Has support for Amaral and the Mccanns reached devotion by their supporters ?

[icabodcrane]

Because that would be neglectful homicide.

So you accept the Public Prosecutor's conclusion that accidental death,  as a consequence of negligence,  is a possibility  ?

...  and that  Amaral  might  be right  ?

[Aiofe]

I never said anyone relied on it. Put yourself in their shoes at the start of the investigation, there is no evidence of abduction other than a statement made by 1 person who had been with a group who were drinking.

so, you start to search and don't find anything.

You are scuppered - you have nothing to go on. Witness statements don't match and everyone is screaming for a resolution.

In these circumstances it is perfectly understandable why attention turned to the parents. Not even because you *think* they did it, but because you can justify your decision to your superiors.

It was the only option the PJ had at the time.

N

Except for abduction by strangers.

[Aiofe]

So you accept the Public Prosecutor's conclusion that accidental death,  as a consequence of negligence,  is a possibility  ?

...  and that  Amaral  might  be right  ?

I have never said otherwise as I have never passed any comment about definite conclusions. All possibilities are open. That does not mean that thgose that are defamatory may be stated as fact or even supposition.

[AnneGuedes]

It's no defamation to state that, as nobody saw the shutters and the window open, the only fact is the McCanns said they found them open.
It's no defamation to state that many UK newspapers cited familiars of the McCanns who had been called and told by them that the shutters and the window had been broken.
It's no defamation to state that Mr McCann changed his first statement.
It's no defamation to state that the cadaver dog reacted only in the flat from which Madeleine disappeared.
It's no defamation to state that Mrs McCann, advised by her lawyer, refused to answer 48 questions but was aware that her refusal hampered the search for her daughter.
It's no defamation to state that the McCanns didn't ask their companions to accept the reconstruction requested by the MP.
Etc.
It could be eventually defamatory to collect all those true facts and build on them a theory which would damage the McCann family's life. However the intention of nuisance should be demonstrated.
But it isn't defamation to provide elements for those who haven't read the files and wish to think by themselves instead of being imposed ignorance by the McCann's unsupported claim.

[Wonderfulspam]

It's no defamation to state that, as nobody saw the shutters and the window open, the only fact is the McCanns said they found them open.
It's no defamation to state that many UK newspapers cited familiars of the McCanns who had been called and told by them that the shutters and the window had been broken.
It's no defamation to state that Mr McCann changed his first statement.
It's no defamation to state that the cadaver dog reacted only in the flat from which Madeleine disappeared.
It's no defamation to state that Mrs McCann, advised by her lawyer, refused to answer 48 questions but was aware that her refusal hampered the search for her daughter.
It's no defamation to state that the McCanns didn't ask their companions to accept the reconstruction requested by the MP.
Etc.
It could be eventually defamatory to collect all those true facts and build on them a theory which would damage the McCann family's life. However the intention of nuisance should be demonstrated.
But it isn't defamation to provide elements for those who haven't read the files and wish to think by themselves instead of being imposed ignorance by the McCann's unsupported claim.

"This decision was a victory for democracy. What was at issue was freedom of speech,"

"From that couple, I already expect everything. Nonetheless, if in fact they are looking for their daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her"

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id347.html

[Luz]

"This decision was a victory for democracy. What was at issue was freedom of speech,"

"From that couple, I already expect everything. Nonetheless, if in fact they are looking for their daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her"

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id347.html

ditto

 

[Aiofe]

It's no defamation to state that, as nobody saw the shutters and the window open, the only fact is the McCanns said they found them open.
It's no defamation to state that many UK newspapers cited familiars of the McCanns who had been called and told by them that the shutters and the window had been broken.
It's no defamation to state that Mr McCann changed his first statement.
It's no defamation to state that the cadaver dog reacted only in the flat from which Madeleine disappeared.
It's no defamation to state that Mrs McCann, advised by her lawyer, refused to answer 48 questions but was aware that her refusal hampered the search for her daughter.
It's no defamation to state that the McCanns didn't ask their companions to accept the reconstruction requested by the MP.
Etc.
It could be eventually defamatory to collect all those true facts and build on them a theory which would damage the McCann family's life. However the intention of nuisance should be demonstrated.
But it isn't defamation to provide elements for those who haven't read the files and wish to think by themselves instead of being imposed ignorance by the McCann's unsupported claim.

Agreed. But many go further.

[Lace]

What do you mean by 'devotion'   Stephen,   what have you read on face book to make you think people are devoted to either Amaral or the McCann's?

[Aiofe]

What do you mean by 'devotion'   Stephen,   what have you read on face book to make you think people are devoted to either Amaral or the McCann's?

Why bother - he will not answer basic questions about his own feelings on the matter.

[stephen25000]

What do you mean by 'devotion'   Stephen,   what have you read on face book to make you think people are devoted to either Amaral or the McCann's?

I suggest you spend a little time reading the comments on the 'official' Madeleine facebook page, or from the alternative from a certain Tony Bennett.

[stephen25000]

Why bother - he will not answer basic questions about his own feelings on the matter.

What I choose to answer is up to me.

The conclusions you  make are a product of your bias and ego, as they always have been.

[Aiofe]

What I choose to answer is up to me.

The conclusions you  make are a product of your bias and ego, as they always have been.

Ducking valid questions again- questions he posed to others but refuses to answer himself.

He is obviously a hypocrite- different rules for him and his opponents.

[stephen25000]

Ducking valid questions again- questions he posed to others but refuses to answer himself.

He is obviously a hypocrite- different rules for him and his opponents.

How pathetic.

The thread is about those who idolize the mccanns or amaral.

For you this site is an ego trip on which you try to impose your views.

I certainly don't idolize the amaral or the mccanns.

Amaral trued to do his job in solving the case.

He made some mistakes, though nothing in the league of what the mccanns did.

However, you called the mccanns an honourable couple. On what basis did you make this judgement ?

[Aiofe]

How pathetic.

The thread is about those who idolize the mccanns or amaral.

For you this site is an ego trip on which you try to impose your views.

I certainly don't idolize the amaral or the mccanns.

Amaral trued to do his job in solving the case.

He made some mistakes, though nothing in the league of what the mccanns did.

However, you called the mccanns an honourable couple. On what basis did you make this judgement ?

I will respond after you respond to my previous questions which you are ignoring.

[stephen25000]

I will respond after you respond to my previous questions which you are ignoring.

Therein lies the problem.

Others must reply to YOUR questions.