court actual evidence that it was hindered by Amaral? At the time in question, the 'search' was being carried out by private detectives hired by the McCanns - and they didn't buy Amaral's theory. They were being paid to search for a live child - and boasted she was findable. The fact that they didn't manage to do so was because they were variously crooked and / or incompetent - not because they were influenced by Amaral. If specific aspects of their searches were believed to have been impeded by Amaral's opinions, the detectives, and the McCanns, would have rushed to have made this known.
The other aspect of the 'search' from the early days was obviously the publicity campaign driven by the McCanns. This very British aspect of investigating - appealing to the public for help and information - sometimes does give results, but in Madeleine's case, where her identifiability would preclude her from being permitted into the public domain, this route is unlikely to bear fruit - nothing to do with Amaral either. Yes, it is possible that certain people who would otherwise have been alert to Madeleine's presence were not interested in helping the investigation because they believed what Amaral was saying, but once again, how is this proven? How do you show that an unknown, imaginary witness did not come forward, and prove the reason why?
SY, for their part, have said that they do not buy Amaral's theory either - after having gone over all the evidence on this case that so far exists. They are clearly going down a completely different track, unless the statements they have made so far have been nothing but bluff. And if they have been hitting brick walls in their investigation owing to Amaral, wouldn't they have been good witnesses to the Amaral effect?
Finally Sadie, you mention Amaral's convictions and his reputation, in the light of which, why assume that everyone reading his book or hearing about his thesis gives credence to his opinions? Are we all brainwashed into thinking Madeleine must be dead because one person said so? While it is true that Amaral's professional status gave his work a bit more oomph, that surely is more than counterbalanced by his convictions.
People are at liberty to evaluate his book as they wish, just like any other book they read. Those who respect Amaral may or may not agree with the claims he makes. People who do not give him any professional credit will probably discard them. Why assume - and how would you prove - a blanket negative effect?
Having said all of that, there would appear to be a certain amount of common sense, on the face of it , to the McCann's fears that his work was influential. Just very hard to prove. And where certain things are provable - such as medical evidence of emotional damage, or specific ways in which the search was hindered - the McCanns are choosing to leave them out.
I don't know how many copies of his book Amaral has sold.
But the number is high, and whatever the number, would you not agree that a very high proportion will have been convinced, at the very least, that Madeleine is dead?
A number surely increased by the interviews Amaral has given which (I understand) also form a part of the libel trial?
-
Why is everyone so adamant that the McCanns had to wait for an online translation of Amaral's book? It could have been bought in Portugal, in Portuguese, the first day it was on sale and translated specifically for them by a professional translation service.
No need to wait for amateurs on the internet.
That's what Mr Pike seemed to suggest (otherwise he would have got it on Internet, there was no need to send him). But not Mr Wright.
Without a recording device, it is impossible to transcript everything verbatim. The Judge or the lawyers, when they dictate their requests to the court clerk, speak slowly and make pauses. Sometimes I can write down all the words (and use then direct speech), otherwise I use reported speech.
But I wouldn't have transformed "extracts or digest of a book" into "book" !
-
I don't know how many copies of his book Amaral has sold.
But the number is high, and whatever the number, would you not agree that a very high proportion will have been convinced, at the very least, that Madeleine is dead?
A number surely increased by the interviews Amaral has given which (I understand) also form a part of the libel trial?
Quite possibly many people will have been influenced by his views. And he is free to present them.
The question is, how specifically would those views affect the search? And how do you prove the search was affected? And why is little or no actual evidence of these effects being presented in court now that the McCanns have their moment?
-
I don't have a medical opinion on Kate's mental state, and it would have been nice if the psychologist testifying in court had been able to present one. If Kate was suffering from severe depression or was suicidal, there would be documented medical evidence of the fact, as we discussed here last week. For reasons best known to Kate herself, no such evidence was presented.
As for the search, again, why decide not to present to the court actual evidence that it was hindered by Amaral? At the time in question, the 'search' was being carried out by private detectives hired by the McCanns - and they didn't buy Amaral's theory. They were being paid to search for a live child - and boasted she was findable. The fact that they didn't manage to do so was because they were variously crooked and / or incompetent - not because they were influenced by Amaral. If specific aspects of their searches were believed to have been impeded by Amaral's opinions, the detectives, and the McCanns, would have rushed to have made this known.
