So where does Amaral turn? ...

[C.Edwards]

It bothers me because I believe in civilised society and part of the societal norms I respect is the presumption of innocence. The fact that others cannot respect societal norms and choose to hound and stalk and harass innocent people does actually concern me as I think it should concern all responsible citizens.

Your certainty of them not telling the truth is in reality pure guesswork and totally acceptable. What is not acceptable is the kind of behaviour of Bennett and Amaral who make claims based on that guesswork which damage reputations and ultimately damage the search for a missing little girl.

Of course there's a presumption of innocence, but only in legal terms. They're nowhere near a court (current libel trial excepted of course) at the moment so there is no innocence or guilt to be decided anyway.  The questioning of their story is not an accusation of guilt, it's merely the equivalent of me (and others, of course) telling someone "I don't believe you" when told a story.  The thing with the McCanns is that they've told their story in a massively public fashion so there are lots of people that are well within their rights to say, "I don't believe you" in whatever form they choose - provided, of course, that they don't then move on to libellous territory.

My certainty they're not telling the truth is more than just guesswork... but they have been caught out with lies already (a lie, after all, is a deliberate falsification of the facts) and this has happened on many occasions some of which, I concede, could be attributed to simple mistakes under pressure or faulty memory but many of which cannot.  I'm not going to go trawling through the archives again to exemplify every single one as it's tedious to go around the track again on this and it's been well recorded already.

It could, of course, also be argued that your certainty (which I presume you have?) that they are telling the whole truth is also based on pure guesswork as there's no way that you could know for certain. You can presume innocence all you like, but you cannot know for sure at the present time.

[stephen25000]

Of course there's a presumption of innocence, but only in legal terms. They're nowhere near a court (current libel trial excepted of course) at the moment so there is no innocence or guilt to be decided anyway.  The questioning of their story is not an accusation of guilt, it's merely the equivalent of me (and others, of course) telling someone "I don't believe you" when told a story.  The thing with the McCanns is that they've told their story in a massively public fashion so there are lots of people that are well within their rights to say, "I don't believe you" in whatever form they choose - provided, of course, that they don't then move on to libellous territory.

My certainty they're not telling the truth is more than just guesswork... but they have been caught out with lies already (a lie, after all, is a deliberate falsification of the facts) and this has happened on many occasions some of which, I concede, could be attributed to simple mistakes under pressure or faulty memory but many of which cannot.  I'm not going to go trawling through the archives again to exemplify every single one as it's tedious to go around the track again on this and it's been well recorded already.

It could, of course, also be argued that your certainty (which I presume you have?) that they are telling the whole truth is also based on pure guesswork as there's no way that you could know for certain. You can presume innocence all you like, but you cannot know for sure at the present time.

 

[Benice]

Of course there's a presumption of innocence, but only in legal terms. They're nowhere near a court (current libel trial excepted of course) at the moment so there is no innocence or guilt to be decided anyway.  The questioning of their story is not an accusation of guilt, it's merely the equivalent of me (and others, of course) telling someone "I don't believe you" when told a story.  The thing with the McCanns is that they've told their story in a massively public fashion so there are lots of people that are well within their rights to say, "I don't believe you" in whatever form they choose - provided, of course, that they don't then move on to libellous territory.

My certainty they're not telling the truth is more than just guesswork... but they have been caught out with lies already (a lie, after all, is a deliberate falsification of the facts) and this has happened on many occasions some of which, I concede, could be attributed to simple mistakes under pressure or faulty memory but many of which cannot.  I'm not going to go trawling through the archives again to exemplify every single one as it's tedious to go around the track again on this and it's been well recorded already.

It could, of course, also be argued that your certainty (which I presume you have?) that they are telling the whole truth is also based on pure guesswork as there's no way that you could know for certain. You can presume innocence all you like, but you cannot know for sure at the present time.

If they have told so many deliberate lies then why have they been excluded as suspects from SY's investigations?    You must think the investigating officers are either thick or naieve.

