KM's Paperback (PB)

[G-Unit]

The libel trial was not a criminal trial. Defreitas was bound by the OSA. It was unethical of Amaral or his lawyer to request his testimony imo.

None of that explains why he was prevented from giving evidence. What is clear, however, is that Amaral believed his evidence would be favourable to him, not to his accusers.

[Mr Gray]

None of that explains why he was prevented from giving evidence. What is clear, however, is that Amaral believed his evidence would be favourable to him, not to his accusers.

wht amaral believed is not here nor their. From recollection not every witness amaral called was favourable to him.
It seems De Freitas was ruled by UK regulations...whats wrong with that

[G-Unit]

wht amaral believed is not here nor their. From recollection not every witness amaral called was favourable to him.
It seems De Freitas was ruled by UK regulations...whats wrong with that

To return to the post which led to the debate it's unlikely that de Freitas was at odds with the PJ, as Amaral wouldn't have called him as a witness if they had disagreed. 

[Mr Gray]

To return to the post which led to the debate it's unlikely that de Freitas was at odds with the PJ, as Amaral wouldn't have called him as a witness if they had disagreed.

Who really cares.. I dont

[Miss Taken Identity]

In my opinion there are two individuals who have profited from Madeleine's disappearance very much for their own ends.

The first is the person who took it upon themselves to abduct Madeleine.

The second is Goncalo Amaral whose arrogance has probably inflicted as much pain as is humanly possible on another human being and has revelled in it.

Kate asks ... "Why is this man being allowed a platform from which to peddle his absurd and offensive ideas?"  madeleine:  Kate McCann

One can only wonder, why indeed.

VS:"Why is it a stupid question to ask sceptics how, why and when they believe the McCanns did away with Madeleine's body and where they put it? "

-firstly it is none of your business is it?
-you keep saying you don't care...
- to ask questions is independent thinker bashing, and we know how you dislike the bashing of humans

Brietta :- Madeliene was abducted? how did that happen -via a window perchance?

There is only omne victim in this story and that is Madeleine- the parents just feel embarrassed and awkward about being caught leaving their children alone IMO.

Kate asks ... "Why is this man being allowed a platform from which to peddle his absurd and offensive ideas?"  madeleine:  Kate McCann


The same reason Kate,  you had your platform to peddle your whooshing curtain story- sad innit.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I don't think he would need to be a sociopath to manipulate the facts into a palatable narrative. 

MM's disappearance must have hit like a bolt from the blue.  I think it is safe to assume he could not have conceived of her coming to any harm otherwise he would not have left her in the first place.  He scoured the locality hoping she may have wandered off and/or someone abducted her and left her nearby.   He shortly realised this was not the case.  KM could not bear to tell her parents so this task fell to GM who also had to tell his own family.  It no doubt crossed his mind how all of this was going to look not just to the family but friends, neighbours, colleagues etc.  And more importantly he had two other children.  RO, a trained lawyer, whose husband was tasked with checking MM at 9.30 pm, may have sounded the alarm bells about the lot of them, T9, facing potential legal charges of child neglect.  MO had no idea whether MM was present or not.  It would have looked very bad indeed if GM had no idea whether or not MM was present at 9.00 pm. 

For me all the surrounding testimony fits together if GM did not physically check MM at 9.00 pm.  If he did check then for me all the surrounding testimony does not fit together.  Therefore I choose to believe the former over the latter.

Well said Holly.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't think he would need to be a sociopath to manipulate the facts into a palatable narrative. 

MM's disappearance must have hit like a bolt from the blue.  I think it is safe to assume he could not have conceived of her coming to any harm otherwise he would not have left her in the first place.  He scoured the locality hoping she may have wandered off and/or someone abducted her and left her nearby.   He shortly realised this was not the case.  KM could not bear to tell her parents so this task fell to GM who also had to tell his own family.  It no doubt crossed his mind how all of this was going to look not just to the family but friends, neighbours, colleagues etc.  And more importantly he had two other children.  RO, a trained lawyer, whose husband was tasked with checking MM at 9.30 pm, may have sounded the alarm bells about the lot of them, T9, facing potential legal charges of child neglect.  MO had no idea whether MM was present or not.  It would have looked very bad indeed if GM had no idea whether or not MM was present at 9.00 pm. 

