Exploring the reason why Dr Amaral wanted to exclude the Press from libel case.

[Rachel Granada]

are  you  pros that thick the outrage   of the mcanns being so neglectful  unlike  biased pros most people think what the mcanns  did was  selfish and cruel

Who are "most people", carlymichelle?

[gilet]

8 year olds can read i could when i was  6 or   7

Mmmm. And writing?

[gilet]

'..dragged through the mud..'

They did that all by themselves.

No they did not.

Only in the minds of those who are fixated on a guilt for which there is no proof could your statement resemble the truth.

[gilet]

yep   not leaving the kids   would have prevented  whatever did happen to maddie pros dance around that issue  and then they cant understand the worldwide outrage

Pros do not, as you mistakenly claim, dance around that issue at all.

Perhaps you have not seen the McCanns express the deep regret they have for having made this flawed decision? Perhaps you have never made a mistake in your own life which you regret?

But your harping on about that fact is neither beneficial to the missing child Madeleine nor will it ever in any way help with determining what actually happened to this little girl.

When you eventually lose that fixation and realise that your rather unreal position of never having done something you later regret and which will live as the deepest and darkest regret in your heart for the rest of your life then you may be able to understand the position that pro McCanns hold. There but for the grace of God...

[gilet]

are you trying to say madeleine should be forgotten about and not looked for because her parents left her alone ????????

Indeed, there is no logic whatsoever in this harping on about something which will every day of their lives bring these parents despair in their hearts.

That CarlyMichelle can show no empathy whatsoever with the parents of a missing child, that she cannot realise that her constant fixation on this aspect of the case will never solve the case or help Madeleine McCann is a great shame.

[gilet]

are  you  pros that thick the outrage   of the mcanns being so neglectful  unlike  biased pros most people think what the mcanns  did was  selfish and cruel

So, Carlymichelle, instead of explaining this worldwide outrage against the McCanns you simply call the people asking you to do so, "thick".

How does that calling of people "thick" demonstrate the truth of your argument? How does calling other people "thick" help Madeleine McCann?  How does calling people "thick" help solve this case?

Perhaps a better approach would be to offer some evidence of your claim, otherwise it is not the people you are referring to as "thick" who appear so to the reader here.

For example, lets take one of the most distant countries from the UK, Australia, as an example of your "worldwide outrage". What proportion of the Australian population has written to the papers to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion have written to the government to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion of the Australian population has signed petitions to show their outrage?

As you are claiming "most people" I presume you are going to show us that more than 50% of the population have expressed this outrage in the papers, petitions, etc.

But I fear that you will have trouble actually showing that more than 0.00005% of the population have actually done so. That would not in any sensible persons mind constitute "most people".

I await your evidence with interest.

[Sherlock Holmes]

In what other ways could it be achieved  ?

Hiring private detectives to look into Amaral's professional and private life with the intention of  bringing about ruin in both  ?  ....  the use of intimidation and strong-arm legal tactics that would ensure financial crippling  ?  ...  hiring media experts to enable the smearing and denouncement of Amaral in the press  ? 

I think perhaps it is fair to assume that this court case is  the Last Chance Saloon

Ultimately, it would be very hard to get him to 'stop' because in today's world there are so many different ways of raising one's public profile and expressing opinion.

The McCanns cannot control what he does, but they can control what they do. Given that their main thrust against Amaral seems to be that his writings are harming the search, they can decide whether their own money is better spent on searching; raising awareness, etc., or on trying to silence Amaral. As we have discussed, the latter is a huge gamble, because they may end up spending enormous sums on litigation and sill in the end fail in their task of silencing Amaral, meanwhile diverting funds away from a search. And even if they succeed in suing Amaral, that doesn't silence other detractors.

Meanwhile, the point is moot, isn't it, because a search is currently in place. Personally I find it hard to understand how the McCanns can argue that the searching is being impeded, at the very same time that a multi million pound government-funded investigation is in progress. SY and the UK government don't dance to the tune of the likes of Amaral.

[gilet]

Ultimately, it would be very hard to get him to 'stop' because in today's world there are so many different ways of raising one's public profile and expressing opinion.

The McCanns cannot control what he does, but they can control what they do. Given that their main thrust against Amaral seems to be that his writings are harming the search, they can decide whether their own money is better spent on searching; raising awareness, etc., or on trying to silence Amaral. As we have discussed, the latter is a huge gamble, because they may end up spending enormous sums on litigation and sill in the end fail in their task of silencing Amaral, meanwhile diverting funds away from a search. And even if they succeed in suing Amaral, that doesn't silence other detractors.

Meanwhile, the point is moot, isn't it, because a search is currently in place. Personally I find it hard to understand how the McCanns can argue that the searching is being impeded, at the very same time that a multi million pound government-funded investigation is in progress. SY and the UK government don't dance to the tune of the likes of Amaral.

But the case is not simply about what is happening today. The crucial point is that they claim the search was impeded during from the publication of the book five years ago when no police search was underway.

Had the key document available in public in mid 2008 been the one from the AG stating that there still is a chance (however slim) that Madeleine is alive and that there is no evidence of any involvement in the disappearance from her parents the situation would have, I suggest, been very different to the situation which Amaral engineered for profit.

That situation was that a book by the senior detective on the case (a man very willing to spread the word far and wide on TV and elsewhere) making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report stating that the child was dead, there was no hope of finding her alive and that her parents had covered it all up was being sold all over Portugal and potentially all over the world.

