UPDATE - 09-09-17
McCanns - The Gloves are Off
I have for the past few months gone easy on the McCanns, because, well, I felt sorry for them. Pretty much everything they ever planned has gone belly up, nothing more so than their failure to be awarded £1.25m compensation from the former detective who searched for their daughter. Today's announcement that they have filed an appeal with the ECHR changes the dynamic, my sympathy, I now see was misguided, the gloves are off.
Sun reporter Nick Pisa, describes Goncalo Amaral in his sensational headline as 'shameless ex police chief'. Shameless Nick? Shameless for doing his job, searching for the missing child? Shameless for defending his name and reputation? Shameless for refusing to give Gerry and Kate all the earnings from his book, the proceeds of the forced sale of his family home and all his future earnings? Ten years down the line, the officers of Operation Grange may find themselves in a similar position, should they say the child is dead 'without evidence'. Would they too be shameless if they failed to pay extortionate sums demanded by the parents for their 'pain and suffering'? British libel laws are far more stringent, as the McCann supporters keep pointing out. In Lisbon they only asked for £250k each (and they are 5, as Isabel Duarte pointed out), Goncalo only had to find £1.25m to get them off his back.
I think it is shameless that reporter Nick Pisa should write such a nasty vindictive piece about a former detective without doing any research, or worse, deliberately and cruelly smearing an innocent man as part of a murky agenda or filthy lucre.
But what curdled the milk in my cornflakes, was the McCanns' stomach churning order of priorities. They are parents of a child who is missing, and who they believe is still alive, and the Scotland Yard search they pleaded for, is coming to an end. Turn the clock back a couple of years and imagine the police saying to Kerry Needham* 'we're giving up on the search for Ben', and her replying, 'oh, that's OK, I'm busy suing a Greek detective anyway'.
This renewed attack on Goncalo Amaral isn't good for anybody. The McCanns know they haven't got a hope in hell of a victory in Europe, and neither do they have the funds for such an expensive waste of time. Or do they? Have they had an injection of cash fro an interested party? I'm just throwing that in there, I don't think they have. Nor is it to put off that massive, still as yet undisclosed, legal bill in Portugal? From what I have read, an appeal to the ECHR, doesn't put off payments owed by a Supreme Court ruling. Ergo, they still have to pay that bill now anyway. (If any legal eagles know different, please let me know).
This is spite, there is no other way to dress it up, and it should send a chill through everyone who still believes the McCanns' priority is their missing daughter. All the grounds for their original claim are now moot, they have been overtaken by events and revelations. It is clear no officers in Operation Grange believe Madeleine is alive - they are on a watching brief, not out looking. Are they going to sue each of them?
Right now my sympathy is with Goncalo Amaral, will they ever leave him in peace? Having the McCanns on your back must be like stalker Bennett times ten. Placing a personal vendetta above the fate of your child is f*cked up, whatever way you look at it. The McCanns accept, without protest, the closing of the Scotland Yard investigation, their only real hope of finding their daughter, yet they are prepared to embark on another bitter legal battle.
My sympathy also lies with the family of Goncalo Amaral, because these announcements are usually accompanied by a nasty smear campaign, as we today with the shameless Nick Pisa in the Sun. My sympathies are also with the McCann clan, the young ones and the non complicit, at least. Living with 'legal proceedings' is hell on earth, it turned me into a morose, babbling, semi alcoholic, my family won't speak of it. Quite rightly, [shudders at memory].
Proving a point really isn't all that. And there is nothing worse than living with someone with a self righteous point to make. It eats them alive, it eats you alive, and it dominates everyone's lives in ways you can't even see until you come out at the other end - if you do. I am trying to describe what a destructive, emotional minefield, the McCanns have opted to take their family through. Again.
_______________________________________
I'm always astounded, and more than a little impressed, at the way in which Gerry and Kate, or the collective brains of Team McCann, can make bad news sound like good news. How can anyone, in their right mind, be grateful for having their agony extended?
One of the articles I read regarding Scotland Yard's latest request for funding states they need just enough to keep three or four detectives on a watching brief. How can that possibly be a satisfactory answer for parents of a missing child? Gerry and Kate believe their daughter is alive and findable, and have already said they will continue their 'Search' when Operation Grange ends. That's a pretty defeatist attitude and it's an assumption that OG will end without their daughter or her abductor being found.
I'm not entirely sure of the source for 'watching brief', but to me it doesn't suggest anything pro-active. It suggests 3 or 4 detectives waiting for something - a direction from a higher power maybe, and that higher power is the Portuguese Judiciary who will ultimately be responsible for prosecuting or not prosecuting. Why keep 3 or 4 detectives on watching brief, if the crime or crimes do not involve British citizens?