The other aspect of the 'search' from the early days was obviously the publicity campaign driven by the McCanns. This very British aspect of investigating - appealing to the public for help and information - sometimes does give results, but in Madeleine's case, where her identifiability would preclude her from being permitted into the public domain, this route is unlikely to bear fruit - nothing to do with Amaral either. Yes, it is possible that certain people who would otherwise have been alert to Madeleine's presence were not interested in helping the investigation because they believed what Amaral was saying, but once again, how is this proven? How do you show that an unknown, imaginary witness did not come forward, and prove the reason why?
SY, for their part, have said that they do not buy Amaral's theory either - after having gone over all the evidence on this case that so far exists. They are clearly going down a completely different track, unless the statements they have made so far have been nothing but bluff. And if they have been hitting brick walls in their investigation owing to Amaral, wouldn't they have been good witnesses to the Amaral effect?
Finally Sadie, you mention Amaral's convictions and his reputation, in the light of which, why assume that everyone reading his book or hearing about his thesis gives credence to his opinions? Are we all brainwashed into thinking Madeleine must be dead because one person said so? While it is true that Amaral's professional status gave his work a bit more oomph, that surely is more than counterbalanced by his convictions.
People are at liberty to evaluate his book as they wish, just like any other book they read. Those who respect Amaral may or may not agree with the claims he makes. People who do not give him any professional credit will probably discard them. Why assume - and how would you prove - a blanket negative effect?
Having said all of that, there would appear to be a certain amount of common sense, on the face of it , to the McCann's fears that his work was influential. Just very hard to prove. And where certain things are provable - such as medical evidence of emotional damage, or specific ways in which the search was hindered - the McCanns are choosing to leave them out.
Mr Pike had to admit he's not a psychologist after trying to suggest he was. He's even less a psychiatrist. Only a court authorized expert could have delivered a document on psychiatric issue. Imo what Mr Pike told is counterproductive, moreover because he suggested Mrs McCann shared only with him (how does he know that ?). One could wonder whether he's not manipulated.
It wasn't very bright from Mr Wright to say that Mrs McCann was very different in Portugal from what she is in the UK. I had taken her scary face at face value..
About the rest, I do agree with SH.
-
That still doesn't have to mean that he was referring to one of translated versions we know of on the internet.
As there was no translated version of GA's book on the Internet at the time, neither in Inuit nor in Chinese nor in Wolof, the only explanation is that Mr Wright made a confusion between a book and a digest. The interesting question is : did he read more than a digest ? And did the McCanns as well ?
-
Mr Pike had to admit he's not a psychologist after trying to suggest he was. He's even less a psychiatrist. Only a court authorized expert could have delivered a document on psychiatric issue. Imo what Mr Pike told is counterproductive, moreover because he suggested Mrs McCann shared only with him (how does he know that ?). One could wonder whether he's not manipulated.
It wasn't very bright from Mr Wright to say that Mrs McCann was very different in Portugal from what she is in the UK. I had taken her scary face at face value..
About the rest, I do agree with SH.
Yes, I think parts of Pike's testimony were ill-considered.
What wonderful names, too: Pike ('fishy') and Trickey ('tricky'). Dickens himself couldn't have made it up.
-
What wonderful names, too: Pike ('fishy') and Trickey ('tricky'). Dickens himself couldn't have made it up.
Oh thank you for that, I didn't realize that a pike is a fresh water fish, he must have suffered in Lisbon !
-
I had taken her scary face at face value..
About the rest, I do agree with SH.
Do you need to be so insulting Anne?
-
Mr Pike had to admit he's not a psychologist after trying to suggest he was. He's even less a psychiatrist. Only a court authorized expert could have delivered a document on psychiatric issue. Imo what Mr Pike told is counterproductive, moreover because he suggested Mrs McCann shared only with him (how does he know that ?). One could wonder whether he's not manipulated.
It wasn't very bright from Mr Wright to say that Mrs McCann was very different in Portugal from what she is in the UK. I had taken her scary face at face value..
About the rest, I do agree with SH.
For Sherlock from Annes Court reports:
Alan Robert Pike is currently a Clinical Partner & Trauma Consultant at The Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP), a private Company which provides psychological care for traumatised individuals. He is a Crisis Counsellor and holds an honours degree in Social Science.
SO – You said psychology was one of the elements comprising your degree, does this allow you to give evaluation of psychological situations?
