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: carlymichelle on January 08, 2014, 11:54:15 PM
-
The following article appeared yesterday, January 8th 2013, in Dagbladet, a Norwegian left / liberal tabloid:
NOT CHANGING HIS MIND: Gonçalo Amaral said the Maddie-case has 'ruined' him. Still, the ex-investigator is certain that he knows what happened to Madeleine McCann.
'It's hard to accept that I have to live like this just because I did my job'
The man who led the investigation of Maddie's disappearance is fighting a bitter feud with Madeleine's parents.
(http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/311/311716/31171649/jpg/active/978x.jpg)
CERTAIN: Gonçalo Amaral (58) led the police investigation after Madeleine McCann disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia de Luz, Portugal. He made the toddler's parents suspects. Photo: Per Lars Tonstad
LISBON (DAGBLADET): Gonçalo Amaral (54) is the man who led the early investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance - the case that has engaged Europe for nearly seven years.
In many ways, he is the McCann family's worst enemy.
- It is hard to accept that I have to live like this just because I did my job, Amaral told Dagbladet.
• Read the whole interview with Gonçalo Amaral on Dagbladet Pluss (paywall). There, Amaral speaks of what he believe happened to the little girl and the bitter feud with Maddie's parents.
Can't dispose my money
Amaral met Dagbladet for an exclusive interview in Lisbon just hours before he met in court to defent himself after the McCann's sued him for £1m for his accusations in a 2008 book.
The conflict between Amaral and the McCann's sparked massive news coverage in the British media. Gerry and Kate McCann have received millions in compensation and have had many journalists and newspapers apologise for their coverage of Maddie's disappearance.
In 2008, Amaral wrote the book «Maddie: A verdade de mentira» («The Truth of the Lie»), which broke all the records and was translated into eight languages. The McCann's had the book stopped by Portuguese court. They believed it violated their honor and their search for Madeleine.
The case was later dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the book went back on the shelves.
In the meantime, as McCann's wished, all Amarals assets were frozen. He now only gets enough money to survive, he said.
'I can't dispose the money from my book sale. I work a little as a legal adviser for a firm but I am only getting enough money to survive. I live in my dad's flat in Portugal', said Amaral.
(http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/311/311716/31171648/jpg/active/729x.jpg)
- THE CASE HAS RUINED ME: Dagbladet met Amaral just hours before the trial against him started in Lisbon. He said the case has ruined him. All his assets are frozen until a verdict is made - which may take years. Photo: Per Lars Tronstad.
Too much politics
He is upset about the flurry of rumours and theories that are still surrounding Maddie's disappearance.
This case has involved too much politics and too little police, said Amaral, who said he has had rough years after he left the police.
In 2007, he called the McCann's in as suspects. After having given their version of events, Gerry and Kate McCann were allowed to leave the police station. Two days later, they returned to England.
Shortly after, the controversial investigator was taken off the case. This happened after politicians on the highest levels in England and Portugal discussed the case, he claims.
Recently, Scotland Yard have gone public with material that suggest Madeleine disappeared following a failed burglary.
The police are calling for three unknown men.
'We put aside that theory a long time ago. There were no signs of an intrusion. The apartment was in good order - everything was where it should have been. Can thieves really have been frightened by a three-year-old - and taken her with them? Nothing at all suggests so', said Amaral.
Dagbladet have contacted the McCann's Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte, through her secretary, where Amaral's quotes have been presented. Duarte did not wish to comment.
http://www.dagbladet.no/2014/01/08/nyheter/madeleine_mccann/mccann/maddie/maddies_disappearance/31172879/
-
I send my support to Mr Amaral.
-
Yes the fall out has been horrendous.
ANYONE who touches the McCanns end up in a bad place. So much stuff gone on because of it.
Xenophobia, children taken from parents, a race which was persecuted in the war (The Romas), made out to be blonde child abductors, kids having to prove they belong to their parents, taken away traumatised and the list goes on.
Its a terrible fall out and it goes on.
-
Don't you think that Goncalo Amaral has rather brought this upon himself? He did write a book that made a lot of money, accusing two people against whom he has no proof.
And as yet he isn't actually ruined since his money and assets will be returned to him if he wins the case.
-
Yes the fall out has been horrendous.
ANYONE who touches the McCanns end up in a bad place. So much stuff gone on because of it.
Xenophobia, children taken from parents, a race which was persecuted in the war (The Romas), made out to be blonde child abductors, kids having to prove they belong to their parents, taken away traumatised and the list goes on.
Its a terrible fall out and it goes on.
remember little boushras trauma and the little girl gypsies accused of being maddie those poor little girls yet the mcanns and their supporters found that to be acceptible
-
Don't you think that Goncalo Amaral has rather brought this upon himself? He did write a book that made a lot of money, accusing two people against whom he has no proof.
And as yet he isn't actually ruined since his money and assets will be returned to him if he wins the case.
Yes perhaps he did, but its not that which ruined him. It was the constant barrage of untruths thrown up about him, which ruined him. The intense trolling of many a forum who just went into the KILL AMARAL....and it goes on this forum too.
ONE has to remember though that the book he wrote can be read through PJ files on the INTERNET. There is nothing new in them either.
Other people were ruined, Murat for example and MUD STICKS.
I think if the parents want to take him to court thats their right to do so, but they should have STOPPED all the stuff about him they could have done, but for me they openly encouraged it, even in McCanns book.
No the stuff thrown up about Amaral was HIDEOUS and totally uncalled for.
And what is so sad to me this case has shown me just how bad this world has become when people can tear someone apart on media sites and seem to really enjoy it. Amaral was also devoured by the Tiger....
-
You could say that the same has been done to The McCanns. That is where it all began.
-
Yes perhaps he did, but its not that which ruined him. It was the constant barrage of untruths thrown up about him, which ruined him. The intense trolling of many a forum who just went into the KILL AMARAL....and it goes on this forum too.
ONE has to remember though that the book he wrote can be read through PJ files on the INTERNET. There is nothing new in them either.
Other people were ruined, Murat for example and MUD STICKS.
I think if the parents want to take him to court thats their right to do so, but they should have STOPPED all the stuff about him they could have done, but for me they openly encouraged it, even in McCanns book.
No the stuff thrown up about Amaral was HIDEOUS and totally uncalled for.
And what is so sad to me this case has shown me just how bad this world has become when people can tear someone apart on media sites and seem to really enjoy it. Amaral was also devoured by the Tiger....
exactly and imo he took the fallout for the mccans lack of parental responsibilities people blamed him instead of the mcanns who are maddies parents and no matterr what did happen to maddie their lack of responsibility of their children caused the vanishing of maddie because they were not there and were looking after their own selfish needs so they had to blame someone and it was GA
-
You could say that the same has been done to The McCanns. That is where it all began.
You've got that right.
It all started with the Mccanns.
-
You've got that right.
It all started with the Mccanns.
yep by being selfish and putting their selfish needs ahead of maddie if they had been like normal parents and stayed with their kids no one would have heard of the mcanns or GA he would still be a police officer
-
yep by being selfish and putting their selfish needs ahead of maddie if they had been like normal parents and stayed with their kids no one would have heard of the mcanns or GA he would still be a police officer
Yep. HOWEVER, IT WAS ALL 3 CHILDREN AT RISK.
-
Yep. HOWEVER, IT WAS ALL 3 CHILDREN AT RISK.
yep and GA tried to help find out what did happen and was lynchmobbed
-
yep and GA tried to help find out what did happen and was lynchmobbed
Yes i agree with that.
OK he might not be right, but he was a POLICE OFFICER wasnt it his remit to find out what happened to the child?
ISNT that what policing is all about?
I read his book and it did not influence me at all as I had read all the stuff on the Internet.
PERHAPS what is wrong actually is being able to have access to the files in the first place.
This would have stopped a lot of forums dead.
Its not only Amaral either look at what happened to the dogs handler Martin Grime, some posts have been borderline scandalious and libellous.........
If the McCanns want to sue him that is their right, but i just think the mentality of their supporters in the main has been disgusting and bullying and at worse xenophobic...IMHO of course.
-
Yes i agree with that.
OK he might not be right, but he was a POLICE OFFICER wasnt it his remit to find out what happened to the child?
ISNT that what policing is all about?
I read his book and it did not influence me at all as I had read all the stuff on the Internet.
PERHAPS what is wrong actually is being able to have access to the files in the first place.
This would have stopped a lot of forums dead.
Its not only Amaral either look at what happened to the dogs handler Martin Grime, some posts have been borderline scandalious and libellous.........
If the McCanns want to sue him that is their right, but i just think the mentality of their supporters in the main has been disgusting and bullying and at worse xenophobic...IMHO of course.
look at all the vile cyber bullying of those of us who dont believe the mcanns abuse saying that we are mentally ill etc retards spastics and all kinds of other bullying too
-
Madeleine hasn't ruined him.. he ruined himself even before Madeleine ever stepped to PDL.
And this is due to his egoism. Thinking he is the cleverest in the world and applying this to his work..
Well, he isn't.. which has been proven!
What might slightly ruined him is not applying strict professional rules to his work.
Failing to deal with this crime 'by the book', for instance..
And now 'poor me'.. ' poor poor me' like it is only him in this world..
He should have been only a professional..
How come no other professional, who worked on this case, has not been ruined???
-
it gives me great pleasure to see amaral getting his just desserts. He wrote the book to defend his honour...he says...so he can have no problem with the McCanns suing him to defend their honour.
He doesn't sound very confident. he should not have written the book ..IMO... instead of whinging he needs to get into court...stop delaying things and let the court decide..everything that has happened to him is his own fault
-
it gives me great pleasure to see amaral getting his just desserts. He wrote the book to defend his honour...he says...so he can have no problem with the McCanns suing him to defend their honour.
He doesn't sound very confident. he should not have written the book ..IMO... instead of whinging he needs to get into court...stop delaying things and let the court decide..everything that has happened to him is his own fault
Parents defending their honour ???
What honour is there in leaving three children undefended whilst enjoying nights out wining and dining, with their offspring in an unlocked residence ?
-
it gives me great pleasure to see amaral getting his just desserts. He wrote the book to defend his honour...he says...so he can have no problem with the McCanns suing him to defend their honour.
He doesn't sound very confident. he should not have written the book ..IMO... instead of whinging he needs to get into court...stop delaying things and let the court decide..everything that has happened to him is his own fault
No, he doesn't sound very confident, does he. The writing is on the wall for him.
-
Parents defending their honour ???
What honour is there in leaving three children undefended whilst enjoying nights out wining and dining, with their offspring in an unlocked residence ?
Yawn zzzzzz is this all you are capable of posting,so so boring same old same old 8-)(--)
-
I feel like I could throttle my children sometimes. Or someone else's.
you need help to control your temper mate >@@(*&)
-
you need help to control your temper mate >@@(*&)
No, just some better birth control.
-
No, just some better birth control.
"snip" 8((()*/
-
Anyway, back on topic - if he is talking as though his assets are not only frozen but that he's unlikely to be getting them back, do we take that as resignation of his trial defeat?