For me all the surrounding testimony fits together if GM did not physically check MM at 9.00 pm.  If he did check then for me all the surrounding testimony does not fit together.  Therefore I choose to believe the former over the latter.

Yes he would have to be a sociopath to put his own future above thst of his missing daughter, IMO.   You can choose to believe what you want however, it does not make it true however (as you are so fond of saying).

[John]

I don't think he would need to be a sociopath to manipulate the facts into a palatable narrative. 

MM's disappearance must have hit like a bolt from the blue.  I think it is safe to assume he could not have conceived of her coming to any harm otherwise he would not have left her in the first place.  He scoured the locality hoping she may have wandered off and/or someone abducted her and left her nearby.   He shortly realised this was not the case.  KM could not bear to tell her parents so this task fell to GM who also had to tell his own family.  It no doubt crossed his mind how all of this was going to look not just to the family but friends, neighbours, colleagues etc.  And more importantly he had two other children.  RO, a trained lawyer, whose husband was tasked with checking MM at 9.30 pm, may have sounded the alarm bells about the lot of them, T9, facing potential legal charges of child neglect.  MO had no idea whether MM was present or not.  It would have looked very bad indeed if GM had no idea whether or not MM was present at 9.00 pm. 

For me all the surrounding testimony fits together if GM did not physically check MM at 9.00 pm.  If he did check then for me all the surrounding testimony does not fit together.  Therefore I choose to believe the former over the latter.

The difficulty for the parents is that what occurred after 5.30pm on the afternoon that Madeleine disappeared cannot be independently verified.  5.30pm being the last time we are aware of that the child was seen in public. Anything could have occurred between 5.30 and 10pm.

[Vertigo Swirl]

VS:"Why is it a stupid question to ask sceptics how, why and when they believe the McCanns did away with Madeleine's body and where they put it? "

-firstly it is none of your business is it?
-you keep saying you don't care...
- to ask questions is independent thinker bashing, and we know how you dislike the bashing of humans

Anyone else spot the massive contradiction here?  Independent thinkers ask questions don’t they?  So by asking the question I demonstrate I am an independent thinker so how can I simultaneously be an independent thinker basher?  Hmmm....what a conundrum....

[John]

We might have found out, had the UK authorities not prevented him from giving evidence in the libel trial as Amaral's lawyers requested.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/maddie-case-british-cop-invokes-state.html

I found it very strange that Metropolitan Police Detective Sergeant Jose De Freitas didn't do his duty and appear as a witness. In my opinion this was unacceptable behaviour to hide behind his status as a serving English police officer. A police officer can be summoned to testify in any court case, they are not above the law regardless of jurisdiction.

[misty]

I found it very strange that Metropolitan Police Detective Sergeant Jose De Freitas didn't do his duty and appear as a witness. In my opinion this was unacceptable behaviour to hide behind his status as a serving English police officer. A police officer can be summoned to testify in any court case, they are not above the law regardless of jurisdiction.

Based on the law surrounding the OSA, what sort of role would Defreitas have played as a witness for Amaral? JDF worked for the UK police, not for PJ. Information he handled was from the UK, not Portuguese witnesses. Kate's book does not indicate a great deal of personal contact with JDF. AFAIK he was not involved in the formulation of the Amaral/Almeida hypothesis.
There could also have been a conflict of interest had the CPS wanted, at a later stage, to prosecute a UK citizen for a crimes against Madeleine under UK jurisdiction. All IMO.

[Miss Taken Identity]

The difficulty for the parents is that what occurred after 5.30pm on the afternoon that Madeleine disappeared cannot be independently verified.  5.30pm being the last time we are aware of that the child was seen in public. Anything could have occurred between 5.30 and 10pm.

Indeed John. This is something else which would  show up during a reconstruction. Whos version of 'Kate with the children are we going to have presented'. surely not all three, that would be a comedy.