Scotland Yard have been working with their Portuguese counterparts for a year it seems, doing what, who knows. If the case were international there are agencies for that, and there are no signs that the investigation has ever gone out of PDL.
I think you would now have to be as blind as a bat, to believe Operation Grange are looking for a Portuguese abductor from 2000 miles away. The idea that they are constantly finding new leads 10 years on, is equally absurd, it makes the investigation sound haphazard and unfocussed, how did they miss them at the beginning?
The McCann camp bizarrely, take the further extension as proof that the Police do not agree with Goncalo Amaral's theory. I'm not sure how they reached that conclusion, but if that's the thinking we are going with, they haven't proved an abduction either.
I suspect the end is in sight. Politically, it is madness to keep a small group of detectives on a watching brief - there are plenty of real time crimes they could be dealing with. Awaiting technical results could mean anything, from the technicalities of arresting over a 100 people, to the latest techniques for extracting DNA. If this is the far reaching crime that many of us believe it to be, then the logistics of how it will end, must be proving a nightmare.
Using an anecdote to explain, I once worked (as a temp) for a dodgy firm of solicitors in offices just off the Strand, WC2, and I wasn't really surprised when the office was raided by the police, while simultaneous raids were taking place in their offices all over the world. All the offices were raided at the same time so they couldn't tip each other off.
I would say this is a technique used by police the world over in cases where there are multiple defendants and of course this case becomes more complicated because there are two nations involved, two teams of detectivs who have been working together for a year. This watching brief suggests a tiger waiting to pounce, I suspect the real perpetrators must be very worried indeed.
*Apologies to Kerry, I have used her as an example, because I have never doubted her.
https://t.co/YKLwSo6ZXA Justice forum has news from Greece of all places. Some tourist who was in PDL at the time has spoken to Op Grange, apparently. This case gets weirder for every passing day.
ReplyDelete''How can anyone, in their right mind, be grateful for having their agony extended? ''
ReplyDeleteHave you considered that they possibly see that 'agony' as hope ? Maybe they think that as long as things remain open and as an abduction that maybe they can hold on to the hope of their child being out there somewhere .
''I'm not entirely sure of the source for 'watching brief', but to me it doesn't suggest anything pro-active.''
I agree. It's a strange phrase to use. Watching is a passive pastime, not active. What could they do that's pro-active ? They have nowhere to look and no leads. They never have had. They won't turn up now unless the daily mail need to boost sales.
It's been a show for ten years. They're just buying time now IMO while they agree on what would be a believable final act.
I was watching one of the true crime programmes made in the USA a week or two ago on Freeview, and the forensic laboratory person said that their techniques are always evolving and in the future they would be able to tell the persons gender, colour of hair, and other details from one drop of blood. When the programme ended and the credits were rolling I saw it was 10 years old, so things never stand still when it comes to forensics. It's truly amazing what scientists can do.
ReplyDeleteI suppose we are all waiting to see the next REAL move from the MET - whether they ask for extra funding, or not, or indeed if they do and it's turned down. Now that puts the cat amongst the pigeons.
ReplyDeleteOK go with the flow, they are not asking for most dosh, but playing a the ''watching'' game.
Aren't all UNSOLVED crimes the watching game?
There's only one method of crime solving here, it's called the LUCKY BREAK.
Think about it, Wests - a lucky break, chance overheard remark from one of the daughters. Jessica and Holly a chance opportunity that someone saw them in an un-usually dry brook. Sharon Mathrews, someone heard movement in the flat above, that should have been quiet. AND SO ON.
These crimes were not solved by going through piles of files from so many sources, that it's taken six years to collate.
If, after all the funding and time, any police force explains that they're waiting for a 'lucky break' to justify a request for yet more funding, they're lucky to be getting a salary in the first place. What and where are they supposed to be 'watching' ? That's unacceptable as an answer ( ''we'e watching, gov'').
ReplyDeleteAs for the strides made in forensic science, we don't need true crime documentaries from the US, the UK pioneered most of it and lead the field in terms of DNA. The DNA and blood may only be microscopic, but in forensics that's enough. There's enough there already, if it isn't concrete enough now it won't be any time soon. If they've lied about it all, which seems to be what most members of the viewing public suspect, they can't go back on it. What's needed is foe the army of suspicious observers to stop petitioning for more trouble for the parents for a while and petition the met, and Mark grime , to produce a definitive explanation of it all in laymen's terms so people can move on . Why aren't they getting any grief if it was them who officially stated that the forensics and dogs were to be shelved as not good enough ?
VT
"This watching brief suggests a tiger waiting to pounce, I suspect the real perpetrators must be very worried indeed."
