Netflix launches new 8-part documentary about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

[ShiningInLuz]

It should be for those who are employed to uphold The Law.  What do you expect the hoi poloi to do if The Judicial System is leaking like a sieve?

Try comparing and contrasting 3 different systems.  Portugal.  UK.  US.

If a defendant in a murder case chooses to go public, I cannot see why Tribunal hearings are supposedly secret.

[G-Unit]

I would imagine that anything said by Olegário de Sousa had been authorised by the prosecutor.

[Vertigo Swirl]

And surely the parents of a missing child would not seek to jeopardise the investigation into their child’s disappearance? Surely they would do everything to insure the integrity of that investigation?

It had been front page headlines weeks before, how do you know they even brought the subject up with CF?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I’ve checked with the source document and the comment Faithlilly claims prove that Kate broke judicial secrecy was made in early September, several weeks after thr PJ allegedly broke their own judicial secrecy.

Wll are we going to get a retraction and an apology for misleading the forum or not? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm trying to find the actual dates.  What document do you refer to as the "source document".

Kate’s book.

[faithlilly]

The interview was given as part of the Netflix documentary.
I saw it but am unsure of which episode it was in.

SF said she had been misled over the DNA results. She didn’t at any time say she thought the parents innocent.

[Erngath]

SF said she had been misled over the DNA results. She didn’t at any time say she thought the parents innocent.

I don't believe I said she did!
But she did say she had been lied to.

[Robittybob1]

Kate’s book.

OK thanks for that.  I did find one source where the commentator was analysing the calls made by CF to the McCanns, and there seemed to be a lot of calls made in total. I never delved into it other than listening a bit.
https://youtu.be/p-8fPF-YYYQ  Armchair Detective goes on about it for an hour or so.

[Robittybob1]

Wll are we going to get a retraction and an apology for misleading the forum or not?

If the person has you on ignore she might not be seeing your request.

[Eleanor]

If the person has you on ignore she might not be seeing your request.

This could be useful when asked for Cites.  Is this acceptable?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Look I read what you wrote, but I thought that unless you provide evidence that what you are saying was true  I really can't do anything about asking Faithlilly for an apology etc.

I already provided a cite.  It’s in Kate’s book which shows that the meeting at which the dogs were discussed was in early September.  Like SIL I can’t be bothered to actually post the page reference or cite but I am right.  I have also posted a link to an article which shows that the media were reporting the dog alerts at the end of the first week in August.  Faithlilly is wrong but you don’t seem to care enough, but someone seems to think I have done wrong for drawing attention to it as I now have a warning.  Very reasonable I’m sure. 

[ShiningInLuz]

I already provided a cite.  It’s in Kate’s book which shows that the meeting at which the dogs were discussed was in early September.  Like SIL I can’t be bothered to actually post the page reference or cite but I am right.  I have also posted a link to an article which shows that the media were reporting the dog alerts at the end of the first week in August.  Faithlilly is wrong but you don’t seem to care enough, but someone seems to think I have done wrong for drawing attention to it as I now have a warning.  Very reasonable I’m sure. 

Don't worry.  Join the naughty club!   

[John]

Sorry, I can't provide a cite, cos I don't know where I found it

BUT

About 4 days ago when  I was wandering about the internet, I read that the TV interviewer who gave Kate and Gerry such a bad time, Sandra Felgueiras, is now very angry.   Because now she knows that she had been told lies  about the dogs 'findings' and the DNA results and she based her, imo, very aggressive interviews upon the so called 'facts' presented to her by the authorities.

I would love to find the article/report because I would like confirming what I think I remember.  Which was that she now believes the Mccanns innocent and that she no longer trusts Amaral

I can't remember which part of the Netflix documentary gives time to Sandra Felgueiras (possibly part 5) but she certainly has changed her position based on the final results provided by the British FSS.  Amaral claims however that the results were manipulated after he was told that a positive match had been found.

[Mr Gray]

I can't remember which part of the Netflix documentary gives time to Sandra Felgueiras (possibly part 5) but she certainly has changed her position based on the final results provided by the British FSS.  Amaral claims however that the results were manipulated after he was told that a positive match had been found.

netflix explained there was no manipulation as amaral claimed...just the fact that the pj only read the first page of the report...ignoring the caveats

[Robittybob1]

I already provided a cite.  It’s in Kate’s book which shows that the meeting at which the dogs were discussed was in early September.  Like SIL I can’t be bothered to actually post the page reference or cite but I am right.  I have also posted a link to an article which shows that the media were reporting the dog alerts at the end of the first week in August.  Faithlilly is wrong but you don’t seem to care enough, but someone seems to think I have done wrong for drawing attention to it as I now have a warning.  Very reasonable I’m sure. 

Well if you can't be bothered why should I spend my time trying to locate the right reference in Kate's book either?