AP says "yes". The Social Science degree he has permits it.
He is sounding pretty competent to me, Sherlock and Anne. He has made it plain that he is NOT a straight psychologist and I have heard no mention of his claiming to be a psychiatrist.
However he has competences from elements of his social Services degree which permit his evaluation of psychological situations.
Cant see much wrong with that.
SO – So what occurred between 2007 and 2011?
AP says he saw the family regularly in their home or in his office up to 2009. Thereafter only when they contacted him.
SO – For support or psychological evaluation?
AP – Support.
The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking
MC – For how long have you been in this line of work?
AP – I started in 1993. I have been working for the institution for 7 years.
MC – In which situations have you worked?
AP – Families with domestic violence, maltreatment, children taken from their families (this is a bit like grieving), families who have lost a child. He works for the UK organisation called "Missing People".
MC – Which strong negative feeling did Kate McCann report to you in the summer of 2009?
AP – She was afraid, she wished she wasn't there; she talked of killing herself as an option.
What a hard nosed lot you are. Have none of you been in deep distress? Have none of you had contact with someone who is suicidal?
-
For Sherlock from Annes Court reports:
He is sounding pretty competent to me, Sherlock and Anne. He has made it plain that he is NOT a straight psychologist and I have heard no mention of his claiming to be a psychiatrist.
However he has competences from elements of his social Services degree which permit his evaluation of psychological situations.
Cant see much wrong with that.
What a hard nosed lot you are. Have none of you been in deep distress? Have none of you had contact with someone who is suicidal?
Not hard-nosed, Sadie, just looking for evidence - evidence that would help the McCanns!
Mr Pike gave absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up his statements. Not a sausage. He does seem to be professionally experienced, but there are no prizes in court for turning up and waving a resume.
As for the court-authorised expert who could have presented evidence about psychiatric issues - why was no such person called?
-
Kate's beautiful face???? Give me a break!
It didn't take many of my acquaintances and I to read the book to disbelieve that pair. I didn't believe them from the first press statement they made, 4th May 2007.
And if she wanted to kill herself, why didn't she?! Invoking suicidal thoughts is a very cheap strategy.
What an absolutely disgusting post!
How badly that post reflects on the personality?
-
CONCLUSION – 09-09-2009
When said book was published, the first Defendant gave interviews to all of the media that requested him to, namely to RTP [9], and defended the thesis that he presents in the book, in those interviews;
The first Defendant also gave, among others, an interview to newspaper "Correio da Manha", which was published on the 24th of July of 2008, in which he defended the thesis that he presents in the book;
At the beginning ot May of 2009, the same book was published in France, now under the title "Maddie, L'Enquete interdite: Les revelations du commissaire portugais charge de l'enquete";
The first Defendant gave countless interviews to several media in France, including the one that was published in the newspaper "Le Parisien" and on the matching internet site;
In those interviews, the first Defendant again mentioned the theses that he presents in the book;
The book's French edition is systematically and profusely published on the internet, at least on:
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/goncalo-amaral-maddie-lenquete.html
hhtp://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/archive/2009/05/09/Maddie-1-enquete-interdite-en-belgique1.html
http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=31806&sid=abe61a1c34b42a74ad5a2e50f315c20d&start=0
hhtp://twitturly.com/url/a194ef0f54f1985133b2ff092ddcf75d
http://www.bourin.editeur.fr/livre/maddie-1-enquete-interdite-les-revelations-du-commissaire-portugais-charge-de-1-enquete.html
http://www.amazon.fr/Maddie-lenq%C3%AAte-interdite-Amaral-G/dp/2849411256
http://www.decitre.fr/livres/Maddie-l-enquete-enterdite.aspx/9782849411254;
-
And?
-
Do you need to be so insulting Anne?
Insulting ? If I believe Mr Wright, I was very naive to imagine Mrs McCann was a tormented lady.
-
Not hard-nosed, Sadie, just looking for evidence - evidence that would help the McCanns!
Mr Pike gave absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up his statements. Not a sausage. He does seem to be professionally experienced, but there are no prizes in court for turning up and waving a resume.
As for the court-authorised expert who could have presented evidence about psychiatric issues - why was no such person called?
Exactly. I wonder what Carter Ruck are doing. Or did they think that Mr Pike was sufficient for a Portuguese court ?
-
What an absolutely disgusting post!
How badly that post reflects on the personality?