ReplyDeleteAs we all know that you believe amaral's theory/hypothesis then we all know who you are talking about - so why don't you name those who you believe 2 Police forces are waiting to pounce on?
Or does it sound more dramatic to be coy and suggest you know more than anyone else, nudge nudge wink wink.
I hope if a tiger ever pounces on me that it takes ten years
DeleteGreat to see that Ros now believes every word that Brunt says.
ReplyDelete"I think you would now have to be as blind as a bat, to believe Operation Grange are looking for a Portuguese abductor from 2000 miles away."
ReplyDeleteWhat?
( welcome to internet geography)
DeleteAnon 19.58
ReplyDeleteThe programme I was referring to was one where they had the blood but no body, so DNA (as has been used for many years as you mention) would be no use if there is no body, but the blood can be matched to whoever was missing from the house i.e. the gender, the colour of their hair, the eye colouring etc. so it would obviously link to the person who was missing.
"What's needed is foe (for) the army of suspicious observers to stop petitioning for more trouble for the parents for a while and petition the met, and Mark grime".
If it wasn't for the parents we wouldn't be here now, their selfish actions have led to all this, £11+ million being spent by SY, Madeleine has disappeared, due to her parents.
We will all move on when SY and the PJ have concluded their investigations. Why would anyone want to petition the Met and Mark Grime, they did/are doing their jobs, when was it even stated that the forensics and dogs were to be shelved as not good enough?
Why are you making things up, are the dogs so worrying that you have to blank them out and dismiss them at every term. What use would dogs be in the future if every crime investigation was to dismiss the dogs on a whim because the parents of a missing child didn't like what was found?
I'm not making things up. It was the forensics team that blanked them out-were they 'worried' ? This is exactly why I think an explanation in laymen's terms would be a good idea. Most of the internet sniffer dogs have no background in forensics and insist that the findings are incriminating .But they haven't incriminated anyone. The public suspect but OG,PJ,SY don't. The parents leaving the children alone led to danger. And we know what happened after that. They shouldn't have done it, it's that simple. But it doesn't mean that there's proof of foul play or an accident. The abduction scenario needs to be disproved using evidence. If they have it they should use it.
DeleteVT
Ros wrote: "I'm always astounded, and more than a little impressed, at the way in which Gerry and Kate, or the collective brains of Team McCann, can make bad news sound like good news. How can anyone, in their right mind, be grateful for having their agony extended?"
ReplyDeleteThis an excellent point.
Moreover, they have been saying this robotically for 10 years now. They had 'new hope' when:
* Metodo 3 were appointed
* When Amaral was sacked
* When a Moroccan woman was seen carrying a white child
* When Kevin Halligen was appointed
* Whenever there was a 'credible' sighting
" When the Arade Dam was searched for Madeleine's bones
* When Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley were appointed
* When a bloke said he was asked on Barcelona docks if he had 'a new daughter' for a 'Victoria Beckham lookalike'
* When Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson saw them
* When Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May saw them
* When Kate's book was published
* When Jaycee Lee Dugard was found alive
* When the OG Review was set up and David Cameron said: "It is to help the family"
* When the artist's sketch of Madeleine aged 9 was drawn up
* When the PJ announced their own re-investigation
* When BBC Crimewatch announced that Smithman was the abductor
* When OG officers with pick-axes dug into some waste ground in Praia da Luz looking for bones
* When DCI Redwood told us his team had studied 25,000 documents, examined 11,000 mobile 'phone records, had taken 250 statements and identified 200 suspects (sorry if I've not get the exact figures right)
* Every time OG got more funds.
Their so-called 'hope' rings very hollow 10 years on
They lost a child.
DeleteAnon 22.09
Delete"They lost a child".
What do you mean by lost? There are many variations, lost as put her somewhere and can't remember where, lost as in dead, lost as in abducted, lost as in wandering out of the apartment, although KM said Madeleine would never do that, however she also said to Jane Tanner (?), about leaving the patio doors open so that Madeleine could come and find them at the Tapas Bar.
Which one would you choose?
I believe the official line is 'abducted'
DeleteAnonymous 9 September 2017 at 20:05
DeleteThe question was “Which one would you choose?”
And your answer/rational belief is?
T
none of the above
Delete"two teams of detectivs who have been working together for a year."
ReplyDeleteWow a whole year - you are so observant Ros.
"The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled FLOOR area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the FLOOR behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood."
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain to me why Keela - (the blood dog that can detect specks of blood so small that even a lab can't identify them) missed the copious amounts of BLOOD splatter on the wall that has been referred to so many times on this blog?
Remember she did inspect 5A twice.