-
Anyway, back on topic - if he is talking as though his assets are not only frozen but that he's unlikely to be getting them back, do we take that as resignation of his trial defeat?
he's looking for his ace that hes had up his sleeve for 7 years @)(++(*
-
Did I read somewhere that Amaral and Sofia bought a small Hotel in Spain prior to the seizing of his assets by The Portuguese Court?
I'm pretty sure that I did.
-
Did I read somewhere that Amaral and Sofia bought a small Hotel in Spain prior to the seizing of his assets by The Portuguese Court?
I'm pretty sure that I did.
I don't know. I was under the impression that there was quite a queue of people who are owed money by Amaral.
-
it gives me great pleasure to see amaral getting his just desserts. He wrote the book to defend his honour...he says...so he can have no problem with the McCanns suing him to defend their honour.
He doesn't sound very confident. he should not have written the book ..IMO... instead of whinging he needs to get into court...stop delaying things and let the court decide..everything that has happened to him is his own fault
I have no problem with him writing a book.
But what he, as a professional, should have given in that book is the facts about the case..not one sided thesis.
And the profits from his book should have gone to a good cause.. i.e. not used for his personal gains.
The personal gain out of a missing child he was supposed to FIND and failed to FIND .. just shows the type of a character he is..
Not a good Samaritan, is he?
-
I don't know. I was under the impression that there was quite a queue of people who are owed money by Amaral.
If it's out of Portugal then they haven't got a hope in hell's chance. This could be a good reason for doing it.
-
If it's out of Portugal then they haven't got a hope in hell's chance. This could be a good reason for doing it.
Yes, good point.
-
I have no problem with him writing a book.
But what he, as a professional, should have given in that book is the facts about the case..not one sided thesis.
And the profits from his book should have gone to a good cause.. i.e. not used for his personal gains.
The personal gain out of a missing child he was supposed to FIND and failed to FIND .. just shows the type of a character he is..
Not a good Samaritan, is he?
Yet you don't criticize the Mccanns who have made money from a book and serialization rights in the 'Sun' of the book.
WHY NOT ?
They are responsible for what happened, after all.
-
Yet you don't criticize the Mccanns who have made money from a book and serialization rights in the 'Sun' of the book.
WHY NOT ?
They are responsible for what happened, after all.
On a related note, their accounts are now out if anyone wants to read
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/mfaccounts310313.pdf
-
On a related note, their accounts are now out if anyone wants to read
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/mfaccounts310313.pdf
Beyond comprehension. IF they had simply paid 10 euro at the beginning non of this would be relevant.
-
Beyond comprehension. IF they had simply paid 10 euro at the beginning non of this would be relevant.
yes its quite amazing how people can be wise after the event...quite amazing
-
yes its quite amazing how people can be wise after the event...quite amazing
Wise after the event ???
It was common sense never to leave children in such circumstances.
-
Wise after the event ???
It was common sense never to leave children in such circumstances.
We have had this conversation before..we do not care what YOU think about our childcare arrangements...best wishes Kate and Davel
@)(++(*
-
We have had this conversation before..we do not care what YOU think about our childcare arrangements...best wishes Kate and Davel
@)(++(*
Who cares what you think ? 8)-)))
Since if you didn't you would not reply to my posts. 8(0(*
-
Who cares what you think ? 8)-)))
Since if you didn't you would not reply to my posts. 8(0(*
Do you have anything to say that relates to the thread's topic, Stephen?
-
Do you have anything to say that relates to the thread's topic, Stephen?
Do you, apart from your unwavering support of the mccanns ?
Can you explain why the mccanns want to destroy Amaral, when he was at one point the coordinator of the case, but the PJ en masse, had the same view of the case ?
-
One potty little police station on The Algarve, where witnesses get beaten up, is hardly The PJ en masse.
-
Do you, apart from your unwavering support of the mccanns ?
Can you explain why the mccanns want to destroy Amaral, when he was at one point the coordinator of the case, but the PJ en masse, had the same view of the case ?
The McCanns don't want anyone 'destroyed'. Interesting though that Amaral and many of his fanboys think in those terms, says quite a bit about the psyche and motivations of the hounders. As does the fact that they constantly obsess over money. In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that a lot of Amaral's fans spend more time worrying about how much money is in the Fund than they do thinking about where the little girl is, who took her and whether it's possible to get her back.
-
Although, I must say, although the McCanns are only interested in justice, I for one take a certain amount of guilty pleasure in seeing Amaral get his comeuppance. It is rewarding to see someone get what they deserve now and again. Restores one's faith and all that.
-
Although, I must say, although the McCanns are only interested in justice, I for one take a certain amount of guilty pleasure in seeing Amaral get his comeuppance. It is rewarding to see someone get what they deserve now and again. Restores one's faith and all that.
Well I can't stop myself from feeling sorry for him. He was so sure of himself in his righteousness, and look at him now.
-
Well I can't stop myself from feeling sorry for him. He was so sure of himself in his righteousness, and look at him now.
I think he feels sorry enough for himself to need pity from anyone else. But I suppose that makes you a better person than I.
-
Do you, apart from your unwavering support of the mccanns ?
Can you explain why the mccanns want to destroy Amaral, when he was at one point the coordinator of the case, but the PJ en masse, had the same view of the case ?
once again Stephen you show how perverse your sense of logic is...the mcCanns are destroying no one. The Portuguese court will decide if Amaral has committed libel..its his own stupid fault...and him a doctor of law..and if so the court will punish him...not the Mcanns
-
once again Stephen you show how perverse your sense of logic is...the mcCanns are destroying no one. The Portuguese court will decide if Amaral has committed libel..its his own stupid fault...and him a doctor of law..and if so the court will punish him...not the Mcanns
The only perverse thing I see on here is those who support parents who clearly neglected their three children and see no wrong in whar they did.
-
The only perverse thing I see on here is those who support parents who clearly neglected their three children and see no wrong in whar they did.
and left GA and others to take the fallout for what they did
-
The McCanns don't want anyone 'destroyed'. Interesting though that Amaral and many of his fanboys think in those terms, says quite a bit about the psyche and motivations of the hounders. As does the fact that they constantly obsess over money. In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that a lot of Amaral's fans spend more time worrying about how much money is in the Fund than they do thinking about where the little girl is, who took her and whether it's possible to get her back.
The people clearly obsessed with money have been the mccanns.
'another good marketing ploy' no doubt. 8)-)))
-
The McCanns don't want anyone 'destroyed'. Interesting though that Amaral and many of his fanboys think in those terms, says quite a bit about the psyche and motivations of the hounders. As does the fact that they constantly obsess over money. In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that a lot of Amaral's fans spend more time worrying about how much money is in the Fund than they do thinking about where the little girl is, who took her and whether it's possible to get her back.
The McCanns don't want anyone 'destroyed'.
Indeed, Kate with all her devout Christian values just wants him to be miserable and feel fear.
-
You keep saying we, who's this 'we' ? @)(++(*
me , kate and Gerry of course
-
The McCanns don't want anyone 'destroyed'.
Indeed, Kate with all her devout Christian values just wants him to be miserable and feel fear.
have you read the bible...its all there
-
what i dont understand steve is why the pros hate GA so much if he had belived maddie had been abducted they would have been all over him is the uk so supresssed that it is illegal to think for yourself??
-
People with a cause always need enemies and for the McCann supporters that's Amaral
-
People with a cause always need enemies and for the McCann supporters that's Amaral
its sad though they have ruined a mans life because they stubbonly refuse to say that the mcanns did the wrong thing isnt it
-
Fanatics are like that.
-
if the translation is correct then this is what amaral says in the introduction to his book.....
. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation
Isnt this rather admitting that his book would harm the search
-
He does say investigation, not search. People don.t seem to have been carrying out an actual search since the early days.
-
have you read the bible...its all there
When I went to sunday school I can remember thinking that when I grew up I wanted to be like jesus,
thats why I hang around with prostitutes.
-
He does say investigation, not search. People don.t seem to have been carrying out an actual search since the early days.
well i have read many portugese people searched for maddie but not the mcanns
-
The rest of this article (behind a paywall) has been posted on another forum. The additional contents, referring to the Judge considering whether or not Madeleine can also be represented by the plaintiffs, and the expressed intention by Amaral's lawyer to appeal, are further indications, if any were needed, that Amaral has all but lost.
-
He does say investigation, not search. People don.t seem to have been carrying out an actual search since the early days.
so the investigation isn't looking for Maddie...with SY saying she may still be alive it seems they are
-
what i dont understand steve is why the pros hate GA so much if he had belived maddie had been abducted they would have been all over him is the uk so supresssed that it is illegal to think for yourself??
If Amaral had done his job properly, and found Madeleine, we would all love him to bits. While people like you would still be screeching about abandonment and neglect.
-
The rest of this article (behind a paywall) has been posted on another forum. The additional contents, referring to the Judge considering whether or not Madeleine can also be represented by the plaintiffs, and the expressed intention by Amaral's lawyer to appeal, are further indications, if any were needed, that Amaral has all but lost.
So he is trying to squirm out of it by having the case threw out...his last throw of the dice....on the ward of court basis...well according to many very knowledgeable posters on this forum...amaral is way ahead
-
so the investigation isn't looking for Maddie...with SY saying she may still be alive it seems they are
No. I don't thinks - they won't find her amongst bits of paper -they are trying to identify a perpetrator.
-
So he is trying to squirm out of it by having the case threw out...his last throw of the dice....on the ward of court basis...well according to many very knowledgeable posters on this forum...amaral is way ahead
I don't know whether he's trying to have the case thrown out or just limit his losses - if he can remove Madeleine from proceedings then presumably the damages awarded against him will also be less. Very much sounds as though he's resigned to losing but will appeal. In which case, a final resolution will be many years away. I don't know what will happen to his assets in the meantime.
-
I don't know whether he's trying to have the case thrown out or just limit his losses - if he can remove Madeleine from proceedings then presumably the damages awarded against him will also be less. Very much sounds as though he's resigned to losing but will appeal. In which case, a final resolution will be many years away. I don't know what will happen to his assets in the meantime.
I think the verdict is pretty clear now and he will lose...that will send a message that he was wrong to write the book and will help restore the Mccanns reputation that he has tarnished. He can and will appeal but I expect his assets will remain frozen
-
I think the verdict is pretty clear now and he will lose...that will send a message that he was wrong to write the book and will help restore the Mccanns reputation that he has tarnished. He can and will appeal but I expect his assets will remain frozen
Yes, I agree the verdict is pretty clear. If there were signs the decision was going to be in Amaral's favour, certain people would be shouting it from the rooftops about now. As it is, there are a few notable absences. Perhaps they're just in mourning for Eusibio.
-
According to certain vociferous voices, Madeleine had already been removed from the list of Plaintiffs. So they must be wrong then.
-
I think the verdict is pretty clear now and he will lose...that will send a message that he was wrong to write the book and will help restore the Mccanns reputation that he has tarnished. He can and will appeal but I expect his assets will remain frozen
his assets will remain frozen and hopefully none of them will leak out into the boot of his mercedes.
-
well i have read many portugese people searched for maddie but not the mcanns
Too true.