I already read this to-day. Copy catting RB ?
-
I already read this to-day. Copy catting RB ?
oh MOST DEFINITELY!
8)--))
just to reflect hypocrisy
-
a mistake.
-
You are one of the people on here who could be very correctly called a [ censored word ].
you do know the forum rules prohibit people calling others [ censored word ]s....dont you? Or did you not read the PM sent toevery forum member labelling it as abuse??
I suppose your Facebook headquarters ? encourages your language
Official Find Madeleine Campaign I've had it with the leaving alone comments. I will ban anyone that criticises Gerry and Kate. Criticising them only absolves the abductor. DO NOT LIKE THIS PAGE IF YOU ARE COMING HERE TO CRITICISE.
This is a support page, not a place for trolls and [ censored word ]s or for perfect parents to tell the rest of us how to parent.
~FM Webmaster
208 · September 22 at 4:40pm · Edited
-
Kate's beautiful face???? Give me a break!
It didn't take many of my acquaintances and I to read the book to disbelieve that pair. I didn't believe them from the first press statement they made, 4th May 2007.
And if she wanted to kill herself, why didn't she?! Invoking suicidal thoughts is a very cheap strategy.
What a vile post. I sincerely hope you are never unfortunate enough to experience suicidal thoughts.
-
What a vile post. I sincerely hope you are never unfortunate enough to experience suicidal thoughts.
If I may, Luz is not speaking of experiencing suicidal thoughts, but invoking them. Totally different, as you surely know.
I don't agree aesthetically with her though, I find Mrs McCann a beautiful woman.
-
If I may, Luz is not speaking of experiencing suicidal thoughts, but invoking them. Totally different, as you surely know.
I don't agree aesthetically with her though, I find Mrs McCann a beautiful woman.
People don't just "invoke" suicidal thoughts, Anne. Any more than they invoke a broken leg or appendicitis.
Luz's comments were disgusting.
-
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Updated Ouch...
Update: I have the book in my hand an I'll start reading it soon. I also bought today's edition of Correio da Manhã.
Ending with
I just read that the McCann lawyers will read each passage very carefully to assess it and decide if they sue or not. Man, that will take a lot of underlining... Oh, and I would advise them to take a peek at today's edition of Correio da Manhã.
http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.pt/2008/07/ouch.html
-
Can Anne Guedes state with 100% certainty whether the translation referred to in court was translation from or translation of the book?
Unless she can do so there is no point in discussing whether there was a translation available or not.
And remember it is an offence to misrepresent what a person says in court.
-
Can Anne Guedes state with 100% certainty whether the translation referred to in court was translation from or translation of the book?
Unless she can do so there is no point in discussing whether there was a translation available or not.
And remember it is an offence to misrepresent what a person says in court.
You started a new thread to tell us there is 'no point' in us continuing a discussion until a personal codicil of yours is met ?
You are funny gilet
-
Can Anne Guedes state with 100% certainty whether the translation referred to in court was translation from or translation of the book?
Unless she can do so there is no point in discussing whether there was a translation available or not.
And remember it is an offence to misrepresent what a person says in court.
Seems the McCanns spend more time responding to concerns than setting the agenda these days.
-
You started a new thread to tell us there is 'no point' in us continuing a discussion until a personal codicil of yours is met ?
You are funny gilet
In view of the arguments 'raging' back and forth on this subject it seems to be a perfectly valid question to me.
Clarification is all that is being sought.
-
I think this thread shoud include a welcome
... to the nit-pickers convention
Don't you realise how petty and bitter this constant sniping at Anne is making you look ?
-
Can Anne Guedes state with 100% certainty whether the translation referred to in court was translation from or translation of the book?
Unless she can do so there is no point in discussing whether there was a translation available or not.
And remember it is an offence to misrepresent what a person says in court.
For the sake of serenity, buy yourself a ticket, pop up anonymously at the court to try and catch me red-handed !
-
I think this thread shoud include a welcome
... to the nit-pickers convention
Don't you realise how petty and bitter this constant sniping at Anne is making you look ?
I don't see any sniping at Anne. Don't you agree that there is a great deal of contraversy about this subject at the moment? A witness has been accused of lying in some quarters. What is wrong with trying to clarify the situation?
-
"They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on internet in August 2008"
I checked because I hate the idea people doubt if I can help it, which in this case I anyhow doubt..