If you believe blogs, the apartment was filled with the stench of death, bleach from cleaning up and their was blood spattered all over the place. Makes you wonder why they needed microscopes and specialist dogs. They should have just took photographs and posted them online.
DeleteAnon 06.41
Delete"They should have just took photographs and posted them online".
They did and they have been posted on line -
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm
That's not blood. It's blue tac. It's blue tac splatter. The point of that picture is to indicate the floor not the wall.
DeleteAnon 15.41
DeleteDid you only look at the first photo, were you too frightened to go through the forensic details and look at all the other photos, including the forensics of the blood under the floor tiles. Was it too much for you to comprehend.
Were you there in apartment when the photos were taken, how did you come to the conclusion that they were blue tac splatter, please enlighten us. Is that what you've been told to say.
Don't forget it was the UK police who brought in the cadaver and blood dogs, Eddie & Keela, not the Portuguese Police. So are you saying that SY are in collaboration with the PJ and that there was no blood splatter up the walls, behind the sofa and under the floor tiles?
''Did you only look at the first photo, were you too frightened to go through the forensic details and look at all the other photos, including the forensics of the blood under the floor tiles. Was it too much for you to comprehend.''
DeleteI believe you accidentally posted this to me instead of Scotland yard.
'' Is that what you've been told to say.''
Who are you repeating ?
Why didn't Keela alert to the blood splattered wall?
Delete9th September 2017
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4425917/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-goncarlo-amaral/
"Last night the European Court of Human Rights confirmed an appeal had been lodged and officials were investigating its "admissibility’’ before deciding what to do next.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told The Sun: "I can confirm that Kate and Gerry have lodged an appeal application at the European Court of Human Rights and the application is being considered.
"As such they will not be making any comment until a decision has been made. The case is being handled by their legal team in Portugal.
Insiders said it could take almost four years before a decision on whether to proceed in the case is made."
Article 10 will reverse things against Portugal's decision. Still doesn't do a thing with regards to solving the crime. It's just more book arguments.
DeleteI don't know who they are trying to convince with their Article 10 baloney 15:39, but a snowball would have more chance in hell. Even if they won, highly unlikely, the only thing it would prove is what terrible people they are. If they really want to know why people don't like them, it's decisions like these!
Deleteanon @ 15:39.
DeleteThe court at ECHR doesn't act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.
Have a look in here.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
Many thanks for that 16:21, that's very helpful. It doesn't fix their current financial crisis. An appeal to the ECHR won't buy them time and I wonder if an Appeal can begin if the legal bills from the Supreme Court decision haven't been settled?
DeleteWhy are you so fixated with auditing the McCanns ? The case is a missing child.
DeleteHey, 21:43, your question could equally read : 'Why are you so fixated with 'hounding Mr Amaral?' The case is a missing child.
DeleteTo Mr & Mrs McCann Rothley, Leicestershire.
@00:23
DeleteThe McCanns private finances aren't important in the case of a missing child. Amaral writing a book as the former co-ordinator of the investigation asserting that the parents are liars and know what happened to their daughter and lied is . So hounding him is easier to accept.He has more enemies in political circles than a mere two parents. The politicians had him removed according to him.
The McCanns have made their finances, private or otherwise, important in this case 16:51.
DeleteThousands, probably millions, donated to Madeleine's Fund because they thought their cash would be used to search for the little girl. The McCanns promised transparency, but nobody knows how much was raised or how much was spent on the search.
The watching world has seen little searching from the McCanns, neither in those first early days, or since. The child went missing in PDL, that's where the searches were needed then and where the searches have been needed since.
Many are asking, not unreasonably, whether the McCanns have used the massive amounts raised to protect themselves by hiring expensive lawyers and suing anyone who doesn't believe the abduction story.
Events have long since overtaken Goncalo Amaral's book 16:51. It could be said Scotland Yard agreed with GA, they were looking for a body. The argument that the public would stop looking for Madeleine if they believed she was dead, is now moot - unless of course, the McCanns are going to sue SY too.
As Gerry and Kate should have discovered by now, the character of Goncalo Amaral makes no difference whatsoever. The facts remain, the police files speak for themselves.
GA is in fact, the least of their worries, but in their madness, he remains their main enemy, as if taking him down will turn everything around. It won't of course, because things have gone way too far, GA was only on the case for a few short months, SY have had 6 years and the PJ, over a decade.
Their hatred towards GA goes off the lunacy scale 16:51, that's why they will never get public support for it. I'm astonished anyone is supporting their move to take their claim to the European Courts. their friends and family especially, who should know by now, just how destructive living with a legal case is.
The lawyers and Clarence Mitchell, well I guess they would do pretty much anything for money. While they are persuading Gerry and Kate not to let GA get away it, they are simultaneously clocking up all the billable hours.