-
me , kate and Gerry of course
How about wee willie ? @)(++(*
-
Amaral was after the right man i.e. Smithman when he was removed from the case. SY seem to be on the right track with the efits shown on CW. The press are just being fed fodder to keep them off the trail. Amaral may yet have his day.
"I know the truth and God knows the truth. Nothing else matters." (KM)
-
Amaral was after the right man i.e. Smithman when he was removed from the case. SY seem to be on the right track with the efits shown on CW. The press are just being fed fodder to keep them off the trail. Amaral may yet have his day.
"I know the truth and God knows the truth. Nothing else matters." (KM)
I tend to agree with the principle if not all of the detail of your post. "Barrack-room lawyers" notwithstanding I suspect only the judge has a clear idea which way it will go. The press will print any old blx to sell copy usually with the caveat "a source close to"
-
I tend to agree with the principle if not all of the detail of your post. "Barrack-room lawyers" notwithstanding I suspect only the judge has a clear idea which way it will go. The press will print any old blx to sell copy usually with the caveat "a source close to"
I think there is enough information.in the public domain now to give us a good indication about how this case is heading...this article was not from a source but directly from amaral...pictures too... I'm not just basing my views on this one article
-
I think the verdict is pretty clear now and he will lose...that will send a message that he was wrong to write the book and will help restore the Mccanns reputation that he has tarnished. He can and will appeal but I expect his assets will remain frozen
IF It's Dr Amaral's lawyers who have submitted last minute papers as Jerry Lawton tweeted and if those papers are arguing that the Mccanns should not be able to represent Madeleine as she is a ward of court, then I have to admit that he must believe that he's facing defeat.
If he loses, my conviction that he would win will be a great example of confirmation bias in action.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet though.
-
IF It's Dr Amaral's lawyers who have submitted last minute papers as Jerry Lawton tweeted and if those papers are arguing that the Mccanns should not be able to represent Madeleine as she is a ward of court, then I have to admit that he must believe that he's facing defeat.
If he loses, my conviction that he would win will be a great example of confirmation bias in action.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet though.
I dont agree necessarily, filing last minute stuff...how can one know if its not "supporting" rather than in "desperation" if you see what I mean
As for the fat lady, I agree.....but that only happens right at the end.....
@)(++(*
Too many assumptions predictions and counting chickens going on here imo...ooh
eta if the mccanns win or lose I think it will be bad publicity for them either way....thats why the whole exercise was a disaster from the start....IMO
-
I dont agree necessarily, filing last minute stuff...how can one know if its not "supporting" rather than in "desperation" if you see what I mean
As for the fat lady, I agree.....but that only happens right at the end.....
@)(++(*
Too many assumptions predictions and counting chickens going on here imo...ooh
Yep. Way too many....
I don't like the last minute documents thing though. It doesn't look good.
We'll see, I guess. One day 8)-)))
-
Yep. Way too many....
I don't like the last minute documents thing though. It doesn't look good.
We'll see, I guess. One day 8)-)))
I think he will be vindicated....the mccanns case as presented by the "witnesses" was weak imo, they proved little.....whether its this time round or next time, yes, we shall see
-
According to certain vociferous voices, Madeleine had already been removed from the list of Plaintiffs. So they must be wrong then.
Yes, I seem to remember a few notable posters who claimed Madeleine had already been removed from the writ. They don't seem to be around at the moment to comment though. >@@(*&)
-
Yes, I seem to remember a few notable posters who claimed Madeleine had already been removed from the writ. They don't seem to be around at the moment to comment though. >@@(*&)
Oh My. You don't think Amaral has been reading Forums again, do you? CRIBBING FOR IDEAS, AND SUCH.
-
Yes, I seem to remember a few notable posters who claimed Madeleine had already been removed from the writ. They don't seem to be around at the moment to comment though. >@@(*&)
So who are these other posters? not bringing stuff over here from other places are you perchance?Cryptic messages are so boring and time wasting.....
So the mccanns issued a writ asking for near 100k damages for each of their twins "just in case" they heard anythng in the school playground about mr amarals book!!! Laughable when you consider his book was never published in the uk and the papers never ran with it.....and when they wanted this trial NOT in camera, and so all the lurid headlines about their mum being suicidial did exactly that! And they were asked by other kids what was in the papers...cant stop shooting themselves in the foot can they?
-
I think that in the case it will be some sort of win win for both - there will be a moral vic somewhere along the line for Amaral but with probably no cash and allow both parties to exit the case claiming something
In the bigger picture it means very little as it will not go any where to sorting out this mystery
I do though think that Amaral doth protest a tad - I mean anyone would think that it was the Mcanns who actually sacked him !!
As I understand it - it was his own superiors who took him off the case, This happens all the time in cases especially cases that get too big for the original investigating officer, The harsh truth is that Amaral couldn't cope with the case and it was getting away from him.
He wasn't sacked from the police force - he chose to resign and write the book. - he could have kept his job and gone back to solving local minor crimes that were more his line. If he had some sort of proof to back up his theory then we would have heard about it years ago . The fact that nothing has come out from him or past PJ about his theory then perhaps then that is it they are just theories
It was his decision to go down this road - instead he could have kept his head down worked his time and retired on a nice pension. so I have little sympathy .
-
I don't know whether he's trying to have the case thrown out or just limit his losses - if he can remove Madeleine from proceedings then presumably the damages awarded against him will also be less. Very much sounds as though he's resigned to losing but will appeal. In which case, a final resolution will be many years away. I don't know what will happen to his assets in the meantime.
I think that is a fair appraisal of what this latest move might indicate
Whether or not the McCanns have the legal right to represent Madeleine in court ( given her wardship status ) only really becomes relevant should damages be subsequenty awarded on her behalf
It may be, as you suggest, that Amaral and his legal team foresee losing this case, and are now attempting to limit damages as much as possible
-
The next question will be can Amaral actually afford to appeal, since I doubt his lawyers will be prepared to take this case any further for him on tick. He'd need to stump up the funds, one way or another.
-
The next question will be can Amaral actually afford to appeal, since I doubt his lawyers will be prepared to take this case any further for him on tick. He'd need to stump up the funds, one way or another.
Assumptions again....if you really thnk the courts in the event of a win for the mccanns will deliver them 1.2 million euro youre dreaming, they may get a couple thousand, GAs money/assets get unfrozen and there you are....that they had to be for over five yrs is vicious vindictive and crimnal imo
-
The next question will be can Amaral actually afford to appeal, since I doubt his lawyers will be prepared to take this case any further for him on tick. He'd need to stump up the funds, one way or another.
You are rather jumping the gun. A judgement is yet to be made.
-
if the translation is correct then this is what amaral says in the introduction to his book.....
. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation
Isnt this rather admitting that his book would harm the search
That is why he did not disclose all of the facts in his book!
-
That is why he did not disclose all of the facts in his book!
No, he kept one up his sleeve. Six years later and it's still there!
-
That is why he did not disclose all of the facts in his book!
ah but he didn't enclose any facts that he could prove tho 8-)(--)
-
So who are these other posters? not bringing stuff over here from other places are you perchance?Cryptic messages are so boring and time wasting.....
So the mccanns issued a writ asking for near 100k damages for each of their twins "just in case" they heard anythng in the school playground about mr amarals book!!! Laughable when you consider his book was never published in the uk and the papers never ran with it.....and when they wanted this trial NOT in camera, and so all the lurid headlines about their mum being suicidial did exactly that! And they were asked by other kids what was in the papers...cant stop shooting themselves in the foot can they?
Please dont be so naive Red. It doesn't suit you.
Of course they are affected by the book. On your own side of the fence there have been peeps bragging about how they will tell the twins all about " it ". With the book to back them, it could do most serious damage to the relationship of the twins to their parents
In fact, if peeps do what they have threatened, it could cause mental illness in the twins.
But that wouldn't worry some, cos it would be putting the boot into the Mccanns, wouldn't it?
And with some, that is what this gawd awful " game " is all about
INIT?
-
Please dont be so naive Red. It doesn't suit you.
Of course they are affected by the book. On your own side of the fence there have been peeps bragging about how they will tell the twins all about " it ". With the book to back them, it could do most serious damage to the relationship of the twins to their parents
In fact, if peeps do what they have threatened, it could cause mental illness in the twins.
But that wouldn't worry some, cos it would be putting the boot into the Mccanns, wouldn't it?
And with some, that is what this gawd awful " game " is all about
INIT?
Little point in that as the internet is awash with information, so they will be able to research to their heart's content when they have a notion to.
-
Little point in that as the internet is awash with information, so they will be able to research to their heart's content when they have a notion to.
That is different from Gawd awful peeps going out of their way to * groom * them into believing the worst about their parents. Totally malicious and inhuman people.
-
I would very much agree that Gonçalo didn't put everything in the book. I wouldn't be surprised if he has something up his sleeve even now...just for that rainy day?
-
That is different from Gawd awful peeps going out of their way to * groom * them into believing the worst about their parents. Totally malicious and inhuman people.
I would agree. The twins are exposed to an awful situation which is not of their own making.
-
I would agree. The twins are exposed to an awful situation which is not of their own making.
Good to hear that Jassi 8((()*/
-
I wonder if Gonçalo could do it all over again would he do anything differently? He is bound to have regrets of sorts for all that has happened between Cipriano and McCann.
-
I dont agree necessarily, filing last minute stuff...how can one know if its not "supporting" rather than in "desperation" if you see what I mean
As for the fat lady, I agree.....but that only happens right at the end.....
@)(++(*
Too many assumptions predictions and counting chickens going on here imo...ooh
eta if the mccanns win or lose I think it will be bad publicity for them either way....thats why the whole exercise was a disaster from the start....IMO
I do see what you mean. The latest suggestion is that Dr Amaral's Lawyers are questioning the legality of Madeleine's name on the writ doofa as she is a ward of court and were given 15 days to provide the judge with the info. and Drs McCann's lawyers asked for a postponement on the basis of more info re Alan Pike. I would just as soon wait til the concrete had cured before I built an edifice if you get my drift. Until a body is found alive or dead no one can begin to guess what if any crime has been committed and who is the guilty party. Sometimes these things jump up and bite you in the bum when least expected. Witness the disappearances of Margaret Hogg & John Stonehouse.
-
I would agree. The twins are exposed to an awful situation which is not of their own making.
Totally agree and as they get older and move to secondary school the vitriol will increase.
-
Assumptions again....if you really thnk the courts in the event of a win for the mccanns will deliver them 1.2 million euro youre dreaming, they may get a couple thousand, GAs money/assets get unfrozen and there you are....that they had to be for over five yrs is vicious vindictive and crimnal imo
I wonder why Amaral has kept delaying things then?
-
I wonder why Amaral has kept delaying things then?
Why do you assume that Gonçalo Amaral is delaying things. You do know that it was Isabel Duarte, the lawyer for the McCanns, who asked for the postponement?
