So when was the first translation of the Amaral book available?

[AnneGuedes]

Mr Pike said he was sent by Mrs McCann a translation of Mr Amaral's book. Which translation ? AnnaEsse's translation ? Had it been Anna's translation, Mrs McCann would likely have acknowledged it and thanked, don't you think ?

[Redblossom]

Mr Pike said he was sent by Mrs McCann a translation of Mr Amaral's book. Which translation ? AnnaEsse's translation ? Had it been Anna's translation, Mrs McCann would likely have acknowledged it and thanked, don't you think ?

Michael Wright said the Mccans read the english translation he sent them in august 2008.... Yet the Mccanns went on PT TV in September 8 and said theyhad not read it, why would they it was alot of rubbish with nothng new in it
 >@@(*&)

[gilet]

Mr Pike said he was sent by Mrs McCann a translation of Mr Amaral's book. Which translation ? AnnaEsse's translation ? Had it been Anna's translation, Mrs McCann would likely have acknowledged it and thanked, don't you think ?

Are you certain she knew whose translation it was?

I have no doubt she thanked Mr. Pike.

[gilet]

Michael Wright said the Mccansk read the english translation he sent them in august 2008.... Yet the Mccanns went on PR TV in September 8 and said theyhad not read it, why would they it was alot of rubbish with nothng new in it
 >@@(*&)

Did he say they read it before September 2008. If they only received it mid or late August perhaps they hadn't got round to it by then.

Why do you always presume the worst in people? And presume they are lying? Its such an unappealing way of reacting to everything.

[Montclair]

Did he say they read it before September 2008. If they only received it mid or late August perhaps they hadn't got round to it by then.

Why do you always presume the worst in people? And presume they are lying? Its such an unappealing way of reacting to everything.

IIRC, the McCanns said that they had no intention of reading the book either because it was rubbish.

[Redblossom]

Did he say they read it before September 2008. If they only received it mid or late August perhaps they hadn't got round to it by then.

Why do you always presume the worst in people? And presume they are lying? Its such an unappealing way of reacting to everything.

that did cross my mind but he said they read it when he sent it to them after it had been published online in august 2008.......seeing as he was their internet monitor im sure they got it PDQ.....!!!


i will stick with my beliefs if thats ok with you, if the mccanns say on tv when asked three weeks after they have decided with their lawyer  to sue mr amaral,  that they havent ruled it out, excuse me if I dont believe everything they say is bleeding gospel!!!!

[gilet]

that did cross my mind but he said they read it when he sent it to them after it had been published online in august 2008.......seeing as he was their internet monitor im sure they got it PDQ.....!!!


i will stick with my beliefs if thats ok with you, if the mccanns say on tv when asked three weeks after they have decided with their lawyer  to sue mr amaral,  that they havent ruled it out, excuse me if I dont believe everything they say is bleeding gospel!!!!

What he actually said (and yes, I know we cannot be certain its the precise words as it is not a verbatim report)
was:

ID - When did they read the book and watch the documentary?
MW – They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.

He does not even say he sent it in August if you notice.

He simply says that it was on the Internet in August.

Just shows how careful reading is needed before implying nasty things about people.

[gilet]

You may be right here you be wrong, but there is a precedent  for the mccanns not actually  twlling the truth, i know its hard for you to bear though

Why are your posts becoming slurred?

Do you mean I may be right?

I believe I am right, there is no way of being certain as you claimed that they lied about the reading of that book in the way you suggested from the report of the trial as we read it.

As for your allegation that the McCanns lied about suing Mr Amaral. Show the evidence for that and I will gladly comment on it but your telling me such a thing happened is not going to convince me. I don't comment on mere hearsay.

[AnneGuedes]

What he actually said (and yes, I know we cannot be certain its the precise words as it is not a verbatim report)
was:

He does not even say he sent it in August if you notice.

He simply says that it was on the Internet in August.

Just shows how careful reading is needed before implying nasty things about people.

The problem is there was no translation of the book on Internet in August 2008...

[AnneGuedes]

Are you certain she knew whose translation it was?

I have no doubt she thanked Mr. Pike.

When you download a translation for free, it's ethically correct to memorize who did it, don't you think ?
What should Mrs McCann thank Mr Pike for ?

[gilet]

The problem is there was no translation of the book on Internet in August 2008...

How do you know that as a fact? By being on the internet, it could have been on a private site to which you had no access. This is however not particularly likely, I admit.

Alternatively MW could have got the date wrong, or you could have misheard August 2008 for August 2009 when there clearly was a translation on the internet.

Perhaps you could check the date when next at court?

[gilet]

When you download a translation for free, it's ethically correct to memorize who did it, don't you think ?
What should Mrs McCann thank Mr Pike for ?

Well, that depends if the translation on the internet acknowledges the translator, although I would personally be wary of unacknowledged translations.

Pike may not have told Kate who the translator was. The document may have been a print out without that information.

As for what she would thank Pike for, I would have thought that was obvious. For getting a copy for her.

[AnneGuedes]

How do you know that as a fact?

I never read that translation, but I know it was translated from the French translation. I don't know this one either, but I know the French version of Mr Amaral's book was published in May 2009.

[Redblossom]

Why are your posts becoming slurred?

Do you mean I may be right?

I believe I am right, there is no way of being certain as you claimed that they lied about the reading of that book in the way you suggested from the report of the trial as we read it.

As for your allegation that the McCanns lied about suing Mr Amaral. Show the evidence for that and I will gladly comment on it but your telling me such a thing happened is not going to convince me. I don't comment on mere hearsay.

there was nothng *slurred about my post* and nothing ambiguous I clearly said you may be right or wrong

oh and I dont do  hearsay dear

Here is the evidence your heros lied, copy and paste of a recent post of mine


*****

What about what the Mccanns were reporting vis a vis the libel action?


From a SIC interview given 12 May 2009

Q There's also been Gonçalo Amaral's book and at the time there was a lot of talk about possible legal charges bought up by you against Gonçalo Amaral. Are you still considering these legal charges against him?
 
Gerry McCann: We certainly haven't ruled it out. The reason we haven't done it to date is we didn't want to create... and I think there's been enough Anglo-Portuguese angst, particularly in the media and we certainly, errr... didn't want to exacerbate that but, you know, he clearly is getting, errr... more outrageous and we certainly wouldn't rule it out.
 
Kate McCann: At the same time, you know, it... it's a distraction, you know, what Mr Amaral is doing. I mean, it's... it's damaging to our search, errm... but at the same time, you know, we want to find Madeleine. We want to move forward and get new information and we don't want to be derailed by negative people who have their own agendas, you know, so...
 
Gerry McCann: That is... I mean, that's a very good point, you know; we don't want to look back, we are trying to do things, but it gets to the point, errr... where you just think: 'enough's enough'.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/mccanns-interview-to-sic.html

So how is Kate Mccann writing in her book Madeleine that conversations with their lawyer had been ongoing since November 2008, Gerry made a trip in January 2009 to see the lawyer about suing Amaral and by April 20 2009 they made the decision to sue!

Why was Gerry Mccann keeping the decision/legal action a secret?

Some quotes from kates book here
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/kate-mccanns-deep-harted-for-goncalo.html

[AnneGuedes]

Well, that depends if the translation on the internet acknowledges the translator, although I would personally be wary of unacknowledged translations.

Pike may not have told Kate who the translator was. The document may have been a print out without that information.

As for what she would thank Pike for, I would have thought that was obvious. For getting a copy for her.

But Mr Pike said Mrs McCann sent him the translation..