I am bemused by 'a mere two parents' in your penultimate line 16:51. Two parents who launched the biggest missing child appeal ever witnessed, raised millions of pounds in donations, and spent them. And two parents who have spent all these years their child has been missing, suing people.
These mere two parents, have spent 10 years trying to ruin the life of the detective who searched for their daughter. They want to break him. They want him ostracised, they want him unemployable, and anything he does earn, they wanted handed over to them.
I don't think there is anything 'mere' about these two parents. Had they not been so hell bent on bringing Goncalo Amaral misery and fear, things might have been so different. They are in fact the authors of their misfortune.
Pt forensics..
ReplyDeleteThere also proceeded the observation and search for blood traces inside the apartment using a chemical product to find latent blood traces. In the application of the referred product no results characteristic of the presence of blood traces were found
That only confirms a good clean up took place 11:02. The dogs did not miss whatever had accumulated under the tiles behind the sofa, nor the cadaver smell that remained in the same spot.
DeleteThe blood dog Keela was used in the successful prosecution of D'Andre Lane who murdered his two year old daughter. I urge you to read PEOPLE v. LANE (Detroit), the Judgement given in Lane's appeal against his conviction. He claimed the dogs evidence (their alerts)should not have counted against him.
Martin Grime was the dog handler who gave evidence for the prosecution and his two dogs, Keela and Morse (new to use) were scientifically tested. They gave correct alerts in almost every test they were given, 100% in every case bar one which was 95% to 100%.
Lane lost his appeal.
@ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 September 2017 at 17:28
DeleteHow could there be photos of "blood splatter" on walls after a clean up was so good that even Keela didn't detect any blood?
Answer - there was no blood spatter on the walls.
Eddie detected bluetac. It was covered up.
DeleteAnonymous10 September 2017 at 16:46
DeleteEddie detected bluetac. It was covered up.
-----------------------------------------
Where is your evidence for that?
on the wall
DeleteRos spouts: "It is clear no officers in Operation Grange believe Madeleine is alive - they are on a watching brief, not out looking. Are they going to sue each of them?"
ReplyDeleteHave any of the Operation grange officers written a book saying that the Mccanns lied about an abduction and covered up the death of their daughter?
Anon 12.56
Delete"Have any of the Operation grange officers written a book saying that the Mccanns lied about an abduction and covered up the death of their daughter?"
OG cannot interfere with the ongoing Portuguese investigation, they can only back up or give advice to the PJ. The PJ are the head investigators. OG can only deal with matters in the UK i.e. "The Fund".
In fact it was the British Police who brought in Eddie & Keela, not the Portuguese police, the British police also gave back up to the PJ in digging up the area around PDL, but they do not have any jurisdiction over the PJ's investigation.
'' but they do not have any jurisdiction over the PJ's investigation.''
DeleteShame the same can't be said about UK politicians. It was them who wrecked the investigation.
Ros: "he McCanns accept, without protest, the closing of the Scotland Yard investigation, their only real hope of finding their daughter,"
ReplyDeleteI must have missed that announcement by Scotland Yard - do you have a link to it or is it just you musing again?
Spouts, lol, have you got hold of mummy's laptop?
ReplyDeleteWho knows what the future holds 12:56, I doubt Goncalo Amaral had any idea he was picking up a poisoned chalice, when he was assigned to this case. You have to admit it's pretty unique, the only other case I can think of is the parents of Jonbenet Ramsey who sued detective Steve Thomas who also wrote a book about his investigation and in that case, he was vindicated by the disclosure that the Grand Jury wanted to indict the Ramseys at the time.
In the case of Goncalo Amaral, there has been an active smear campaign, having been forced to resign from his job, they then made it impossible for him to earn a living.
Everyone has a right to defend their reputation 12:56, GA had no option in the face of such a ferocious tirade, but to tell his side of the story. Gerry and Kate have been pro-active from the get go, they deliberately set out to destroy Goncalo Amaral, Kate wanted him to feel misery and fear.
If Operation Grange reach a conclusion Gerry and Kate don't like, will they single out one member of the team to smear and publically humiliate? Will they get friendly tabloids to put unflattering pictures of them on the front pages? Label them as burger munching layabouts, wife beaters, drunken drivers? When you look at their track record on how deep they go when they want revenge, I expect everyone around this case is constantly on guard. They are known to compile dossiers for production when the time is right.
The McCanns are also known to be ferociously litigious 12:56, they regularly issue threats to sue, I think that's how they keep the MSM so tame. Suing the police is not out of these parents' boundaries - they are presently taking a former detective all the way to the ECHR.