Bold words are verbatim in English in my notes.
-
For the sake of serenity, buy yourself a ticket, pop up anonymously at the court to try and catch me red-handed !
I don't see that happening Anne
I think the battle-lines have beenn drawn ... you and John spent many hours of your own time to bring us exclusive information ... whilst the snipers sit at their computers, fuming at the uncensored truth being shared, picking away at 'imagined' inacurracies in your work
-
I don't see that happening Anne
I think the battle-lines have beenn drawn ... you and John spent many hours of your own time to bring us exclusive information ... whilst the snipers sit at their computers, fuming at the uncensored truth being shared, picking away at 'imagined' inacurracies in your work
Thank you for your support, Icabodcrane. I find it normal believers wonder whether I biased (perhaps even unconsciously) the reports. Why should a sceptic do that though ?
-
A few more links to the book being translated in July 2008.
Some interesting reads on link.
"The Truth of the Lie": Release of Gonçalo Amaral's Book on the Maddie Case with Hot Revelations SIC
23 July 2008
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
"Madeleine died in the apartment" Correio da Manhã
23 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
Pre-publication
'CM' [Correio da Manhã] today starts the exclusive publication of excerpts from the book by Gonçalo Amaral, who believes that Madeleine McCann died inside the apartment at Praia da Luz. The episode of the holidays in 2005, in Mallorca – which raises suspicions about a friend of the couple – and the DNA results are the first parts.
Maddie died in the bedroom and the abduction was staged Jornal de Notícias
23 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
On the day before the book "Maddie, The Truth About The Lie" is published, JN anticipates some of the revelations made by the author, Gonçalo Amaral. The former inspector from the Polícia Judiciária who was initially responsible for the investigation, believes that the English girl died in the bedroom and that the parents are not exempt of guilt.
Comparisons between the PJ's report and Gonçalo Amaral's book PortugalDiário (links appear in 3 parts, as below)
29 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id164.html
-
A few more links to the book being translated in July 2008.
Some interesting reads on link.
"The Truth of the Lie": Release of Gonçalo Amaral's Book on the Maddie Case with Hot Revelations SIC
23 July 2008
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
"Madeleine died in the apartment" Correio da Manhã
23 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
Pre-publication
'CM' [Correio da Manhã] today starts the exclusive publication of excerpts from the book by Gonçalo Amaral, who believes that Madeleine McCann died inside the apartment at Praia da Luz. The episode of the holidays in 2005, in Mallorca – which raises suspicions about a friend of the couple – and the DNA results are the first parts.
Maddie died in the bedroom and the abduction was staged Jornal de Notícias
23 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
On the day before the book "Maddie, The Truth About The Lie" is published, JN anticipates some of the revelations made by the author, Gonçalo Amaral. The former inspector from the Polícia Judiciária who was initially responsible for the investigation, believes that the English girl died in the bedroom and that the parents are not exempt of guilt.
Comparisons between the PJ's report and Gonçalo Amaral's book PortugalDiário (links appear in 3 parts, as below)
29 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id164.html
The McCanns lawyers were allegedly already translating the book so why would Wright a month later be sending them small sections of sceptics translations ?
-
Right the first time
Secrecy was breached.
Archiving August 2008
First copy of the book in someone's hand, July 2008
-
Right the first time
Secrecy was breached.
Archiving August 2008
First copy of the book in someone's hand, July 2008
Nope, archiving was in July 2008, 21st of the month, days before the publication of the book
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4649.jpg
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4649.jpg)
The Mccanns lawyer wanted to sue Amaral for breach of secrecy, that was nearly four years ago, did that go by the wayside?
-
To save me trawling back through the thread, can someone please confirm
Has it been established which full translation of the book Michael Wright found on the internet, and passed to the McCanns shortly after the book was published ?
-
Each page of the process as it is laid out on mccannpjfiles carries this message:
This information belongs to the Ministério Público in Portimão, Portugal.
It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law
Which part of the fact that judicial secrecy was breached are you erroneously quarreling with and why?
-
To save me trawling back through the thread, can someone please confirm
Has it been established which full translation of the book Michael Wright found on the internet, and passed to the McCanns shortly after the book was published ?
I dont think there was any so early. Just snippets.
-
Each page of the process as it is laid out on mccannpjfiles carries this message:
This information belongs to the Ministério Público in Portimão, Portugal.