IMO  Much of what is claimed as  'lies' are just the biased interpretations of sceptics who will not rest until they have turned anything and everything the McCanns have said into what they 'wish' they had said.   


Rather like Amaral's interpretation in his book of how KM reacted when they were urgently called back to the police station on 4th May which IMO was the complete opposite of the truth and very damaging to KM as a mother - and deliberately intended to be.         

And of course we must not forget that the McCanns are not allowed to have any of the normal human flaws that the rest of us have, - even an innocent slip of the tongue is blown up into a major 'crime' and presented as evidence of their guilt.           

I believe the McCanns have always told the truth.  That doesn't mean every word they utter is accurate because they too are human and subject to making mistakes - but never intentionally IMO.   


           

 

[stephen25000]

If they have told so many deliberate lies then why have they been excluded as suspects from SY's investigations?    You must think the investigating officers are either thick or naieve.

IMO  Much of what is claimed as  'lies' are just the biased interpretations of sceptics who will not rest until they have turned anything and everything the McCanns have said into what they 'wish' they had said.   


Rather like Amaral's interpretation in his book of how KM reacted when they were urgently called back to the police station on 4th May which IMO was the complete opposite of the truth and very damaging to KM as a mother - and deliberately intended to be.         

And of course we must not forget that the McCanns are not allowed to have any of the normal human flaws that the rest of us have, - even an innocent slip of the tongue is blown up into a major 'crime' and presented as evidence of their guilt.           

I believe the McCanns have always told the truth.  That doesn't mean every word they utter is accurate because they too are human and subject to making mistakes - but never intentionally IMO.   


           

How do you know Benice that the Mccanns have not lied since the start ?

or is this just contrary to your beliefs ?

[Angelo222]

You only need to look at the statements taken on the 4 May 2007, a week later and then look at the Rotatory ones to see how they have morphed.

The very fact that Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann couldn't even agree what side of the road Gerry and Jez were stood on speaks volumes as does her off/on ID of Robert Murat and her various non descriptions of bundleman.

To answer the op however, my own belief is that Mr Amaral will come out of this smelling of roses.  No Portuguese Court is going to penalise him for exploring the facts and telling it as it was.

[Redblossom]

If they have told so many deliberate lies then why have they been excluded as suspects from SY's investigations?    You must think the investigating officers are either thick or naieve.

IMO  Much of what is claimed as  'lies' are just the biased interpretations of sceptics who will not rest until they have turned anything and everything the McCanns have said into what they 'wish' they had said.   


Rather like Amaral's interpretation in his book of how KM reacted when they were urgently called back to the police station on 4th May which IMO was the complete opposite of the truth and very damaging to KM as a mother - and deliberately intended to be.         

And of course we must not forget that the McCanns are not allowed to have any of the normal human flaws that the rest of us have, - even an innocent slip of the tongue is blown up into a major 'crime' and presented as evidence of their guilt.           

I believe the McCanns have always told the truth. That doesn't mean every word they utter is accurate because they too are human and subject to making mistakes - but never intentionally IMO.   


           

Believe being the operative word, how naive or trusting are you though? Likewise, many people don't believe the Mccanns have been truthful about things, several instances are well documented but if you are of the Clarence Mitchell school of thought, then there is always an innocent explanation for anything and everything that is found or not found...quite a mystic meg isnt he? Seeing as his opinions are based on personal belief only! So you will excuse people if they refuse just to take things on faith! And suspend all rational thoughts.

PS as to your first sentence, this MAY be true, but you dont KNOW its true...because, as has been explained before, if they WERE, SY would hardly be singing it off the rooftops....would they?

[Benice]

Believe being the operative word, how naive or trusting are you though? Likewise, many people don't believe the Mccanns have been truthful about things, several instances are well documented but if you are of the Clarence Mitchell school of thought, then there is always an innocent explanation for anything and everything that is found or not found...quite a mystic meg isnt he? Seeing as his opinions are based on personal belief only! So you will excuse people if they refuse just to take things on faith! And suspend all rational thoughts.