There is a good chance some of the detectives working on Operation Grange may go on to write their memoirs, and who could blame them. This is one of the highest profile criminal cases in history, and there is a huge audience out there waiting to hear the details.
Any Law Gerry and Kate demand in the ECHR, will not only apply to Goncalo Amaral, it will apply to any former police officers, and all writers and producers of real crime documentaries in Europe. As I said before, if the kind of laws Gerry and Kate demand are applied, it will wipe out entire Real Crime sections in libraries and bookshops.
Amaral hoisted by his own petard ? Some say his book is a smear. Some say it's revenge because he was silenced. Doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things( finding Madeleine).It doesn't matter either how 'vexatious' or 'litigious' anyone is. If the law isn't on their side, they fall on their arse. So why worry ?
DeleteIt isn't a smear 20:16, Goncalo Amaral has actually dealt with the entire matter very sensitively, he was not on a vendetta, it wasn't personal, he was doing his job, and his book corresponds with the official police files.
DeleteGA isn't a nasty man, and that comes across within the opening paragraphs. He is highly educated and articulate, he tells his story clearly and honestly, because that is all the truth needs.
GA may not be a nasty man but he is a wife beater and could also be accused of neglecting his child by driving drunk with his child in the car.
DeleteAs for his book, if he was so confident in its truth, then why doesn't he self-publish in the UK?
The McCann cycle continues; The Lull before the Storm
ReplyDeleteEvery year without fail, silence summer kiddie season over and we are BACK ON THE CASE.
Oh, so familiar.
But wait, this also coincides with the MET's begging bowl.
Can it be a ploy, that whilst the McCanns ''effectively'' try to clear their name, which is really what fighting Amaral is all about, coincides with the METs next round, particularly as it would have seemed they gave up. But wait exactly what are the MET doing, have they actually made a statement? Or do the MET hang around for the outcome of all things McCann, else not seem to support them.
MONEY - well has the mortgage been paid, are the children in private education? Did the book really earn that much, after all only the royalties were ear-marked for the FundLIMITED
Or are the now very silent well-heeled Rawlings, Kennedy(Everest) Green(BHS) Virgin etc still underwriting costs, that don't even show in the books?
And for me, I don't know WHAT HAPPENED to Madeleine, my position is I don't accept leaving the children homealone in an apartment, with particularly unlocked door)s) for four nights acceptable. They have to accept some responsibility and stop the blame game. I draw no conclusions what might have happened to Madeleine, but consider ALL options are open, until proven otherwise.
And how strange all information comes via the pathway of the Sun - Aka Brooks! still hanging in there fanning the flames with Murdoch's zillions, but that's the way of the SUN, finished feasting on Diana's death.
Gerry and Kate are vexatious litigants, I doubt any billionaire would finance them 14:23, it would be like financing a compulsive gambler to make several trips to Vegas.
DeleteFor Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, and their rivals at other newspapers, there is still a lot of mileage in the Madeleine story. They will all make a beeline for the biggest scoops, bias won't come into it. None of them for example would miss the opportunity to run with a headline like, 'Faked Abduction'. How many newspapers would that shift?
I expect there are a lot of tigers waiting to pounce 14:23, from many directions. The mainstream industry, newspapers especially, are competing for what's left of those who buy hard copies, many of whom are red top readers who like human interest stories. Madeleine's disappearance is still a hot potato in the newspaper industry, and those silenced might still be stewing. I expect many are practicing headlines now.
@Anonymous9 September 2017 at 14:23
DeleteGenerally I agree. neglect is unforgivable. I wonder if the parents ever can forgive themselves. I doubt it. But it doesn't mean they are directly responsible for Madeleine's ultimate fate, only that their carelessness led to it. As for all the tiresome talk and obsessing over money, I get bored by all the speculation. Nobody knows the details of the expenditure. we know who they wasted money on ( private detectives, PR con man) as it's been made public. The finer details haven't . But as the parents are being painted blacker by the year it's assumed they're living the high life like lottery winners. It's just more stone throwing for the sake of it. A GP and / or heart surgeon don't normally find it difficult to fund their kids' education without handouts.
I don't think anyone believes they are living the high life 16:45, in fact I would think their freedoms are very much curtailed by living under such intense media and public scrutiny.
DeleteI'm sorry you find talk of the Fund etc, tiresome, but the disappearance of Madeleine and the Fund set up to find her, are intrinsically linked. No-one knows how much was raised for Madeleine's Fund, there has never been transparency. How many millions were raised? £4million, £5,million, That's a big deal, and not the kind of money usually available to a heart surgeon and a GP.
Not only was it an astronomical sum, it was spent at astronomical speed, not on champagne and snazzy cars, but on spin doctors, lawyers and dodgy private detectives. By 2010, they were almost broke, and returned with a new round of interviews to raise more money for the Fund.