There is no way that his book had no damaging effect on the search.

[stephen25000]

But the case is not simply about what is happening today. The crucial point is that they claim the search was impeded during from the publication of the book five years ago when no police search was underway.

Had the key document available in public in mid 2008 been the one from the AG stating that there still is a chance (however slim) that Madeleine is alive and that there is no evidence of any involvement in the disappearance from her parents the situation would have, I suggest, been very different to the situation which Amaral engineered for profit.

That situation was that a book by the senior detective on the case (a man very willing to spread the word far and wide on TV and elsewhere) making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report stating that the child was dead, there was no hope of finding her alive and that her parents had covered it all up was being sold all over Portugal and potentially all over the world.

There is no way that his book had no damaging effect on the search.

The search was stopped as the PJ could not find any evidence pointing to an abduction and the accounts of the Mccanns and associates were not in accordance and often contradicted each other.

[sadie]

The search was stopped as the PJ could not find any evidence pointing to an abduction and the accounts of the Mccanns and associates were not in accordance and often contradicted each other.

Of course there was evidence, Stephen.  Gone over several times in previous threads.

Jane Tanners sighting was the most obvious, but then there was the Smiths, Mrs Caroline Carpenters etc


The trouble was
That the die was already cast.  Amarals "theory" ruled the waves.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But the case is not simply about what is happening today. The crucial point is that they claim the search was impeded during from the publication of the book five years ago when no police search was underway.

Had the key document available in public in mid 2008 been the one from the AG stating that there still is a chance (however slim) that Madeleine is alive and that there is no evidence of any involvement in the disappearance from her parents the situation would have, I suggest, been very different to the situation which Amaral engineered for profit.

That situation was that a book by the senior detective on the case (a man very willing to spread the word far and wide on TV and elsewhere) making claims which completely trash the findings of the archival report stating that the child was dead, there was no hope of finding her alive and that her parents had covered it all up was being sold all over Portugal and potentially all over the world.

There is no way that his book had no damaging effect on the search.

It's very true, gilet, that the SY investigation is relatively new, and we do have to remember that before that, there was a big gap.

I don't doubt that Amaral's thesis had a negative impact upon the McCanns in Portugal, where it was aggressively promoted, and possibly had a bad effect elsewhere as well. And I don't doubt that his intentions were simply financial / egoistic.

But can we really prove that his thesis was the main reason why the searches were absent or lacking? We could say that the McCann's own private detectives were incompetent / corrupt - as several of them proven to have been. Those detectives were not influenced by Amaral.

We could say that because of legal and other issues, it was hard for SY to get involved (even now it's not plain sailing for them in Portugal). Again, this has nothing to do with Amaral.

How, specifically, will the McCanns show that had Amaral not promoted his thesis, the search Madeleine would have been better conducted and presumably would have bourne more fruit? How are they actually going to prove that to a court?

[Cudge]

So, Carlymichelle, instead of explaining this worldwide outrage against the McCanns you simply call the people asking you to do so, "thick".

How does that calling of people "thick" demonstrate the truth of your argument? How does calling other people "thick" help Madeleine McCann?  How does calling people "thick" help solve this case?

Perhaps a better approach would be to offer some evidence of your claim, otherwise it is not the people you are referring to as "thick" who appear so to the reader here.

For example, lets take one of the most distant countries from the UK, Australia, as an example of your "worldwide outrage". What proportion of the Australian population has written to the papers to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion have written to the government to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion of the Australian population has signed petitions to show their outrage?

As you are claiming "most people" I presume you are going to show us that more than 50% of the population have expressed this outrage in the papers, petitions, etc.

But I fear that you will have trouble actually showing that more than 0.00005% of the population have actually done so. That would not in any sensible persons mind constitute "most people".

I await your evidence with interest.

She's from Tasmania you know

[Luz]

There's nothing to explore. Responding to the OP:

DECENCY and respect for Madeleine and her family.

[icabodcrane]

So, Carlymichelle, instead of explaining this worldwide outrage against the McCanns you simply call the people asking you to do so, "thick".

How does that calling of people "thick" demonstrate the truth of your argument? How does calling other people "thick" help Madeleine McCann?  How does calling people "thick" help solve this case?

Perhaps a better approach would be to offer some evidence of your claim, otherwise it is not the people you are referring to as "thick" who appear so to the reader here.

For example, lets take one of the most distant countries from the UK, Australia, as an example of your "worldwide outrage". What proportion of the Australian population has written to the papers to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion have written to the government to demonstrate this outrage? What proportion of the Australian population has signed petitions to show their outrage?

As you are claiming "most people" I presume you are going to show us that more than 50% of the population have expressed this outrage in the papers, petitions, etc.

But I fear that you will have trouble actually showing that more than 0.00005% of the population have actually done so. That would not in any sensible persons mind constitute "most people".

I await your evidence with interest.

Well,  there is no way of answering the question you pose, of course,  but we could have a  'focus group'  of our own if Admin are willing 

Shall we request a forum  poll  ? 

[AnneGuedes]

I don't doubt that Amaral's thesis had a negative impact upon the McCanns in Portugal, where it was aggressively promoted, and possibly had a bad effect elsewhere as well. And I don't doubt that his intentions were simply financial / egoistic.

I don't remember any "aggressive" promotion. The Fnac had huges piles of it, but the week before had huge piles of "The girl who played with fire"...
I'm curious to know what makes you have "no doubt that his intentions were simply financial/egoistic".