-
I do see what you mean. The latest suggestion is that Dr Amaral's Lawyers are questioning the legality of Madeleine's name on the writ doofa as she is a ward of court and were given 15 days to provide the judge with the info. and Drs McCann's lawyers asked for a postponement on the basis of more info re Alan Pike. I would just as soon wait til the concrete had cured before I built an edifice if you get my drift. Until a body is found alive or dead no one can begin to guess what if any crime has been committed and who is the guilty party. Sometimes these things jump up and bite you in the bum when least expected. Witness the disappearances of Margaret Hogg & John Stonehouse.
You raise a good point Estuarine
We are overlooking the fact that the McCanns' lawyer felt it necessary to provide additional information about Alan Pike
It occurs to me that Mr Pike was the only witness who presented himself in a professional capacity when speaking of the mental anguisgh the McCanns had suffered as a result of Amaral's book
During his witness deposition he was questioned by the lawyer for the publishers. She, despite some obsfucation by Alan Pike, eventually determined that his professional standing was less than immediately apparent
In short, she established that he was not even a qualified psychologist
Given that there were no other professional witnesses to speak about the McCanns' mental state this dimishing of Alan Pike's opinions was quite relevant, I thought
It may be that the McCanns lawyer thought so too, and that is why additional information has been presented at the 11th hour ... in an attempt to shore up Mr Pike's assertions that he was qualified to make the kinds of judgements that he did ... on what were, essentially, mental heath issues which would, more properly, have been addressed by a qualified mental health expert
This might be an indication that the McCanns and their lawyers are not entirely confident of the outcome either
-
I wonder why Amaral has kept delaying things then?
Are we certain it is Dr Amaral who is creating the delays? Certain as in we would bet the whole ranch on it? Or is it speculation that is only worth fluttering next weeks beer money on?
-
I will be quite honest, I am going on reports that I have read on forums .... but there have been so many of them, I believe them totally. Constant delays. I dont have the energy any longer to search ... but maybe if anyone comes across reports they will post them
I am pretty confident that I am right.
-
All brought about from himself .if he world would have known about Joanna earlier he would have been sacked earlier
The bloke was sacked everyone knows it .scen his wife can't stand the liar
-
All brought about from himself .if he world would have known about Joanna earlier he would have been sacked earlier
The bloke was sacked everyone knows it .scen his wife can't stand the liar
Yes, I must say whining about the McCanns rather disguises the fact that things weren't exactly going swimmingly for him prior to May 2007. He was already in a bit of bother, or heading for it, on a number of fronts.
-
I do see what you mean. The latest suggestion is that Dr Amaral's Lawyers are questioning the legality of Madeleine's name on the writ doofa as she is a ward of court and were given 15 days to provide the judge with the info. and Drs McCann's lawyers asked for a postponement on the basis of more info re Alan Pike. I would just as soon wait til the concrete had cured before I built an edifice if you get my drift. Until a body is found alive or dead no one can begin to guess what if any crime has been committed and who is the guilty party. Sometimes these things jump up and bite you in the bum when least expected. Witness the disappearances of Margaret Hogg & John Stonehouse.
I think it is pretty obvious that amaral is struggling but I wont be betting anything on it so it wont come back to bite me in the bum if Im wrong.
-
I would very much agree that Gonçalo didn't put everything in the book. I wouldn't be surprised if he has something up his sleeve even now...just for that rainy day?
Do you really think that John? What sort of thing?
Because if it was something directly relevant to the case, this could be a bit difficult, to put it mildly.
-
Do you really think that John? What sort of thing?
Because if it was something directly relevant to the case, this could be a bit difficult, to put it mildly.
The only thing up his sleeve is his arm
-
The only thing up his sleeve is his arm
If there ever was an ace up his sleeve, the time to use it has long gone. As I admitted in a previous post, any attempt to add new documentation now, unless it has just this moment come to light, reeks of desperation.
I still say that the case has gone his way though. It's only this last minute posturing that has made me think I could be mistaken about the outcome.
edit. Looks like my info is out of date, I've just read serendipity's post on the libel thread (which is probably where I should've posted this) and it transpires that it wasn't Dr Amaral delaying.....
-
Do you really think that John? What sort of thing?
Because if it was something directly relevant to the case, this could be a bit difficult, to put it mildly.
Speaking as a former officer I can reveal that many things are kept from the public so I am quite sure that Gonçalo has much in reserve.
-
The only thing up his sleeve is his arm
Don't be too sure Dave. Gonçalo knows a lot more than he has put in his book for obvious reasons.
-
Don't be too sure Dave. Gonçalo knows a lot more than he has put in his book for obvious reasons.
If he had further information, wouldn't it have been used by now? Either during the first investigation or now that the case has been reopened?
-
Amarals ace ?
Imo his ace has long gone if he ever had one that is..If he did i think it was to get the McCann's and himself on the stand in court..And that's a epic fail now its been refused..it will never happen..jmo of course..
-
Amarals ace ?
Imo his ace has long gone if he ever had one that is..If he did i think it was to get the McCann's and himself on the stand in court..And that's a epic fail now its been refused..it will never happen..jmo of course..
Rubbish.
It's the mccanns themselves who wanted to give evidence.
Unlike 'cuddle cat' that theory doesn't wash.
-
Rubbish.
It's the mccanns themselves who wanted to give evidence.
Unlike 'cuddle cat' that theory doesn't wash.
its only my opinion rubbish it all you like..Amaral has always wanted the McCanns on the stand..
-
its only my opinion rubbish it all you like..Amaral has always wanted the McCanns on the stand..
Your opinion.
Nujf said.
Personally speaking that's where they belong on the stand. 8)-)))
-
Your opinion.
Nujf said.
Personally speaking that;s where they belong on the stand. 8)-)))
It will never happen 8)-)))
-
It will never happen 8)-)))
That's obvious.
They've escaped responsibility and justice for what they singularly failed to do.
-
It will never happen 8)-)))
One should never say never. One day they may have to present evidence under oath - if a perpetrator is ever brought to justice, that is.
-
Speaking as a former officer I can reveal that many things are kept from the public so I am quite sure that Gonçalo has much in reserve.
So you are of the opinion that Amaral has held something back? His "Ace"?
Well, it is one of the features of the Portuguese penal code that everything pertinent to the investigation is placed in the public domain after the case has ended. Generally it will be at the local police station, but in the McCann case, due to the extent of interest, DVD was used. So anything he has held back would have to be something that his colleagues and the public prosecutor are unaware - otherwise it would have been acted on by his successor, or would have been included in the files.
If Amaral has been keeping actual evidence or facts "in reserve", and in particular anything which could lead to Madeleines discovery or evidence of wrongdoing by any party, then I am not convinced it would do him much good for obvious reasons. Witholding evidence, for a start.
-
So you are of the opinion that Amaral has held something back? His "Ace"?
Well, it is one of the features of the Portuguese penal code that everything pertinent to the investigation is placed in the public domain after the case has ended. Generally it will be at the local police station, but in the McCann case, due to the extent of interest, DVD was used. So anything he has held back would have to be something that his colleagues and the public prosecutor are unaware - otherwise it would have been acted on by his successor, or would have been included in the files.
If Amaral has been keeping actual evidence or facts "in reserve", and in particular anything which could lead to Madeleines discovery or evidence of wrongdoing by any party, then I am not convinced it would do him much good for obvious reasons. Witholding evidence, for a start.
Well, it is one of the features of the Portuguese penal code that everything pertinent to the investigation is placed in the public domain after the case has ended. Generally it will be at the local police station, but in the McCann case, due to the extent of interest, DVD was used. So anything he has held back would have to be something that his colleagues and the public prosecutor are unaware - otherwise it would have been acted on by his successor, or would have been included in the files.
Not everything has been made public, we do not know what is in the peado-files or the LP files for example.
-
Why do people keep talking about Gonçalo Amaral having an ace up his sleeve? This is a libel trial not Perry Mason. I'm sure that he must know other things about the investigation that is not public as do the other persons involved in the case but none of this would be relevant to the trial.
-
He [Amaral] is upset about the flurry of rumours and theories that are still surrounding Maddie's disappearance.
Odd, that, because he is (ir)responsible for an alarmingly high proportion of them.
-
He [Amaral] is upset about the flurry of rumours and theories that are still surrounding Maddie's disappearance.
Odd, that, because he is (ir)responsible for an alarmingly high proportion of them.
Really Ferryman, was it amaral who promoted the theories about bundleman, creepyman, spottyman, posh spice, tractorman, gypsies, paedophiles & burglars?
-
Why do people keep talking about Gonçalo Amaral having an ace up his sleeve? This is a libel trial not Perry Mason. I'm sure that he must know other things about the investigation that is not public as do the other persons involved in the case but none of this would be relevant to the trial.
I expect Amaral will have read Stuart Prior's report.
We haven't ...
-
He [Amaral] is upset about the flurry of rumours and theories that are still surrounding Maddie's disappearance.
Odd, that, because he is (ir)responsible for an alarmingly high proportion of them.
Hardly.
The 'mccanns and close sources' have leaked like sieves.
-
Why do people keep talking about Gonçalo Amaral having an ace up his sleeve? This is a libel trial not Perry Mason. I'm sure that he must know other things about the investigation that is not public as do the other persons involved in the case but none of this would be relevant to the trial.
Agree with you there old chap. Has it escaped everyone's attention that the Judge stated she wasn't going to allow either the red team or the blue team to give evidence on Tuesday because she already had enough.
-
He [Amaral] is upset about the flurry of rumours and theories that are still surrounding Maddie's disappearance.
Odd, that, because he is (ir)responsible for an alarmingly high proportion of them.
There is a difference between rumours and a theory based on actual evidence.
-
Really Ferryman, was it amaral who promoted the theories about bundleman, creepyman, spottyman, posh spice, tractorman, gypsies, paedophiles & burglars?
l
...or poor old Robert Murat.
-
l
...or poor old Robert Murat.
Strange really that none of the Tapas 7 came under the scrutiny of the press as so many other people who may have been in the area did.
-
There is a difference between rumours and a theory based on actual evidence.
Amaral contradicted Prior on the forensic results?
A chastened Prior was sent away with a flea in his ear to berate the FSS on the subject of the PJ's of arrest?
We must take Amaral's word ...
-
Amaral contradicted Prior on the forensic results?
A chastened Prior was sent away with a flea in his ear to berate the FSS on the subject of the PJ's of arrest?
We must take Amaral's word ...
Yet you expect people to take the mccanns words.................
-
Strange really that none of the Tapas 7 came under the scrutiny of the press as so many other people who may have been in the area did.
Why do you think it's strange, Slartibartfast?
Wouldn't it be more strange for seven independent people to collude in covering up a serious crime?
-
Why do you think it's strange, Slartibartfast?
Wouldn't it be more strange for seven independent people to collude in covering up a serious crime?
Thats not the point SH
The tapas seven have never been mentioned by the press in any detail or interviewed them...apart from one glitch....they were there...but they interviewed loads of others that werent there
maybe that "myth" of "pact of slience" want such a myth.....
-
Thats not the point SH
The tapas seven have never been mentioned by the press in any detail or interviewed them...apart from one glitch....they were there...but they interviewed loads of others that werent there
maybe that "myth" of "pact of slience" want such a myth.....
The Laws of PT did not allow them to speak.
