What advantage was achieved by lying about the Huelva trip?

[sadie]

I am sure if you ask Slarti nicely he will explain it to you as he seems to be the only one who has ever cottoned on when I have posted that; it is a sort of intelligence test......................................

Hahaha

You are so funny .... NOT

[Robittybob1]

I always lie.

Then why did you tell us the truth paradoxically.

[Alfie]

You really have to make your mind up Alfie. Either the McCanns have absolutely no interest in what sceptics say, bigger fish to fry bladdy, bladdy blah or they hide things in case sceptics question their actions. Which one is it ?

I don"t have to do carry out orders from you, that's for sure!

[faithlilly]

I don"t have to do carry out orders from you, that's for sure!

It's not an order I'm merely requesting some consistency from you.

[Alfie]

It's not an order I'm merely requesting some consistency from you.

It was an order - you told me what I had to do, and demanded an answer.  Tell you what, I'll overlook your rudeness and give you an answer.  Do you agree that over the course of 10 years of being slagged off in the media and online that the McCanns may have grown a hardened carapace to criticism, and that back in the Summer of 2007 they may still have been deeply distressed and hurt by the speculation, which these days they can shrug off more easily, or do you disagree with this premise?  If you do disagree then that would explain why you see an inconsistency.  Anyone with any understanding would see it differently.

[sadie]

The keyword is "if".

The rest is speculation.

Likewise it is speculation that the truth was disclosed to the Mccanns.

It works both ways SIL


.... and judging by the way that on that day of the many questions, Amaral told Gerry untruth/s to try and make him confess, I have little faith that Amaral would hesitate to hide things from Gerry and Kate.   These were untruths implicating Gerry that he KNEW were not true.  At that stage Gerry must have finally totally understood that they were in great danger of being framed.
I cant remember what the untruth implicating Gerry was/were, but someone will remember


Personally, based on that, I think it likely that Amaral would take any advantage he could, if he felt he could nail them.

So what Brietta said seems far more likely than what you said

IMO

[faithlilly]

It was an order - you told me what I had to do, and demanded an answer.  Tell you what, I'll overlook your rudeness and give you an answer.  Do you agree that over the course of 10 years of being slagged off in the media and online that the McCanns may have grown a hardened carapace to criticism, and that back in the Summer of 2007 they may still have been deeply distressed and hurt by the speculation, which these days they can shrug off more easily, or do you disagree with this premise?  If you do disagree then that would explain why you see an inconsistency.  Anyone with any understanding would see it differently.

Not sure that asking you to make your mind up constitutes an order but hey who I'm I to quibble. As to your question I have no idea how the McCanns emotional development has faired over the years and neither do you but as they still seem to be taking newspapers to task over what they perceive as slights, it seems that carapace is still quite brittle.

[John]

Likewise it is speculation that the truth was disclosed to the Mccanns.

It works both ways SIL


.... and judging by the way that on that day of the many questions, Amaral told Gerry untruth/s to try and make him confess, I have little faith that Amaral would hesitate to hide things from Gerry and Kate.   These were untruths implicating Gerry that he KNEW were not true.  At that stage Gerry must have finally totally understood that they were in great danger of being framed.
I cant remember what the untruth implicating Gerry was/were, but someone will remember


Personally, based on that, I think it likely that Amaral would take any advantage he could, if he felt he could nail them.

So what Brietta said seems far more likely than what you said

IMO

It is a cops job to get to the truth Sadie regardless of who they might upset.  Kate's bitching about Ricardo Paiva when she realised they had been played was interesting.  Are doctors so naive?

[Mr Gray]

It is a cops job to get to the truth Sadie regardless of who they might upset.  Kate's bitching about Ricardo Paiva when she realised they had been played was interesting.  Are doctors so naive?

It works better when you have cops with enough brains to understand the evidence
We know from the archiving report what evidence they had and it was all BS

[Alfie]

Not sure that asking you to make your mind up constitutes an order but hey who I'm I to quibble. As to your question I have no idea how the McCanns emotional development has faired over the years and neither do you but as they still seem to be taking newspapers to task over what they perceive as slights, it seems that carapace is still quite brittle.

Here is your order again:

You really have to make your mind up Alfie. Either the McCanns have absolutely no interest in what sceptics say, bigger fish to fry bladdy, bladdy blah or they hide things in case sceptics question their actions. Which one is it ?

  You asked about the McCanns' interest in what sceptics have to say - I'd say these days it's probably virtually zero (and the fact that they have taken no action against any of the leading online sceptics would seem to bear this out).  In the early days speculation both in the media and online was almost certainly something they found very difficult to deal with.  I'm not sure which newspapers have been taken to task by the McCanns recently but why wouldn't they want newspapers to correct false media reports?   so to bring this back on topic, it's understandable on every level that they would not want have wanted to broadcast to the world that the police were sending the dogs in, the fact that you don't understand this is not my problem nor theirs. 

[faithlilly]

Here is your order again:
  You asked about the McCanns' interest in what sceptics have to say - I'd say these days it's probably virtually zero (and the fact that they have taken no action against any of the leading online sceptics would seem to bear this out).  In the early days speculation both in the media and online was almost certainly something they found very difficult to deal with.  I'm not sure which newspapers have been taken to task by the McCanns recently but why wouldn't they want newspapers to correct false media reports?   so to bring this back on topic, it's understandable on every level that they would not want have wanted to broadcast to the world that the police were sending the dogs in, the fact that you don't understand this is not my problem nor theirs.

Oh I do understand it Alfie. I wouldn't want the world and his wife to know I was under suspicion in the disappearance of my daughter. What I still don't understand though is that instead of saying nothing, and retaining their credibility, they had to lie about it and taint everything they have said afterwards.

[Alfie]

Oh I do understand it Alfie. I wouldn't want the world and his wife to know I was under suspicion in the disappearance of my daughter. What I still don't understand though is that instead of saying nothing, and retaining their credibility, they had to lie about it and taint everything they have said afterwards.

This has already been explained to you several times.  The fact that you don't accept the answer is your problem, I can't force you to see sense or understand so I'm not going to bother trying anymore, otherwise we just keep going round in ever decreasing circles.

[Alfie]

Oh I do understand it Alfie. I wouldn't want the world and his wife to know I was under suspicion in the disappearance of my daughter. What I still don't understand though is that instead of saying nothing, and retaining their credibility, they had to lie about it and taint everything they have said afterwards.

BTW,    you're so funny.  Had they not "lied" about the trip to Huelva then of course nothing they said subsequently would be "tainted"    Yeah right and I'm the pope.

[faithlilly]

This has already been explained to you several times.  The fact that you don't accept the answer is your problem, I can't force you to see sense or understand so I'm not going to bother trying anymore, otherwise we just keep going round in ever decreasing circles.

No you've excused it not explained it and when you, hopefully, see the difference Alfie then this debate can move forward.

[faithlilly]

BTW,    you're so funny.  Had they not "lied" about the trip to Huelva then of course nothing they said subsequently would be "tainted"    Yeah right and I'm the pope.

Haven't you got better things to do with your time your Eminence ?