Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[The General]

You do realise taht the interim report was superceded by the archiving despatch which said that none of the indications used to make the McCanns arguidos was later confirmed

That's not quite true, as you well know. Your use of the word 'confirmed' is either poor choice or a ssttrreettcchh to say the least.

[Mr Gray]

That's not quite true, as you well know. Your use of the word 'confirmed' is either poor choice or a ssttrreettcchh to say the least.

I would have to check but I think confirmed is the word used

[kizzy]

So whats the evidence against the McCanns. There is no real evidence against them

Well look this was not contested by anyone to say any different,

Why did SY who was frequently mentioned in the book not go as witnesses for the mccs if it was lies.

The reason I believe is that it wasn't lies..The reason GA won the libel trial


II - Legal basis and Reasons
The following facts were proved:

From the injunction request

1 - On the 24th of July, 2008, the first Defendant published in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant, the book that he is the author of, "Maddie The Truth of the Lie".

2 - In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis that:

1) The child Madeleine McCann died in the Ocean Club Apartment, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007;
2) The simulation of an abduction took place;
3) Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's cadaver,
4) The death may have been the outcome of a tragic accident;
5) There are indications of neglect regarding the guardianship and security of the children.

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm

[Mr Gray]

Well look this was not contested by anyone to say any different,

Why did SY who was frequently mentioned in the book not go as witnesses for the mccs if it was lies.

The reason I believe is that it wasn't lies..The reason GA won the libel trial


II - Legal basis and Reasons
The following facts were proved:

From the injunction request

1 - On the 24th of July, 2008, the first Defendant published in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant, the book that he is the author of, "Maddie The Truth of the Lie".

2 - In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis that:

1) The child Madeleine McCann died in the Ocean Club Apartment, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007;
2) The simulation of an abduction took place;
3) Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's cadaver,
4) The death may have been the outcome of a tragic accident;
5) There are indications of neglect regarding the guardianship and security of the children.

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm

None of that is evidence. Amaral didnt win the trial because what he said was true...thats completely wrong

[Mr Gray]

That's not quite true, as you well know. Your use of the word 'confirmed' is either poor choice or a ssttrreettcchh to say the least.

not true as I well know....I know you are talking absolute codswallop
its very true....

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.

Its your post that isnt true....and not  a mention of an imo

[Mr Gray]

Well look this was not contested by anyone to say any different,

Why did SY who was frequently mentioned in the book not go as witnesses for the mccs if it was lies.

The reason I believe is that it wasn't lies..The reason GA won the libel trial


II - Legal basis and Reasons
The following facts were proved:

From the injunction request

1 - On the 24th of July, 2008, the first Defendant published in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant, the book that he is the author of, "Maddie The Truth of the Lie".

2 - In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis that:

1) The child Madeleine McCann died in the Ocean Club Apartment, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007;
2) The simulation of an abduction took place;
3) Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's cadaver,
4) The death may have been the outcome of a tragic accident;
5) There are indications of neglect regarding the guardianship and security of the children.

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm

You seem to be under the illusion that amaral won at the SC because his book was true.....nothing could be further from the truth.

[The General]

not true as I well know....I know you are talking absolute codswallop
its very true....

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.

Its your post that isnt true....and not  a mention of an imo

No need for the constant ad hom - and you know that's not what you inferred. And you didn't use the correct context.

[Mr Gray]

No need for the constant ad hom - and you know that's not what you inferred. And you didn't use the correct context.

Your post is not making any sense

[The General]

Your post is not making any sense

It's impossible to have a civil discussion with you with your constant ad hom crutch.
End of conversation [cue the inevitable 'I'm right, you're wrong' reciprocation]

[Mr Gray]

That's not quite true, as you well know. Your use of the word 'confirmed' is either poor choice or a ssttrreettcchh to say the least.

you might want to reconsider that post

[The General]

you might want to reconsider that post

Why?

....doh......I said end of conversation. Good one. H, L & S

[Mr Gray]

Why?

Because you said confirmed  was a poor choice of word..
I didn't choose it..

[The General]

Because you said confirmed  was a poor choice of word..
I didn't choose it..

'Confirmed' in the context you used it - misleading.

AARRGGHHH.....I said end of conversation!

[Vertigo Swirl]

'Confirmed' in the context you used it - misleading.

AARRGGHHH.....I said end of conversation!

if only.

[kizzy]

You seem to be under the illusion that amaral won at the SC because his book was true.....nothing could be further from the truth.

Don't you tell me what I should and shouldn't belive


Well, it wasn't lies either like you desperately try to make out.....it was all in the police files..