Discussing the Fund is not another stick to beat the McCanns with, they made their daughter's disappearance the biggest child abduction story in history, and they raised more money for one child, than many major disasters. People will always discuss it 16:45.
The parents are painting themselves blacker, 16:45, they are the ones who have been pursuing the former detective all these years. It keeps them in the news and it has brought them back into the news again with the announcement that they are going to appeal to the ECHR.
As a champion of freedom you should agree that they don't deserve to have theirs curtailed by intense public scrutiny. They're not criminals if the official line is to be believed and if it's proven that they are, their freedom will be curtailed through the proper channels that lead to jail. I didn't go along with the funding or donations from day one - before any suspicion was aroused of anyone. I thought it was as much for the public as for the family.The public's reaction was to feel angry first and helpless just after so they needed to do something positive. I thought there was enough manpower within the PJ and SY and no private detectives were needed.Nor was Bell's bullshit front page deal. Most people read tabloids anyway and they'd give the family more than enough coverage. Mitchell had his own paymasters to ensure an OTT media presence was maintained. He's keeping a myth alive and it doesn't seem to me that it's to benefit the McCanns. He's cleverly crying their innocence and victim status as he knows that it antagonizes the huge crowds online. So many of that crowd like the snappy cliche 'follow the money'. OK, follow his.Trace it from it's source to his bank account.
DeleteThe tins of black paint and the brushes are in the hands of thousands who suspect that the police have lied and the governments made them.They think the forensics have been silenced too.All by the parents ? They seem to be the only targets of the blackening , with the exception of Amaral anyway. He's brave enough to voice his suspicions beyond the parents to that of his former bosses and the politicians of the UK and Portugal .Yet his supporters, who constantly post online support for him, seem to want to ignore that and stick instead with just the parents.They should realise that extending their observations, like their hero has, might lead to the taboo area of just why so many officials in high places were prepared to give the case a blank cheque to keep it unsolved . We have been told since 2007 that Madeleine could return 'any day or week'. But the size of the fund said to me that a cash-strapped government must have known in advance that it was going to run for years, not days or weeks or even months.That's gilt-edged knowledge..from where ?
VT
Ros splutters in rage: " I now see was misguided, the gloves are off."
ReplyDeleteWow the Mccanns must be quaking in their boots!
Misguided in what way Ros ? Were you having doubts ? Why are your gloves off ?
DeleteI don't think for one moment they will be quaking in their boots, 16:17, I doubt anything makes this soulless pair quake in their boots - they are almost automatons.
ReplyDeleteBelittle me all you like 16:17, but in this small part of the internet world, I have a constant and ever growing audience. People like or dislike my opinions, probably more dislike than like, but that bothers me not. On the plus side, most are sane, even some of those on the on the dislike side. I'm not everyone's cup of tea, the 30 year old me wouldn't have liked the 60 year old me at all. Actually, that's a lie, she would have loved her!
Actually it's the belittling that adds to the McCanns' unpopularity. Their scoffing at the little people. This superior attitude rubs people up the wrong way, and probably accounts for the determination of those detectives still working on the case.
Do I feel kinder towards Gerry and Kate after that remark? What do you think?
@ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 September 2017 at 17:04
Delete"Do I feel kinder towards Gerry and Kate after that remark? What do you think?"
--------------------------------
I think your hatred of the Mccanns is coming through loud and clear Ros.
I think it may be more than that now.
Delete"I doubt anything makes this soulless pair quake in their boots - they are almost automatons."
DeleteTell us, Ros, when did you meet them. You seem to know them so well!!
"It is ridiculous however to pretend that Kate and Gerry's claims against GA are based on reason and logic. This is pure vengeance. Pure hatred."
DeleteUtter tosh!! Whatever you wish to believe, the McCanns have every right to defend themselves against unproven accusations - it has nothing to do with 'pure hatred', it is a basic human right!! Ros, you defend absolute freedom of action and speech however, when it actually concerns the McCanns, you deny them that freedom.
If Amaral wants to make money from writing a book setting out his thoughts and ideas about what happened to Madeleine, then that's up to him, no matter the question of ethics that this raises, however, it is also up to Amaral to prove those allegations, if required to do so by a court of law.
I agree. The McCanns have every right to defend themselves, no-one disagrees with that, because no-one is trying to silence them. They are free to defend themselves as much as they like. In fact I am sure many media outlets would be happy to give them a platform.
DeleteGoncalo Amaral puts forward a THEORY, and anyone can put forward a theory without a test or a trial taking place. They can write about their theory extensively, there are no laws against it. People come up with theories, other people take them further, it's how the world goes round. The idea that a book can be banned because it doesn't prove a theory is ludicrous. Is anyone asking Stephen Hawking to get out there and prove there is a black hole?
