According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[Mr Gray]

As translation errors are usually your forte I thought it would be appropriate to use it here.

you are really striggling now to defend the indefensible...this translation is also verbatim

[barrier]

26.34 – The dogs’ investigation continues. They inspect several vehicles, and they only alert to the car that was hired by the McCanns 23 days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Eddie alerts that the car key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body.

eddie never alerted in the boot.....and grime did not say eddie alerted to a dead body re the car....amarals claims are absolute rubbish

I could understand your angst if it had resulted in a conviction and you thought it had been a miscarriage of justice but seeing as it didn't why so worked up about nothing?

[Mr Gray]

I could understand your angst if it had resulted in a conviction and you thought it had been a miscarriage of justice but seeing as it didn't why so worked up about nothing?

I'm not worked up about anything.. Rather a silly comment
It's a discussion forum... We discuss things here

[G-Unit]

I agree... Quite possibly by an abductor... Therefore evidence but not proof

So in answer to the questions who, when and why, your answer is that it might have been an abductor. My answer to you is it might not have been an abductor. Therefore it isn't evidence that it was an abductor. The only forensic evidence found belonged to Kate McCann.

[slartibartfast]

I'm not worked up about anything.. Rather a silly comment
It's a discussion forum... We discuss things here

As usual we have been dragged off topic. Amaral vs the McCann is finished. This topic is about circumstantial evidence of abduction. Any mor off topic posts will be removed.

[Mr Gray]

As usual we have been dragged off topic. Amaral vs the McCann is finished. This topic is about circumstantial evidence of abduction. Any mor off topic posts will be removed.

I can always, start a new thread.... This is not about amaral v the mccanns... It's about amarals understanding of the evidence and I believe it was Angelo who originally  took the thread off topic

[Brietta]

What IS the original Portuguese?

By the way, for those statements that were taken in Portuguese we have the original Portuguese.

None of those statements made in Portuguese were electronically recorded though.  Nor were they verbatim ... they were paraphrased, missing out the filler uhms and ahhs naturally used in a highly charged situation.  Nor is there a record of questions asked to elicit responses made.

Those of us who are not Portuguese or Portuguese speakers are reliant on amateur translations from Portuguese into English done in haste.

[slartibartfast]

I can always, start a new thread.... This is not about amaral v the mccanns... It's about amarals understanding of the evidence and I believe it was Angelo who originally  took the thread off topic

It has no relevance to circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[Mr Gray]

None of those statements made in Portuguese were electronically recorded though.  Nor were they verbatim ... they were paraphrased, missing out the filler uhms and ahhs naturally used in a highly charged situation.  Nor is there a record of questions asked to elicit responses made.

Those of us who are not Portuguese or Portuguese speakers are reliant on amateur translations from Portuguese into English done in haste.

Even worse in the case of some of the most important statements, relating to the alleged abduction we do not have the original English statements to check

[ShiningInLuz]

None of those statements made in Portuguese were electronically recorded though.  Nor were they verbatim ... they were paraphrased, missing out the filler uhms and ahhs naturally used in a highly charged situation.  Nor is there a record of questions asked to elicit responses made.

Those of us who are not Portuguese or Portuguese speakers are reliant on amateur translations from Portuguese into English done in haste.

That's why I was asking Davel for the original Portuguese.

If we agreed on that then we could move on to establish whether the translation is accurate.

Thus far, Davel has not produced the original Portuguese. 

[barrier]

Davel never offered any proof even after two people questioned him on this point. Let's see if we can elicit a response here.

So far as I can see an open window is this alleged proof.

[Mr Gray]

That's why I was asking Davel for the original Portuguese.

If we agreed on that then we could move on to establish whether the translation is accurate.

Thus far, Davel has not produced the original Portuguese. 

The translation I have provided comes from the morais site...someone you rate highly so its strange you now question it.... can probably find the original portuguese..

getting back to evidence of abduction...you have minutely examined and criticised the mccann statements and never once questioned their accuracy even though they are twice translated...non verbatim and we do not have the original english to check...that is rank hypocricy

[Mr Gray]

That's why I was asking Davel for the original Portuguese.

If we agreed on that then we could move on to establish whether the translation is accurate.

Thus far, Davel has not produced the original Portuguese. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g...original portuguese

[Brietta]

Even worse in the case of some of the most important statements, relating to the abduction we do not have the original English statements to check

It is interesting that analysis of what evidence was available that both investigations independently arrived at the conclusion there was more to be had from the many witnesses who had not been interviewed.

It must have been quite a task tracking them all down and it must have been quite a task for potential witnesses to recall exactly what they had been doing at the time after the passage of years.
If reports are to be believed about the numbers involved in my opinion we are familiar only with evidence which is actually the tip of the iceberg.
The authorities have uncovered more arising from their reviews and subsequent interviews which have stretched the active inquiry over the years from the reopening of the investigation into Madeleine's case in 2013 to being able to justify funding now into 2018.

Therefore to be stuck in a time warp of evidence used against the McCanns in 2007 to the exclusion of consideration of the myriad of evidence available in 2007 but ignored until reviews years later ... ignores the potential to have overlooked available evidence of abduction.

I think the repercussions of that as far as Madeleine is concerned are quite staggering ... therefore I can see why there are those who have campaigned against funding for the investigation and why there is such denial that Madeleine may have been the victim of stranger abduction.
What I don't understand is why they think the embarrassment of their eleven year campaign against Madeleine's parents outweighs the new evidence not in the public domain being followed by the PJ and SY.

[ShiningInLuz]

The translation I have provided comes from the morais site...someone you rate highly so its strange you now question it.... can probably find the original portuguese..

getting back to evidence of abduction...you have minutely examined and criticised the mccann statements and never once questioned their accuracy even though they are twice translated...non verbatim and we do not have the original english to check...that is rank hypocricy

Cobblers.  Utter tosh.

The only thing one can do with the McCann statements is check whether the Portuguese record matches the English translation.

Now, returning to Amaral, are you going to provide the original Portuguese?

Or are you going to stick with deflecting?