Gerry asks David P to go and check on Kate with the kids. Why can she not cope on her own with the kids?

He goes to the apartment and goes inside for  (?) mins. he can't reacall why he was there in his rog- nor can he recall what Kate was wearing but he does know for sure that all the children were there all like little angels and happy.

Well nice innit.

Kate goes to see David P at the door he doesn't enter and chats for a few (?) seconds- she is wearing only a towel- having just had a shower.Did Kate leave three children unattended while having a shower? could an accident have occured?

Since the timeline is not worth maddies little book pages- they wrote it on I would say there was NO physical checks that eve untill Kate raises the alarm...




Re stupid question:  The question was asked about the McCanns specifically. the reply was to same.

 According  some :- asking questions of the McCanns is McCann bashing- innit.  asking independent thinkers, who do not believe the McCanns , questions is independent thinkers  bashing


Ohh smell the irony.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Indeed John. This is something else which would  show up during a reconstruction. Whos version of 'Kate with the children are we going to have presented'. surely not all three, that would be a comedy.

Gerry asks David P to go and check on Kate with the kids. Why can she not cope on her own with the kids?

He goes to the apartment and goes inside for  (?) mins. he can't reacall why he was there in his rog- nor can he recall what Kate was wearing but he does know for sure that all the children were there all like little angels and happy.

Well nice innit.

Kate goes to see David P at the door he doesn't enter and chats for a few (?) seconds- she is wearing only a towel- having just had a shower.Did Kate leave three children unattended while having a shower? could an accident have occured?

Since the timeline is not worth maddies little book pages- they wrote it on I would say there was NO physical checks that eve untill Kate raises the alarm...




Re stupid question:  The question was asked about the McCanns specifically. the reply was to same.

 According  some :- asking questions of the McCanns is McCann bashing- innit.  asking independent thinkers, who do not believe the McCanns , questions is independent thinkers  bashing


Ohh smell the irony.

. So according to your philosophy of life it’s ok to ask questions of the McCanns but not ok to ask questions of fellow forum members if it’s about their beliefs, that seems to be about the gist of it.  So, anything and everything McCann related is OUR BUSINESS but what other forum members think, the guys we are debating with, no they are not our business and must not be challenged.    Well tuff titicacas, that’s not my philosophy, and I shall continue to ask sceptics awkward questions until I’m forbidden by the thought police from doing so.

[jassi]

. So according to your philosophy of life it’s ok to ask questions of the McCanns but not ok to ask questions of fellow forum members if it’s about their beliefs, that seems to be about the gist of it.  So, anything and everything McCann related is OUR BUSINESS but what other forum members think, the guys we are debating with, no they are not our business and must not be challenged.    Well tuff titicacas, that’s not my philosophy, and I shall continue to ask sceptics awkward questions until I’m forbidden by the thought police from doing so.

Why should it be? Members opinions have no bearing on the events of 3rd May 2007

[Lace]

VS:"Why is it a stupid question to ask sceptics how, why and when they believe the McCanns did away with Madeleine's body and where they put it? "

-firstly it is none of your business is it?
-you keep saying you don't care...
- to ask questions is independent thinker bashing, and we know how you dislike the bashing of humans

Brietta :- Madeliene was abducted? how did that happen -via a window perchance?

There is only omne victim in this story and that is Madeleine- the parents just feel embarrassed and awkward about being caught leaving their children alone IMO.

Kate asks ... "Why is this man being allowed a platform from which to peddle his absurd and offensive ideas?"  madeleine:  Kate McCann


The same reason Kate,  you had your platform to peddle your whooshing curtain story- sad innit.

I thought this forum was to discuss how Madeleine disappeared?  How if the McCann's are guilty did they dispose of Madeleine's body.

You through your posts show you don't believe the McCann's that Madeleine was abducted,  so why shouldn't anyone ask you how the McCann's disposed of Madeleine's body.  Surely you must have some idea or you wouldn't be posting about how there was no whooshing curtains,  the abduction didn't happen would you?