-
Why do you think it's strange, Slartibartfast?
Wouldn't it be more strange for seven independent people to collude in covering up a serious crime?
I think history has shown us that conspiracies can arise accidentally and that some 'conspirators' don't enter them willingly.
Speaking hypothetically of course.
-
I think history has shown us that conspiracies can arise accidentally and that some 'conspirators' don't enter them willingly.
Speaking hypothetically of course.
I wonder how many peeps are involved in a conspiracy to protect the abductors? In a case like that, I could imagine many wouldn't enter such a conspiracy willingly.
-
I wonder how many peeps are involved in a conspiracy to protect the abductors? In a case like that, I could imagine many wouldn't enter such a conspiracy willingly.
Unless it is entered by accident.
-
Thats not the point SH
The tapas seven have never been mentioned by the press in any detail or interviewed them...apart from one glitch....they were there...but they interviewed loads of others that werent there
maybe that "myth" of "pact of slience" want such a myth.....
I see what you mean Red, but SBF's words related to the fact that the press had never placed the Tapas 7 under much scrutiny. That is a different question from the reasons T7 themselves would have for keeping quiet.
-
I wonder how many peeps are involved in a conspiracy to protect the abductors? In a case like that, I could imagine many wouldn't enter such a conspiracy willingly.
Yep, it's possible, Sadie.
Everything still is in this case.
-
The Laws of PT did not allow them to speak.
well at least four of them did but
Tanner certainly broke the secrecy rule
-
I see what you mean Red, but SBF's words related to the fact that the press had never placed the Tapas 7 under much scrutiny. That is a different question from the reasons T7 themselves would have for keeping quiet.
Yes but your answer to sbhs queston about it being strange the tapas 7 were never interviewed or "assessed" by the press was just to say....isnt it bizarre to think they all colluded...which didnt address his question
-
Yes but your answer to sbhs queston about it being strange the tapas 7 were never interviewed or "assessed" by the press was just to say....isnt it bizarre to think they all colluded...which didnt address his question
Yes, everyone else who was in the area at the time has been targeted in press stories, Tannerman, Smithman , Murat etc etc. just not the Tapas 7.
-
I wonder how many peeps are involved in a conspiracy to protect the abductors? In a case like that, I could imagine many wouldn't enter such a conspiracy willingly.
Deleted
Cant be bothered.....
-
What question? Amaral never dragged them in for questioning, not even in passing.
-
Yes, everyone else who was in the area at the time has been targeted in press stories, Tannerman, Smithman , Murat etc etc. just not the Tapas 7.
its ok to point the finger at some but not at others......not a single interview though with any of them apart from rachel oldfield on radio and tanner on panorama...anyway i dont think diane webster dun it
@)(++(*
-
Yes, everyone else who was in the area at the time has been targeted in press stories, Tannerman, Smithman , Murat etc etc. just not the Tapas 7.
Well what I mean is , if the press were intent on pursuing the tapas 7 they could have done so. They hound people for far lesser reasons than suspecting people of being involved in a cover-up.
Perhaps the press found the idea of a cover-up too unlikely. A good story and a lot of money to be made, so why not go for it?
-
Well what I mean is , if the press were intent on pursuing the tapas 7 they could have done so. They hound people for far lesser reasons than suspecting people of being involved in a cover-up.
Perhaps the press found the idea of a cover-up too unlikely. A good story and a lot of money to be made, so why not go for it?
The press was always actually supportive, despite the narrative that came later at Leveson and in the book. There were lurid front pages that went too far, but elsewhere in the same papers on the same days there was still support. Editorials and columnists were always supportive (you can count on your fingers the number of articles that weren't). The papers never really investigated.
-
Well what I mean is , if the press were intent on pursuing the tapas 7 they could have done so. They hound people for far lesser reasons than suspecting people of being involved in a cover-up.
Perhaps the press found the idea of a cover-up too unlikely. A good story and a lot of money to be made, so why not go for it?
There is a suggestion in the PJ Files that "The Bogeyman" had JT pegged as a "romancer". Maybe others did too and figured it wasn't good copy like you said.
-
Well what I mean is , if the press were intent on pursuing the tapas 7 they could have done so. They hound people for far lesser reasons than suspecting people of being involved in a cover-up.
Perhaps the press found the idea of a cover-up too unlikely. A good story and a lot of money to be made, so why not go for it?
But why include the idea of a cover up in the first place anyway? Why didnt the press ask who are the tapas 7?
They have done it for all and sundry in many cases....
-
It ain't over until the fat person of interest sings 8(>((
-
Gurdeep think mr amarol ruin hiself
Thank you for your thoughts?..but learn to spell
-
It ain't over until the fat person of interest sings 8(>((
Are all the 41 persons of interest fat b........s then who can sing? LOL
As well as having knowledge of or abducting or witnessing it all
that will be a "mighty" chorus
-
Gurdeep think mr amarol ruin hiself
@)(++(*
Me too. I think Mr Amaral has ruined himself and a fair few others in the process.
-
Gurdeep think mr amarol ruin hiself
All things come to those who wait.
-
All things come to those who wait.
But now they've made him famous.
-
But now they've made him famous.
Who?
-
Mr A. If another book was published now it would get a lot of light.
-
Mr A. If another book was published now it would get a lot of light.
It might depend on what the book is all about. You simply cannot go around slagging off people for a few bob.
-
That's true, I expect he wouldn't want to get into another legal struggle.
But there's a story there that plenty would want to read, so maybe he will tell it. Or someone else will and it will sell more with Mr Amaral's name on it.
We shall see >@@(*&)
-
The press was always actually supportive, despite the narrative that came later at Leveson and in the book. There were lurid front pages that went too far, but elsewhere in the same papers on the same days there was still support. Editorials and columnists were always supportive (you can count on your fingers the number of articles that weren't). The papers never really investigated.
Interesting isn't it Lyall?
They didn't ever really investigate, you say. Strange given how they may have profited if they unearthed anything of interest.
I personally believe T9 have nothing to hide, but for the press to give them the benefit of the doubt given the way they normally operate seems unusual.
-
Interesting isn't it Lyall?
They didn't ever really investigate, you say. Strange given how they may have profited if they unearthed anything of interest.
I personally believe T9 have nothing to hide, but for the press to give them the benefit of the doubt given the way they normally operate seems unusual.
They did print some stories because the seven also won damages, but it was just a fraction of the stories about the McCanns - and those stories would have been more of the lurid front pages, and not any analysis of the timelines or statements (because next to none of that ever took place).
I think the papers deliberately just printed the lurid stories because they were easy to do, cheap and pretty soon not taken seriously anyway because they were so absurd.
It was a lot easier to do that than confront the case head on wasn't it, because they could see what we see now - it's a black hole.
-
Interesting isn't it Lyall?
They didn't ever really investigate, you say. Strange given how they may have profited if they unearthed anything of interest.
I personally believe T9 have nothing to hide, but for the press to give them the benefit of the doubt given the way they normally operate seems unusual.
You mean all nine have nothing to hide, SH, or do you mean the seven?
-
Gurdeep think mr amarol ruin hiself
Methinks Gurdeep is playing silly b....rs deliberately misspelling, but has been on here before with other names. 8)-)))
Gurdeep is as Asian as a full English breakfast. 8(0(*
-
Gurdeep think mr amarol ruin hiself
Spot on Gurdeep
-
Gurdeep think mr amarol ruin hiself
Victoria agree with Gurdeep. ?{)(**
-
Victoria agree with Gurdeep. ?{)(**
Of course you do. 8(>((
-
Interesting isn't it Lyall?
They didn't ever really investigate, you say. Strange given how they may have profited if they unearthed anything of interest.
I personally believe T9 have nothing to hide, but for the press to give them the benefit of the doubt given the way they normally operate seems unusual.
The press pack did seemingly swoop on Russell in Exeter expecting that he was about to be arrested back in September 07. As far as I remember due to a misinterpretation of phone data wafting out a window when PJ hacks just happened to be nearby.
The T7 may have appealed to the PCC.
-
It might depend on what the book is all about. You simply cannot go around slagging off people for a few bob.
8((()*/ 8@??)(
Some make a profession of it.
-
The press pack did seemingly swoop on Russell in Exeter expecting that he was about to be arrested back in September 07. As far as I remember due to a misinterpretation of phone data wafting out a window when PJ hacks just happened to be nearby.
The T7 may have appealed to the PCC.
Russell received compensation from the press for the way they behaved towards him.
-
Russell received compensation from the press for the way they behaved towards him.
Was that as an individual, or part of the larger group that posed on the steps outside of some court?
-
Was that as an individual, or part of the larger group that posed on the steps outside of some court?
It was one action, but Russell got special mention in the printed apology, and I believe a larger compensation award.
-
You mean all nine have nothing to hide, SH, or do you mean the seven?
All nine. Completely innocent of any crime.
Misguided in their handling of things at times - but innocent.
-
All nine. Completely innocent of any crime.
Misguided in their handling of things at times - but innocent.
At times >@@(*&) Would one of those times be the night of the disappearance?
-
At times >@@(*&) Would one of those times be the night of the disappearance?
No. Mishandling things on the night of the disappearance would probably have entailed criminal guilt (covering something serious up; giving misleading information to police, etc.).
I am not a fan of aspects of the McCanns' media campaign - only because I believe certain of their own decisions go against their best interests - and I believe the recent libel trial has been badly prepared.
But I see no evidence for any criminal involvement whatsoever.
-
No. Mishandling things on the night of the disappearance would probably have entailed criminal guilt (covering something serious up; giving misleading information to police, etc.).
I am not a fan of aspects of the McCanns' media campaign - only because I believe certain of their own decisions go against their best interests - and I believe the recent libel trial has been badly prepared.
But I see no evidence for any criminal involvement whatsoever.
Their best interests or Madeleine's best interest? Do you think they always acted selflessly?
-
Their best interests or Madeleine's best interest? Do you think they always acted selflessly?
It's a good point.
The way I see it is that, presuming the McCanns' innocence, their own best interests are one and the same with their daughter's, namely for parents and child to be reunited, and / or to learn what has happened and restore as much dignity and justice as is possible in the circumstances.
Even though I believe they made mistakes in their campaign, I don't believe these were the result of any conflict they may have had with their daughter's interest. They made mistakes simply because they made wrong decisions or were ill advised.
Only if they were guilty of something sinister could their actions be said to be at odds with attempting to benefit their daughter.
-
It's a good point.
The way I see it is that, presuming the McCanns' innocence, their own best interests are one and the same with their daughter's, namely for parents and child to be reunited, and / or to learn what has happened and restore as much dignity and justice as is possible in the circumstances.
Even though I believe they made mistakes in their campaign, I don't believe these were the result of any conflict they may have had with their daughter's interest. They made mistakes simply because they made wrong decisions or were ill advised.
Only if they were guilty of something sinister could their actions be said to be at odds with attempting to benefit their daughter.
I would say that keeping the Smith e fits from the public for years was most certainly at odds with trying to benefit their daughter
-
I would say that keeping the Smith e fits from the public for years was most certainly at odds with trying to benefit their daughter
I suppose so, icoabod. But was that selfishness (to go back to Lyall's point) or just a misjudgement? Hard to say?
