Harmed or not harmed ...that is the question

[Benice]

Madeleine was searched for extensively well before the book came out.

There was and remains no trace of her.

The book was one man's view, but shared by others.


On the basis that Madeleine had been searched for already, it was a ludicrous assertion for the McCann's to say the book hindered the search, especially as they hadn't done it themselves, except for the brief 'search' the morning after she disappeared.

It's not clear from your post whether or not you are still claiming that it was proved in court that the book did not harm the search or Madeleine.    That is what you were claiming isn't it?    Could you please clarify. 

[G-Unit]

No she didn't.

It was not possible to prove whether or not the book harmed the search - because there was no way of knowing what every person out of the thousands who read the book believed as a result of reading it.   So it could not be proved either way.

Therefore it was unproven - and that is a million miles away from your claim that it was proved in court that the book did no damage to the search or the twins.

In which case it's merely a matter of opinion. The McCanns said the book harmed the search and it was part of their list of complaints against Amaral. They're entitled to their opinion even if there's no evidence to support it.

The question for me is whether it's acceptable to suggest that the payout the judge ordered had anything to do with 'the harm to the search'. We know that the payout was to compensate the two of them for the damage to their reputations, but we didn't learn that from the McCanns or the media.

[Benice]

In which case it's merely a matter of opinion. The McCanns said the book harmed the search and it was part of their list of complaints against Amaral. They're entitled to their opinion even if there's no evidence to support it.

The question for me is whether it's acceptable to suggest that the payout the judge ordered had anything to do with 'the harm to the search'. We know that the payout was to compensate the two of them for the damage to their reputations, but we didn't learn that from the McCanns or the media.

Personally - I've never thought that the payout was anything to do with 'harm to the search' as that was not proved in court.

IMO the only concern the McCanns had regarding 'money' is that they did not want Amaral to profit by one penny from his book.   I would feel exactly the same in their position.

 


 

[stephen25000]

Personally - I've never thought that the payout was anything to do with 'harm to the search' as that was not proved in court.

IMO the only concern the McCanns had regarding 'money' is that they did not want Amaral to profit by one penny from his book.   I would feel exactly the same in their position.

 

Yet the mccanns have made money.

Now where has the money gone , for example,  from the serialization rights of kate mccanns book in the Sun ?

Have they by the way complained about Summers and Swan making money from Madeleine ?

[slartibartfast]

No she didn't.

It was not possible to prove whether or not the book harmed the search - because there was no way of knowing what every person out of the thousands who read the book believed as a result of reading it.   So it could not be proved either way.

Therefore it was unproven - and that is a million miles away from your claim that it was proved in court that the book did no damage to the search or the twins.

It was not proved that the book harmed the search, therefore according to received wisdom is didn't (innocent).

[pathfinder73]

It's not clear from your post whether or not you are still claiming that it was proved in court that the book did not harm the search or Madeleine.    That is what you were claiming isn't it?    Could you please clarify.

The McCanns first sent in a body finder a year before Amaral's book was released to try and find her which was prior to the dogs. Everyone knows she could be deceased but that doesn't stop the public from reporting sightings. They don't think, "I'm certain that's Maddy but it can't be because Almighty God Amaral said she's dead." People can think for themselves hopefully 

[Brietta]

The McCanns first sent in a body finder a year before Amaral's book was released to try and find her which was prior to the dogs. Everyone knows she could be deceased but that doesn't stop the public from reporting sightings. They don't think, "I'm certain that's Maddy but it can't be because Almighty God Amaral said she's dead." People can think for themselves hopefully 

Do you have a cite for the sentence in quotation marks PF?

[pathfinder73]

Do you have a cite for the sentence in quotation marks PF?

Is that a joke? What's that got to do with anything. People can think for themselves. Hopefully they aren't sheep.

[Brietta]

Is that a joke? What's that got to do with anything. People can think for themselves. Hopefully they aren't sheep.

No, it isn't a joke ... some might consider it disrespectful to Mr Amaral, some might consider it disrespectful to God.  If it is not a direct quote from someone it might be worth considering rephrasing it.

[pegasus]

Is that a joke? What's that got to do with anything. People can think for themselves. Hopefully they aren't sheep.