PS as to your first sentence, this MAY be true, but you dont KNOW its true...because, as has been explained before, if they WERE, SY would hardly be singing it off the rooftops....would they?

[/b]

Well there you go - imo a typical example of refusing to believe the very clear statement made by SY regarding the McCanns nor their friends being either suspects or persons of interest  - and trying to make it mean the opposite.

IMO If the McCanns and their friends ARE suspects then SY would not have made ANY statement at all about them - unless of course you think a double-bluff is being perpetrated - and it's all a big sham to give them a false sense of security - before SY pounce on them!   If you do - then IMO you really are clutching at straws Red.

(Anyway - must go out now - so will catch up later)

[ferryman]

If they have told so many deliberate lies then why have they been excluded as suspects from SY's investigations?    You must think the investigating officers are either thick or naieve.

IMO  Much of what is claimed as  'lies' are just the biased interpretations of sceptics who will not rest until they have turned anything and everything the McCanns have said into what they 'wish' they had said.   


Rather like Amaral's interpretation in his book of how KM reacted when they were urgently called back to the police station on 4th May which IMO was the complete opposite of the truth and very damaging to KM as a mother - and deliberately intended to be.         

And of course we must not forget that the McCanns are not allowed to have any of the normal human flaws that the rest of us have, - even an innocent slip of the tongue is blown up into a major 'crime' and presented as evidence of their guilt.           

I believe the McCanns have always told the truth.  That doesn't mean every word they utter is accurate because they too are human and subject to making mistakes - but never intentionally IMO.   


           

For me, the most important (proven and demonstarable) lie told by Amaral is his depiction of Mark Harrison's role in the investigation -- almost certainly the source of the canard that the British 'developed the case' against the McCanns, and also the crux of what so much else of Amarals fantasies masquerading as "facts" rests on.

That chapter in Amaral's book really is the most disgraceful and easily disprovable lie in the whole of his text ...

[Redblossom]

[/b]

Well there you go - imo a typical example of refusing to believe the very clear statement made by SY regarding the McCanns nor their friends being either suspects or persons of interest  - and trying to make it mean the opposite.

IMO If the McCanns and their friends ARE suspects then SY would not have made ANY statement at all about them - unless of course you think a double-bluff is being perpetrated - and it's all a big sham to give them a false sense of security - before SY pounce on them!   If you do - then IMO you really are clutching at straws Red.

(Anyway - must go out now - so will catch up later)

Why would Redwood make a statement? Because he was ASKED the specific question.

I didnt say I didnt believe it or try to make it mean somethng else, I asked you a question....IF they were suspects do YOU think SY would state this? Sigh

[Angelo222]

Unfortunately though the facts add up to evidence and the evidence can support Amaral's thesis just as strongly as the abduction claim otherwise none of us would still be talking about it six years on.

As far as SY are concerned they are playing it very cool.

[ferryman]

Unfortunately though the facts add up to evidence and the evidence can support Amaral's thesis just as strongly as the abduction claim otherwise none of us would still be talking about it six years on.
As far as SY are concerned they are playing it very cool.

No they don't.

Amaral says the McCanns drove Madeleine somewhere dead in the car and the facts disprove that.

Amaral says Madeleine died in the apartment and Mr Gordon's shaving cut is a (plausible) alternative explanation of the dog alert.

Amaral says the Smiths saw Gerry and the final PJ report says Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant.  More than that, all Mr Smith's children disagree with their father that they saw Gerry.

Amaral has nowhere to turn ...

[C.Edwards]

No they don't.

Amaral says the McCanns drove Madeleine somewhere dead in the car and the facts disprove that.

No. They don't prove it, but they don't disprove it either. It's uncertain. You're trying to make it sound certain. That's... well, lying if we're frank.

Amaral says Madeleine died in the apartment and Mr Gordon's shaving cut is a (plausible) alternative explanation of the dog alert.