And not to invalidate the exercise of examining the e-fit saga, I don't think the e-fits going to be much use for anything anyway. One look at the 'pair' of them will tell you that. I could easily be proven wrong, however - and hope to be so.
-
I suppose so, icoabod. But was that selfishness (to go back to Lyall's point) or just a misjudgement? Hard to say?
And not to invalidate the exercise of examining the e-fit saga, I don't think the e-fits going to be much use for anything anyway. One look at the 'pair' of them will tell you that. I could easily be proven wrong, however - and hope to be so.
No Sherlock, the decision to withhold those e fits from the public cannot be minimised like that
If Madeleine was still alive, then her life may have depended on it
If the McCanns actions were never directly at odds with Madeleine's best interests, as you suggest, then the decision to keep those e fits out of the public domain is simply inexplicable
-
I don't think the e-fits going to be much use for anything anyway. One look at the 'pair' of them will tell you that.
No Sherlock, the decision to withhold those e fits from the public cannot be minimised like that
If Madeleine was still alive, then her life may have depended on it
If the McCanns actions were never directly at odds with Madeleine's best interests, as you suggest, then the decision to keep those e fits out of the public domain is simply inexplicable
If Madeleine was still alive, then her life may have depended on it.
Couldn't agree more.
-
It's a good point.
The way I see it is that, presuming the McCanns' innocence, their own best interests are one and the same with their daughter's, namely for parents and child to be reunited, and / or to learn what has happened and restore as much dignity and justice as is possible in the circumstances.
Even though I believe they made mistakes in their campaign, I don't believe these were the result of any conflict they may have had with their daughter's interest. They made mistakes simply because they made wrong decisions or were ill advised.
Only if they were guilty of something sinister could their actions be said to be at odds with attempting to benefit their daughter.
Your last sentence encapsulates the case, but I'm not sure it's as simple as you state. In the first week they were either economical with the truth (what they say is the truth that is) even with their own family, or their family were also consciously managing the release of information right from the start - whichever is the case the news about the patio door being unlocked was not reported immediately.
It's the most obvious early indication that reputation management was immediately high on the agenda (there's also the "jemmied shutters" issue, but that's not so clear cut), within hours and it does suggest it may also have been a factor in what they told the police and in production of the timelines.
So I don't think they were selfless at all, though there could be more than one reason for that - it's not necessarily indicative of knowledge of what happened to Madeleine. It is perhaps indicative that the urgency they expressed in the earliest media statements was not their only consideration however.
-
No Sherlock, the decision to withhold those e fits from the public cannot be minimised like that
If Madeleine was still alive, then her life may have depended on it
If the McCanns actions were never directly at odds with Madeleine's best interests, as you suggest, then the decision to keep those e fits out of the public domain is simply inexplicable
Well I did say in my post 'not to invalidate the exercise of examining the e-fit saga'. Yes, there were indeed questions to be asked.
It is sad, however, that no matter what questions are asked and how they are answered, those e-fits don't look likely to produce results.
One of the reasons for that may of course be that they were released far too late. But even if they had been released earlier, do you think, different and yet bland looking as they are, they could have helped?
And regarding the McCanns' interests being at odds with their daughter's -returning to Lyall's point again - there is a distinction between doing things which are consciously self-serving, and things that are done in good faith that for whatever reason don't succeed in bringing us any closer to finding Madeleine/ working out what happened.
-
Your last sentence encapsulates the case, but I'm not sure it's as simple as you state. In the first week they were either economical with the truth (what they say is the truth that is) even with their own family, or their family were also consciously managing the release of information right from the start - whichever is the case the news about the patio door being unlocked was not reported immediately.
It's the most obvious early indication that reputation management was immediately high on the agenda (there's also the "jemmied shutters" issue, but that's not so clear cut), within hours and it does suggest it may also have been a factor in what they told the police and in production of the timelines.
So I don't think they were selfless at all, though there could be more than one reason for that - it's not necessarily indicative of knowledge of what happened to Madeleine. It is perhaps indicative that the urgency they expressed in the earliest media statements was not their only consideration however.
Is it possible that there does not have to be a contradiction between 'reputation management', as you say, and doing the best in finding their daughter?
Wouldn't the McCanns have been correct to be hyper-conscious from the start of the fact that the eyes of the world were upon them, and fear that any suspicion of their guilt would detract from the focus of an investigation being to search for an abducted child? Could we understand and forgive certain discrepancies in this context, or even place those discrepancies in the same category as acting in the best interest of their child?
Now icabod and many others are going to cite the case of the e-fits. That saga could be considered taking reputation management too far. Yes.
Could that have been a mistake plain and simple, however? An over-reaction to the fear of Gerry McCann being placed under too much scrutiny?
The McCanns' repeated insistence of being innocent in the matter of dining away from the apartment, for example - ill advised, in my humble opinion - demonstrates their thinking that showing they got things right is the way to maintain support for searching for their child. If they were seen to be doing anything wrong, that would detract from any focus on finding their daughter and could also lead to suspicion falling directly on the parents.
These two things - maintaining their innocence, possibly to the point of glossing over certain facts; and steering people in the direction of looking for their daughter - appear to be very closely linked in the McCann mind.
Assuming innocence of a major crime as a premise, could we forgive a lot of these things and consider them not to be selfish, but , in the mind of the McCanns at least ( if not in everyone else's) , entirely in keeping with the goal of finding Madeleine?
-
Snipped
Now icabod and many others are going to cite the case of the e-fits. That saga could be considered taking reputation management too far. Yes.
Could that have been a mistake plain and simple, however? An over-reaction to the fear of Gerry McCann being placed under too much scrutiny?
These two things - maintaining their innocence, possibly to the point of glossing over certain facts; and steering people in the direction of looking for their daughter - appear to be very closely linked in the McCann mind.
The Mccanns had the efits 9 months before they made their documentary Madeleine Was Here...they certainly glossed over them....instead doing the exact opposite, showing Tannerman as the same man the Smiths saw....that is a distortion IMO not a steering in the right direction?..even without the efits it was a distortion of the Smiths statements vis a vis description of the man
>@@(*&)
-
The Mccanns had the efits 9 months before they made their documentary Madeleine Was Here...they certainly glossed over them....instead doing the exact opposite, showing Tannerman as the same man the Smiths saw....that is a distortion IMO not a steering in the right direction?..even without the efits it was a distortion of the Smiths statements vis a vis description of the man
>@@(*&)
Good point, Red, and there was also the issue of the programme apparently trying to suggest three other witnesses had all seen the same man (Spotty) when that's not at all clear from the actual statements.
Another case of spin I think.
-
Good point, Red, and there was also the issue of the programme apparently trying to suggest three other witnesses had all seen the same man (Spotty) when that's not at all clear from the actual statements.
Another case of spin I think.
That is as clear as mud.....the 12 yr old girl was one of the witnesses, she did an e-fit...the man with the big dark glasses...in the pj files......he morphed into pimpleman/scarface/spottyman sketch two years later, one which was put on the suspects page on the official madeleine site rather than the actual efit....said efit is now sitting along on the site with all the other ones SY put up on crimewatch
Why is it such a dogs dinner?
-
Well I did say in my post 'not to invalidate the exercise of examining the e-fit saga'. Yes, there were indeed questions to be asked.
It is sad, however, that no matter what questions are asked and how they are answered, those e-fits don't look likely to produce results.
One of the reasons for that may of course be that they were released far too late. But even if they had been released earlier, do you think, different and yet bland looking as they are, they could have helped?
And regarding the McCanns' interests being at odds with their daughter's -returning to Lyall's point again - there is a distinction between doing things which are consciously self-serving, and things that are done in good faith that for whatever reason don't succeed in bringing us any closer to finding Madeleine/ working out what happened.
Whether releasing the e fits would have helped Madeleine is not the point Sherlock
The point is, in what way did the McCann's decision to keep them out of the public domain support your claim that it was a choice that had Madeleine's best interest at heart ? ( you did claim that all their decisions, whether misguided or not, were never at odds with Madeleine's best interests, didn't you ? )
-
Is it possible that there does not have to be a contradiction between 'reputation management', as you say, and doing the best in finding their daughter?
Wouldn't the McCanns have been correct to be hyper-conscious from the start of the fact that the eyes of the world were upon them, and fear that any suspicion of their guilt would detract from the focus of an investigation being to search for an abducted child? Could we understand and forgive certain discrepancies in this context, or even place those discrepancies in the same category as acting in the best interest of their child?
Now icabod and many others are going to cite the case of the e-fits. That saga could be considered taking reputation management too far. Yes.
Could that have been a mistake plain and simple, however? An over-reaction to the fear of Gerry McCann being placed under too much scrutiny?
The McCanns' repeated insistence of being innocent in the matter of dining away from the apartment, for example - ill advised, in my humble opinion - demonstrates their thinking that showing they got things right is the way to maintain support for searching for their child. If they were seen to be doing anything wrong, that would detract from any focus on finding their daughter and could also lead to suspicion falling directly on the parents.
These two things - maintaining their innocence, possibly to the point of glossing over certain facts; and steering people in the direction of looking for their daughter - appear to be very closely linked in the McCann mind.
Assuming innocence of a major crime as a premise, could we forgive a lot of these things and consider them not to be selfish, but , in the mind of the McCanns at least ( if not in everyone else's) , entirely in keeping with the goal of finding Madeleine?
Of course it's possible (your first question) - everything still is in this case - but all your other points I think could equally apply if they were hiding knowledge of what happened to Madeleine. How can we know if they did certain things because they don't know what happened to her (and feared the police/family/world would never believe their story) or because they do know (and fabricated)?
How could we ever know?
-
That is as clear as mud.....the 12 yr old girl was one of the witnesses, she did an e-fit...the man with the big dark glasses...in the pj files......he morphed into pimpleman/scarface/spottyman sketch two years later, one which was put on the suspects page on the official madeleine site rather than the actual efit....said efit is now sitting along on the site with all the other ones SY put up on crimewatch
Why is it such a dogs dinner?
You have a better memory than me ?{)(**
I lose track of these 'suspects'.
-
You have a better memory than me ?{)(**
I lose track of these 'suspects'.
Dont blame you, been dozens of them, unprecedented
Amaral was right when he said the other day its become an absurd theatre!
-
Dont blame you, been dozens of them, unprecedented
Amaral was right when he said the other day its become an absurd theatre!
It has
... this endless 'round up the usual suspects' charade is becoming grotesque
-
Of course it's possible (your first question) - everything still is in this case - but all your other points I think could equally apply if they were hiding knowledge of what happened to Madeleine. How can we know if they did certain things because they don't know what happened to her (and feared the police/family/world would never believe their story) or because they do know (and fabricated)?
How could we ever know?
It's a good question, Lyall. I don't think the type of errors and mishaps - or fabrications even - we are seeing here constitute the types of fabrication we would see if the McCanns were covering up.