Mr Amaral's book did not harm the search at all - the Find Madeleine phone line in 2009/10 received many hundreds of calls with potentially important information
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html

[pegasus]

Personally - I've never thought that the payout was anything to do with 'harm to the search' as that was not proved in court.

IMO the only concern the McCanns had regarding 'money' is that they did not want Amaral to profit by one penny from his book.   I would feel exactly the same in their position.

 

And in their position, would you have wanted him to win the Olhao election?

[Brietta]

Mr Amaral's book did not harm the search at all - the Find Madeleine phone line in 2009/10 received many hundreds of calls with potentially important information
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html

There is little doubt of the potential for harm embodied in the neglect and misappropriation associated with this firm. 

All the more surprising therefore that at a later date the Sunday Times investigative team took the word of associates without it seems proper scrutiny which deflected somewhat from the reopening of the investigation of Madeleine's case while costing their newspaper a considerable sum in damages.

**Snip
Halligen and Oakley International, based in Washington, failed to listen to a single call received on the hotline set up for potential informants by Kate and Gerry McCann last year.

Johan Selle, the director of operations at iJet, the US firm that managed the Find Madeleine phone line, revealed that for a year nobody even asked his company if they could listen to any of the calls received.

Mr Selle said his operators, in Annapolis, Virginia, had answered 'hundreds of calls', but the information seemed wasted - possibly squandering valuable leads.

He said: 'We delivered Oakley a report with a summary of the calls and said if they wanted to come back they could listen to the recording, but nobody did.

'For someone with an understanding of the case it would be very easy for some to say that maybe 80 or 90 per cent of the calls were hogwash, but there may be a percentage where one would say maybe we should listen to this one or listen to that one. But our understanding is that this never took place.

'We are not sure whether Halligen provided our report to the family or to the trust or to those working with them or to the teams working after him, because no one came back to us.

'We sent the report to Oakley group and our assumption was that they were using it as a piece in the puzzle. But it appears that wasn't the case.'

The firm says it was not paid for it services by Halligen or Oakley International.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html#ixzz44Hrc60O0

[pegasus]

Can we have some examples of cases in which the person was not harmed "in any way whatsoever"?
And is it acceptable for someone with no counselling qualifications to propose it as a realistic outcome?

[G-Unit]

There is little doubt of the potential for harm embodied in the neglect and misappropriation associated with this firm. 

All the more surprising therefore that at a later date the Sunday Times investigative team took the word of associates without it seems proper scrutiny which deflected somewhat from the reopening of the investigation of Madeleine's case while costing their newspaper a considerable sum in damages.

**Snip
Halligen and Oakley International, based in Washington, failed to listen to a single call received on the hotline set up for potential informants by Kate and Gerry McCann last year.

Johan Selle, the director of operations at iJet, the US firm that managed the Find Madeleine phone line, revealed that for a year nobody even asked his company if they could listen to any of the calls received.

Mr Selle said his operators, in Annapolis, Virginia, had answered 'hundreds of calls', but the information seemed wasted - possibly squandering valuable leads.

He said: 'We delivered Oakley a report with a summary of the calls and said if they wanted to come back they could listen to the recording, but nobody did.

'For someone with an understanding of the case it would be very easy for some to say that maybe 80 or 90 per cent of the calls were hogwash, but there may be a percentage where one would say maybe we should listen to this one or listen to that one. But our understanding is that this never took place.

'We are not sure whether Halligen provided our report to the family or to the trust or to those working with them or to the teams working after him, because no one came back to us.

'We sent the report to Oakley group and our assumption was that they were using it as a piece in the puzzle. But it appears that wasn't the case.'

The firm says it was not paid for it services by Halligen or Oakley International.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html#ixzz44Hrc60O0

The majority of the Sunday Times story went unchallenged of course.

[John]

the judge was quite clera...she said it had not been proved that the book harmed the search...not that it did not harm the search.
Thats the last post from me until something worth discussing happens.

I have always said that Amaral's book, far from hampering the search, actually brought the case of missing Madeleine McCann to the attention of many more people in Portuguese and French speaking regions of the world, areas which would have otherwise never have heard of the case.  In my opinion the thesis within the book had little or no impact on any search for Madeleine, the parents behaviour towards the Portuguese investigation having managed that on their own.

I find it very hard to believe that Madeleine has come to no harm in the circumstances.