It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law
Which part of the fact that judicial secrecy was breached are you erroneously quarreling with and why?
To prove it was breached you will have to prove that the secrecy law continues after archival (which you erroneously stated was in August 2008 but was in July) up until files are released. Can you do that? If so, you may have a point, albeit a petty one.
-
I dont think there was any so early. Just snippets.
But Michael Wright told a Judge, under oath, that he read a translated copy of the book on the internet shortly after it was published ... didn't he ?
-
But Michael Wright told a Judge, under oath, that he read a translated copy of the book on the internet shortly after it was published ... didn't he ?
Yes :
ID - When did they read the book and watch the documentary?
MW - They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.[/s]
ETA, sorry quoted the wrong bit
The Judge asks whether he read the book of Gonçalo Amaral.
MW answers he read a translation on the internet.
The Judge asks "when".
MW Very shortly after the book was published.
***
As soon as the book was published in July 2008 Clarence Mitchell was being quoted by all the papers sayng their libel lawyers were going through it as a matter of urgency and swift legal action could be taken...now I dont know which libel lawyers he was referring to, Carter Ruck or Isabel Duarte, was she even hired back then? If not, then CR will have had it translated surely pdq? Not wait for someone on the www to do it. Unless it was all talk. Anyway Im pretty sure the full book was not translated into English until well into 2009 at least. Unless someone knows better.
-
Yes :
ID - When did they read the book and watch the documentary?
MW - They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.[/s]
ETA, sorry quoted the wrong bit
The Judge asks whether he read the book of Gonçalo Amaral.
MW answers he read a translation on the internet.
The Judge asks "when".
MW Very shortly after the book was published.
***
As soon as the book was published in July 2008 Clarence Mitchell was being quoted by all the papers sayng their libel lawyers were going through it as a matter of urgency and swift legal action could be taken...now I dont know which libel lawyers he was referring to, Carter Ruck or Isabel Duarte, was she even hired back then? If not, then CR will have had it translated surely pdq? Not wait for someone on the www to do it. Unless it was all talk. Anyway Im pretty sure the full book was not translated into English until well into 2009 at least. Unless someone knows better.
It would seem from your quote red that the book Wright allegedly read on the internet was the same one he allegedly passed to the McCanns in August 2008.
It's now pretty clear that no full translation existed at this time, either on the internet or elsewhere, so why is Wright dishonestly claiming there was ?
-
It would seem from your quote red that the book Wright allegedly read on the internet was the same one he allegedly passed to the McCanns in August 2008.
It's now pretty clear that no full translation existed at this time, either on the internet or elsewhere, so why is Wright dishonestly claiming there was ?
Good question. However much devils advocate one could play or attempt semantics,seems pretty clear to me he is talking about a translated book on the internet that boh he and the Mccanns read shortly after publication. if this was the case it would have been all around the forums but ths didnt happen for ages and ages.
-
To save me trawling back through the thread, can someone please confirm
Has it been established which full translation of the book Michael Wright found on the internet, and passed to the McCanns shortly after the book was published ?
To save me trawling back as well, has it been confirmed that he said he'd read a full translation of the entire book shortly after it was published?
What some may consider to be "snippets" would seem to be more of a fairly lengthy summary in English posted almost as soon as the original was available for purchase.
http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.pt/2008/07/ouch.html
-
To save me trawling back as well, has it been confirmed that he said he'd read a full translation of the entire book shortly after it was published?
What some may consider to be "snippets" would seem to be more of a fairly lengthy summary in English posted almost as soon as the original was available for purchase.
http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.pt/2008/07/ouch.html
But still only a summary and not a full translation as Wright seems to have claimed.
-
To save me trawling back as well, has it been confirmed that he said he'd read a full translation of the entire book shortly after it was published?
What some may consider to be "snippets" would seem to be more of a fairly lengthy summary in English posted almost as soon as the original was available for purchase.
http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.pt/2008/07/ouch.html
I referred to *snippets* quoted here and there, much much less than what you provided in that link, I had never read that...it is a longer summary, and it is clear by the writer it is a sumarry and not a book translation in full. MW however said the Mccanns read the book, reading a summary is not the same. MW also said when asked if he had read the book, said he had read a translation. OK maybe he was sloppy in his answer? In any case, if you google text from that page nothng originaly from that page comes up apart from that blog, hardly something that spread all over the net. Oh and do you know that is the blog he was referring to?