The hiring of a series of incompetent / corrupt detectives is an example. If the McCanns were engaging in a cover-up, they would have had to have been deliberately hiring people whom they knew would not get to the bottom of things. Or paying the detectives themselves to cover up or lie. Too hard to believe the McCanns would think to do something like that - and be able to pull it off time after time.
Also requires a great deal of double think on the part of people trying to look at why the McCanns are doing what.
Detectives are only one example - obviously there are many others.
-
It has
... this endless 'round up the usual suspects' charade is becoming grotesque
Was that years ago.....
Just waiting for the next charade....why stop here....as I said earlier, alot rests on SY...lets see!
-
Whether releasing the e fits would have helped Madeleine is not the point Sherlock
The point is, in what way did the McCann's decision to keep them out of the public domain support your claim that it was a choice that had Madeleine's best interest at heart ? ( you did claim that all their decisions, whether misguided or not, were never at odds with Madeleine's best interests, didn't you ? )
I claimed that I believe that what the McCanns are doing they are doing in earnest. I have no evidence.
I understand the main point about the e-fits is not whether they are helpful artistically or not. Just an unfortunate aspect to this whole thing.
-
Was that years ago.....
Just waiting for the next charade....why stop here....as I said earlier, alot rests on SY...lets see!
Yes, Scotland Yard's investigation is pivotal
It should be noted that the 'grotesques' fed to, and lined up in the press are not coming from them ... which is a positive
-
No Sherlock, the decision to withhold those e fits from the public cannot be minimised like that
If Madeleine was still alive, then her life may have depended on it
If the McCanns actions were never directly at odds with Madeleine's best interests, as you suggest, then the decision to keep those e fits out of the public domain is simply inexplicable
why are you talking in the past, Icabod?
No evidence at all to indicate that Madeleine has died.
Also SY has recently said that they believe Madeleine may well be alive.
Why are you "wishing" Madeleine dead? ... or is this a subtle way of intimating that the Mccanns have done something bad with Madeleine?
-
Whether releasing the e fits would have helped Madeleine is not the point Sherlock
The point is, in what way did the McCann's decision to keep them out of the public domain support your claim that it was a choice that had Madeleine's best interest at heart ? ( you did claim that all their decisions, whether misguided or not, were never at odds with Madeleine's best interests, didn't you ? )
But we don't know why the Efits were not put into the public domain - because no reason has been given to the public. Therefore in the absence of all the pertinent information - we can only ever speculate about it. To criticise the McCanns when we only have some of the facts and have no idea why the Efits were not publicised earlier is unfair IMO.
-
I find it very difficult to sympathise with a man who wrote a book on his own theory of what he THOUGHT had happened to Madeleine.
No one made him write his book.
No one made him hint of swinging, drugging and faking an abduction.
No, he brought it all upon himself.
-
Sadie...
It was said by Gerry during a Radio Five Live Interview with Nicky Campbell, not on bbc t.v.
The search for Madeleine Radio 5 live Breakfast 01 May 2008
(Snip)
NC: Do you have... do you have theories that you're working on?
GM: You know, clearly, the investigators are looking at all options and scenarios and that... that's the key thing; there are a host of scenarios here, errr... and there... in very many of those scenarios, Madeleine is alive in them. Errr... The information we are going on, in terms of stat... statistics and other things are based predominantly in the US because of the data collection but we need to join the jigsaw up; and that's the key thing. Errr... and it's to get as much information as possible.
NC: And that's what this... you know, media appearances like this will hopefully help. And what about contact with, errr... the great and the good? I know Gordon Brown was in close contact with you at the beginning, are you still in contact with him? Or is... or did the arguido stuff change that?
GM: I'm sure there was a shift in terms of, errm... the situation and, errr... when one sovereign state, errr... gives you a status then other people, and, I think, particularly government, errr... were clearly cautious. Errm...
NC: So that's changed somewhat, yeah.
GM: We have contact with the Foreign Office, errm... from predominantly a consular basis. We do put requests in, that we do want to get as much information as possible and, I think, what we've asked, and will ask repeatedly, is: 'what evidence does anyone have to suggest that Madeleine is dead?' because we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise and we would like a public acknowledgment of that. In... in some ways, when we get official statements from Portugal, its fine: 'all lines of inquiry are open'; so they can't have an abduction line of inquiry open if they've got evidence that Madeleine... is dead. Or, if they do, then they should inform us.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id111.html
-
It was said by Gerry during a Radio Five Live Interview with Nicky Campbell, not on bbc t.v.
Yep. and I watched the whole ten minutes before I read your post in which you clearly stated it was radio 5 live.
That's ten minutes of my life I'm never getting back.
-
Yep. and I watched the whole ten minutes before I read your post in which you clearly stated it was radio 5 live.
That's ten minutes of my life I'm never getting back.
8)><(
-
Yep. and I watched the whole ten minutes before I read your post in which you clearly stated it was radio 5 live.
That's ten minutes of my life I'm never getting back.
Yep, I wasted about 45 minutes finding the youtubes and then watching them over and over, gradually nodding off.
But i accept it was a genuine mistake
Same as I am able quite easily to accept that Gerrys words were a genuine mistake. He had just been talking about Madeleine probably being alive ae per the investigators scenarios and his mind quite probably temporaraily flicked back.
I think that you can read too much into a simple thing like that tbh, Cariad
-
GM: We have contact with the Foreign Office, errm... from predominantly a consular basis. We do put requests in, that we do want to get as much information as possible and, I think, what we've asked, and will ask repeatedly, is: 'what evidence does anyone have to suggest that Madeleine is dead?' because we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise and we would like a public acknowledgment of that. In... in some ways, when we get official statements from Portugal, its fine: 'all lines of inquiry are open'; so they can't have an abduction line of inquiry open if they've got evidence that Madeleine... is dead. Or, if they do, then they should inform us.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id111.html
Maybe someone should advise Gerry that the evidence is that she hasn't been seen since 3rd May 2007 which sort of suggests she is dead. When a court in England declares her deceased later this year will they still be saying she might be alive? 8(8-))
-
Yep. and I watched the whole ten minutes before I read your post in which you clearly stated it was radio 5 live.
That's ten minutes of my life I'm never getting back.
Does Sadie get Radio 5 on PLUTO ?? @)(++(*
-
Maybe someone should advise Gerry that the evidence is that she hasn't been seen since 3rd May 2007 which sort of suggests she is dead. When a court in England declares her deceased later this year will they still be saying she might be alive? 8(8-))
Could you clarify?
-
Could you clarify?
The seven years applies to settlement of estates. Otherwise only a coroner can request an inquest I think.
Maybe Angelo is a coroner >@@(*&)
-
Who can make an application to have her legally declared dead?
-
Who can make an application to have her legally declared dead?
Maybe her legal guardian?
-
Who can make an application to have her legally declared dead?
There has to be an inquest.
-
Maybe her legal guardian?
That would be the Children's Court, then, assuming that she is still a Ward of Court.
-
Who can make an application to have her legally declared dead?
If Madeleine is still a ward of court then I suppose any such application would have to come from them, as her her legal guardians
-
Whatever the legalities of who represents Madeleine, the seven year stipulation only applies to settlement of estates.
If an inquest was desired they could have requested it years ago, they don't have to wait until seven years have passed.
-
Whatever the legalities of who represents Madeleine, the seven year stipulation only applies to settlement of estates.
If an inquest was desired they could have requested it years ago, they don't have to wait until seven years have passed.
An estate cannot be settled until the individual has been declared legally dead as happened in the Lord Lucan case.
-
An estate cannot be settled until the individual has been declared legally dead as happened in the Lord Lucan case.
might be better if you looked at the ben needham case
-
That case could not be more different - totally different. Apart from anything, the parents did not engage an army of spin doctors/reputation managers/dodgy detectives etc.....
-
That case could not be more different - totally different. Apart from anything, the parents did not engage an army of spin doctors/reputation managers/dodgy detectives etc.....
What has any of that got to do with Ben's disappearance? He was left unsupervised and was abducted. No evidence has ever been found of an abduction. We only have the family's word for what happened.
If Kerry Needham had been offered the help the McCanns were given - do you think she would have turned it down?
Do you think the McCanns should have turned away help offered to them on the grounds that Kerry Needham didn't get the same?
-
What has any of that got to do with Ben's disappearance? He was left unsupervised and was abducted. No evidence has ever been found of an abduction. We only have the family's word for what happened.
If Kerry Needham had been offered the help the McCanns were given - do you think she would have turned it down?
Do you think the McCanns should have turned away help offered to them on the grounds that Kerry Needham didn't get the same?
Again. The Needhams have been refused financial assistance by Cameron.
Why ?
-
Again. The Needhams have been refused financial assistance by Cameron.
Why ?
how old would ben be now?
-
how old would ben be now?
What does age have to do with it ?
-
Was ben needham declared dead after being missing 7 years ?
-
Was ben needham declared dead after being missing 7 years ?
No need...he hasn't become a commodity.
-
No need...he hasn't become a commodity.
That's not the point john..hes still being looked for after 21 years..i get the feeling some on here hope madeleine is declared dead after 7 years..infact they seem to delight on it happening..
-
There are two things which puzzle me:
One is the many references by posters to Madeleine being declared dead because she has been missing for 7 years. What possible reference does this have to the case? And what would this achieve? Utterly pointless.
The second is that the McCanns being unable to bring an action on Madeleine's behalf because she is a ward of court. To anyone with a modicum of (real) legal knowledge this is clearly absolute nonsense - It was they who made the original application, they remain her parents, and have all of the usual parental powers - but with the added protection of the court which could be helpful if she were to be found. Again - this line of argument is utterly pointless.
-
There are two things which puzzle me:
One is the many references by posters to Madeleine being declared dead because she has been missing for 7 years. What possible reference does this have to the case? And what would this achieve? Utterly pointless.
The second is that the McCanns being unable to bring an action on Madeleine's behalf because she is a ward of court. To anyone with a modicum of (real) legal knowledge this is clearly absolute nonsense - It was they who made the original application, they remain her parents, and have all of the usual parental powers - but with the added protection of the court which could be helpful if she were to be found. Again - this line of argument is utterly pointless.
The thing about the WOC is that due to the inherent secrecy of the Family Court, we have no idea of what conditions might have been put in place.
The common conception of WOC is that the Court makes all legal decisions on behalf of the Ward. This may or may not be true in this case and obviously is being tested.
-
I don't see why the "Maddie case" has "ruined" him. What would have prevented him from going back to coordinating drug investigations back in Faro?
-
Who knows ? Perhaps he wasn't offered that and his resignation was a face saving mechanism.
-
I don't see why the "Maddie case" has "ruined" him. What would have prevented him from going back to coordinating drug investigations back in Faro?
But you don't see the xenophobia unleashed against Portugal in 2007 either I think.
And it began within days of the disappearance.
-
I don't see why the "Maddie case" has "ruined" him. What would have prevented him from going back to coordinating drug investigations back in Faro?
He does explain in the book what he means, Carana.
The book is as much about that as it is about what happened to Madeleine.
-
Who knows ? Perhaps he wasn't offered that and his resignation was a face saving mechanism.