I've cut myself shaving dozens of times. Sometimes really quite badly.  I've never once had a single drop hit the floor.  Unless Mr. Gordon was using a cut-throat razor, he's unlikely to have had that happen.  It's "possible" (barely) but implausible.  Surely would have been provable by DNA comparison anyway.

Amaral says the Smiths saw Gerry and the final PJ report says Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant.  More than that, all Mr Smith's children disagree with their father that they saw Gerry.

They don't disagree. They're ambivalent about it: "Questioned, states that she would probably not be able to recognise the individual or the child" - Aofie Smith

Amaral has nowhere to turn ...

Why do you persist in stating the above things over and over as facts?  You've done this loads of times in the past on different forums and you've been corrected every time. Yet you persist in trotting out the same stuff over and over again. This is tantamount to propaganda and does not help matters.

[TTSOFAFM]

It is absolutely normal for the parents to be suspected.
It is then absolutely normal for the police to investigate them.
The Portuguese have investigated the parents and found no evidence whatsoever against them.
The UK Police have investigated them and declared that they are no longer persons of interest or suspects.

What is wholly abnormal is that these people are then targetted by online hounders and stalkers who cannot abide the thought that the police of two countries have found no evidence of any crime on which they can even be charged.

Spot on gilet.

[gilet]

Of course there's a presumption of innocence, but only in legal terms. They're nowhere near a court (current libel trial excepted of course) at the moment so there is no innocence or guilt to be decided anyway.  The questioning of their story is not an accusation of guilt, it's merely the equivalent of me (and others, of course) telling someone "I don't believe you" when told a story.  The thing with the McCanns is that they've told their story in a massively public fashion so there are lots of people that are well within their rights to say, "I don't believe you" in whatever form they choose - provided, of course, that they don't then move on to libellous territory.

My certainty they're not telling the truth is more than just guesswork... but they have been caught out with lies already (a lie, after all, is a deliberate falsification of the facts) and this has happened on many occasions some of which, I concede, could be attributed to simple mistakes under pressure or faulty memory but many of which cannot.  I'm not going to go trawling through the archives again to exemplify every single one as it's tedious to go around the track again on this and it's been well recorded already.

It could, of course, also be argued that your certainty (which I presume you have?) that they are telling the whole truth is also based on pure guesswork as there's no way that you could know for certain. You can presume innocence all you like, but you cannot know for sure at the present time.

It is precisely because they are so far from any court hearing/trial that presumption of innocence matters. Whether the McCanns have told their story far and wide is irrelevant. They are entitled to that presumption.

There is a massive difference between someone saying "I don't believe you!" or asking open questions about the case and someone, who by dint of his previously (till he was unceremoniously removed for his gross misconduct) been the lead detective on the case, decides to publish damming allegations about the McCanns. Amaral has in my view, moved on to libellous territory. He offers no proof of his allegations, merely speculation.

You claim to know of specific proven lies from the McCanns. There we must differ. I am aware of no deliberate falsehood having been proven by them. Till I see some, I will remain reluctant to believe that it does exist. There are many differences between witness statements for sure but such are to be expected in any case especially when statements are taken at times of extreme anxiety on the part of the witness which would have been the case with the McCanns just 12 or so hours after the disappearance of their eldest child for example.

As for your presumption that I am convinced of the truthfulness of the McCanns. I am only convinced in the sense that no-one has yet shown me any confirmed deliberate falsehood (lie) from them. Having never seen any such then I have no reason to believe such exists. Can you show me otherwise?

However, I have said frequently on this forum that I am not convinced of their innocence or guilt. I am entirely open-minded about what happened to Madeleine McCann. She may be dead or alive. There is no proof of what happened.

But I will not accuse anyone of a crime without evidence of them having been involved in that crime. That is where I take issue with a large number of anti McCanns. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that shows the McCanns were involved in the death or the cover up of a death of their daughter.

[Angelo222]

And from the archiving dispatch:

The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance,

This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.