I gather the sequence of events was:
2nd October 2007 Amaral removed from Madeleine McCann investigation
20 June 2008 Amaral resigns from PJ
21 July 2008 Final report from PP
24 August 2008 Truth of the lie published
So given that the book was published some 65 days after resigning, I would venture to suggest that he left the PJ because he would not be able to publish his book while he was a serving police officer.
Maybe should may be stop whining that "the McCanns have ruined him". He is quite literally the author of his own misfortunes
-
There are two things which puzzle me:
One is the many references by posters to Madeleine being declared dead because she has been missing for 7 years. What possible reference does this have to the case? And what would this achieve? Utterly pointless.
The second is that the McCanns being unable to bring an action on Madeleine's behalf because she is a ward of court. To anyone with a modicum of (real) legal knowledge this is clearly absolute nonsense - It was they who made the original application, they remain her parents, and have all of the usual parental powers - but with the added protection of the court which could be helpful if she were to be found. Again - this line of argument is utterly pointless.
The 7 years was raised as a defence to the many posters were being vilified for suggesting the Madeleine could be dead in that she has been missing nearly long enough to be declared dead in law.
-
to be declared " dead " without a body is quite rare - about 10 a year . In the UK the Police are the body that must file the evidence to the coroner who after holding an inquest and coming to a decision will make an application to the secretary of state to issue a death certificate . ( but the state hardly ever refuses or goes against the coroner )
I would imagine the police would have to be pretty sure that the missing person is indeed dead. In this case that is hardly the case and I doubt you will be seeing this happen any time soon - bearing in mind that SY have publically stated that madeleine could still be alive
It doesn't have to wait 7 years too - can happen sooner if the Police/Coroner are convinced. -
edit to add too that insurance companies can make payments any time - its up to them. They usually do wait for a death certificate - but can and do make discretionary payments if the legal stuff drags.- ie after 911 many insurance companies paid out without a body or certificate and before 7 years too
-
There are two things which puzzle me:
One is the many references by posters to Madeleine being declared dead because she has been missing for 7 years. What possible reference does this have to the case? And what would this achieve? Utterly pointless.
The second is that the McCanns being unable to bring an action on Madeleine's behalf because she is a ward of court. To anyone with a modicum of (real) legal knowledge this is clearly absolute nonsense - It was they who made the original application, they remain her parents, and have all of the usual parental powers - but with the added protection of the court which could be helpful if she were to be found. Again - this line of argument is utterly pointless.
-
The 7 years was raised as a defence to the many posters were being vilified for suggesting the Madeleine could be dead in that she has been missing nearly long enough to be declared dead in law.
Put that way I can see your point. Thank you.
Sadly it seems one or two others (not, thank heavens, members of this forum) had taken it a bit too literally and were planning to apply for a death certificate back in 2010.
-
There are two things which puzzle me:
One is the many references by posters to Madeleine being declared dead because she has been missing for 7 years. What possible reference does this have to the case? And what would this achieve? Utterly pointless.
The second is that the McCanns being unable to bring an action on Madeleine's behalf because she is a ward of court. To anyone with a modicum of (real) legal knowledge this is clearly absolute nonsense - It was they who made the original application, they remain her parents, and have all of the usual parental powers - but with the added protection of the court which could be helpful if she were to be found. Again - this line of argument is utterly pointless.
One thing that springs to mind is the ability to get the public to fund a search for someone declared legally dead. That would need some really fancy footwork. But then I have a nasty suspicious mind.
-
The 7 years was raised as a defence to the many posters were being vilified for suggesting the Madeleine could be dead in that she has been missing nearly long enough to be declared dead in law.
Well, she might no longer be alive, but I see no reason for anyone to declare a child dead. I'm aware that the families of missing adults sometimes have to come to that heartbreaking decision to simply deal with mortgages or whatever. Hardly her case.
-
One thing that springs to mind is the ability to get the public to fund a search for someone declared legally dead. That would need some really fancy footwork. But then I have a nasty suspicious mind.
I think most (but obviously not all) of us here can manage to grasp the distinction between "legally declared dead" and "actually dead in fact". 8(8-))
-
One thing that springs to mind is the ability to get the public to fund a search for someone declared legally dead. That would need some really fancy footwork. But then I have a nasty suspicious mind.
Of course, now that the 'search' is being conducted by SY at public expense, there is no real justification for the fund to accept any more money.
-
Of course, now that the 'search' is being conducted by SY at public expense, there is no real justification for the fund to accept any more money.
I notice the "Donate" button is operative again.
-
He failed Madeleine, such failure will weight heavy on him. Clearly from the recent photographs it is now showing.
-
He failed Madeleine, such failure will weight heavy on him. Clearly from the recent photographs it is now showing.
How melodramatic and creative of you.....wow
-
He failed Madeleine, such failure will weight heavy on him. Clearly from the recent photographs it is now showing.
Utter RUBBISH. 8-)(--)
The Mccanns failed Madeleine. Not Amaral.
-
Utter RUBBISH. 8-)(--)
The Mccanns failed Madeleine. Not Amaral.
The McCanns made a costly mistake. Snr Amaral was given charge of finding her, instead he ignored the witness statements and focused purely on Madeleine's parents. He failed Madeleine and clearly he knows this.
-
The McCanns made a costly mistake. Snr Amaral was given charge of finding her, instead he ignored the witness statements and focused purely on Madeleine's parents. He failed Madeleine and clearly he knows this.
What witness statements did HE ignore? Actually dont answer that.. I can see where this is going oh dear
-
The McCanns made a costly mistake. Snr Amaral was given charge of finding her, instead he ignored the witness statements and focused purely on Madeleine's parents. He failed Madeleine and clearly he knows this.
Costly mistake my derriere.
Amaral was the coordinator for a while.
Madeleine was extensively searched for. She wasn't found and not one iota of evidence of abduction was found.
-
Costly mistake mt derriere.
Amaral was the coordinator for a while.
Madeleine was extensively searched for. She wasn't found and not one iota of evidence of abduction was found.
A costly mistake is when you ignore the bogofs at the supermarket....not when you leave no less than three babies on their own with doors open out to a balcony a strait of concrete steps and open to a main road...out of ear and eyeshot! And repeatedly.....Ridiculous to say Amaral failed Madeleine....then again you forgot singularity to say he deserves a life of fear and misery but the "abductor" is forgiven! oh and btw we shall also try and paw 1 million euros while we are at it...its just for the search though....
-
The McCanns made a costly mistake. Snr Amaral was given charge of finding her, instead he ignored the witness statements and focused purely on Madeleine's parents. He failed Madeleine and clearly he knows this.
It could be said he failed Madeleine if her parents were involved....and he failed to nab them..through no fault if his own....now theres a thought hey?
-
He failed Madeleine, such failure will weight heavy on him. Clearly from the recent photographs it is now showing.
Madeleine's parents failed her. The buck stops there. Claiming that a policeman failed her by not solving a crime that wouldn't have happened if her parents were doing their job (probably, the alternative if that they were directly involved) is frankly ridiculous.
-
Madeleine's parents failed her. The buck stops there. Claiming that a policeman failed her by not solving a crime that wouldn't have happened if her parents were doing their job (probably, the alternative if that they were directly involved) is frankly ridiculous.
Well said, not only that, but why arent people gunning for the policeman in charge in other cases for failing to solve the crimes under their watch, claudia lawrence, , jill dando, and many others.....
-
Well said, not only that, but why arent people gunning for the policeman in charge in other cases for failing to solve the crimes under their watch, claudia lawrence, , jill dando, and many others.....
Because those policemen weren't Johnny Foreigner? It is bizarre that the only person to wind up in court was a policeman on the case.
-
Madeleine's parents failed her. The buck stops there. Claiming that a policeman failed her by not solving a crime that wouldn't have happened if her parents were doing their job (probably, the alternative if that they were directly involved) is frankly ridiculous.
The buck doesn't stop there...what you are saying is totally ridiculous... Gerry is a doctor...child comes in who is grossly obese due to parents not giving child a good diet...does Gerry hold his hands up and say ...not my problem ...a professional does his job irrespective of parents..amaral didnt
-
You can all protest as much as you want but it wont change history, Snr Amaral was left wanting and he failed Madeleine. I don't agree that the McCanns should now be relentlessly attacked because of their mistake, attacking them does not bring Madeleine back really does it?
-
The buck doesn't stop there...what you are saying is totally ridiculous... Gerry is a doctor...child comes in who is grossly obese due to parents not giving child a good diet...does Gerry hold his hands up and say ...not my problem ...a professional does his job irrespective of parents..amaral didnt
Yes he did.
With uncooperative parents.
Meanwhile the parents were clearly incapable of looking after children.
-
Because those policemen weren't Johnny Foreigner? It is bizarre that the only person to wind up in court was a policeman on the case.
perhaps you aren't familiar with the case..amaral ended up in court re a torture case highlighted by amnesty international...nothing to do with the mccanns
-
You can all protest as much as you want but it wont change history, Snr Amaral was left wanting and he failed Madeleine. I don't agree that the McCanns should now be relentlessly attacked because of their mistake, attacking them does not bring Madeleine back really does it?
And attacking amaral brings her back, how?
-
You can all protest as much as you want but it wont change history, Snr Amaral was left wanting and he failed Madeleine. I don't agree that the McCanns should now be relentlessly attacked because of their mistake, attacking them does not bring Madeleine back really does it?
More crap again.
The mccanns failed Madeleine.
Not Amaral.
-
More crap again.
The mccanns failed Madeleine.
Not Amaral.
You could possibly argue that they both failed Madeleine. But Amaral would not have been involved if her parents had not failed her first
-
You could possibly argue that they both failed Madeleine. But Amaral would not have been involved if her parents had not failed her first
Absolutely true
-
You could possibly argue that they both failed Madeleine. But Amaral would not have been involved if her parents had not failed her first
Absolutely true
You could possibly argue that they both failed Madeleine. But Amaral would not have been involved if her parents had not failed her first
Absolutely true
-
This is a beautiful moment.
I also agree by the way.
Thanks, Cariad. It took a bit of working out to get the colours right!!
-
And attacking amaral brings her back, how?
And attacking the McCanns and their family, and every single person who believes them and supports them brings her back how?
-
And attacking the McCanns and their family, and every single person who believes them and supports them brings her back how?
Singularity already asked that, scroll back,and thats the post I was responding to....suing people isnt going to bring Maddie back...if she is alive to be brought back that is....likewise you and like minded people attempting to whitewash and massage evidence to make it go away wont either..like there is/must be an excuse/innocent explanation for anythng found or not found...Clarence Mitchell's (the professional spin doctor that is) direct words BTW!!.but of course no amount of personal beliefs, discussion,argument,bickering,accusations about all sorts of people wherever it comes from is going to do anythng of the sort...
-
perhaps you aren't familiar with the case..amaral ended up in court re a torture case highlighted by amnesty international...nothing to do with the mccanns
So he remains the only person to wind up in court in the McCann case.
-
So he remains the only person to wind up in court in the McCann case.
theres Tavares De Almeida as well
-
So he remains the only person to wind up in court in the McCann case.
Thats exactly it
-
theres Tavares De Almeida as well
And that pillock who was held to be in contempt.