Do you honestly think the ECHR will transform itself into a criminal court with dogs, experts and a multitude of witnesses analysing just how grief stricken Gerry and Kate were at the publication of GA's book?
The European Court of Human Rights is about Human Rights, the clue is in the title. The Human Rights violation the McCanns claim, is the failure of the Portuguese courts to award them £250k each (and they 5, said Isabel, so £1.25million). They demand that the former detective should be silenced, and of course, all his worldly goods and future earnings.
Who's human rights are being violated here 12:55? The McCanns are free to speak, Goncalo Amaral should not be.
The idea of silencing someone, legally, sounds like something from the age of Dickins. The Law is probably decades if not centuries behind the complete transformation of the information industry. The kind of old fashioned law the McCanns are demanding, flies in the face of progression and modernity. It is madness on every level.
I feel I do know them well 12:44. I am a people watcher, have been all my life, I find human nature endlessly fascinating. With Kate and Gerry I was captivated, as indeed were many, they created the ultimate reality show, capturing us again and again with new instalments.
DeleteI've never met Kate and Gerry personally, and it is not difficult to deconstruct a person's character by what they say, and what they write. Probably easier than direct contact actually, because the written and spoken on camera word is premeditated.
They may of course be more animated and completely charming off camera, but it has been 10 years, why not let those attributes shine through?
Anonymous11 September 2017 at 12:55
Delete''the McCanns have every right to defend themselves against unproven accusations - it has nothing to do with 'pure hatred', it is a basic human right''
''it is also up to Amaral to prove those allegations, if required to do so by a court of law''
Pretty accurate. Well said.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 September 2017 at 16:14
''I've never met Kate and Gerry personally, and it is not difficult to deconstruct a person's character by what they say, and what they write''
it's still only a guess.
''They may of course be more animated and completely charming off camera, but it has been 10 years, why not let those attributes shine through? ''
They lost their child ten years ago. The only reason we see them on television or online or in papers is to talk about what happened then and what's happened since. You expect 'charm' ? If they smile or laugh and some nutter online spots it it's all over the internet as 'evil McCanns smiling'.
''The Law is probably decades if not centuries behind the complete transformation of the information industry. The kind of old fashioned law the McCanns are demanding, flies in the face of progression and modernity. It is madness on every level. ''
DeleteIt would be wouldn't it. The law is the law with or without the 'information industry'. Slander, defamation and libel are independent of any industry.They're points of law.
Anonymous9 September 2017 at 16:17
ReplyDeleteRos splutters in rage: " I now see was misguided, the gloves are off."
Wow the Mccanns must be quaking in their boots!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, I expect they are if SY haven't come up with an "abductor" after over £11+ million being spent, that means they're may be only one other line of inquiry.
The McCanns are very good at tactics - "look over there, not over here", They've been doing it for the past 10 years, it's getting very boring now, if something appears in the press they don't like they come up with another story to avert eyes away from what they don't want people to see. Whilst all eyes are on their suspicious appeal to the ECHR, what is really going on behind the scenes?
'' what is really going on behind the scenes?''
DeleteAn investigation apparently. Not sure SY have to report every single detail to the public. It defeats the object.
Way off topic:
ReplyDeletebut...I couldn't help thinking about off track displays of concern generated by homicide suspects.
Wearing neck braces at Chappaquiddick and carrying around a dead child's toy in Portugal kind of back fired for the suspects.
Too late for drama coaches now.
jc
I did sometimes wonder if there was any drama coaching, but I suspect not. Psychologists will pretty much agree with anything YOU say, in a whatever works perspective. Advice I suspect came from the very pro active family. But even then I suspect it was not taken, the bossy pair always think they know best.
ReplyDeleteAs for Madeleine's toy, when I first saw Cuddlecat peering out from the top of Kate's rucksack on the way to the police station, I felt I was being manipulated. As you see these ott gestures arouse more suspicion. I remember seeing a husband being wheeled out in a wheelchair to appeal for his missing wife. There was no need for the wheelchair and he was arrested days later.
No reason or sense in suspecting drama coaching, but it does make the whole thing seem pre-rehearsed and sinister I suppose.
DeleteEverything observable of the McCanns has been on a TV screen.The government have a Machiavellian figure for that, he's called Clarence Mitchell.He's like Mandelson's more media friendly brother.Both as Grimm and manipulative as each other.
I understand your cynicism with regard to 'shows' for the media.I watched Drop The Dead Donkey. The roving reporter carrying teddy bears and baby's shoes around to place in rubble for the cameras etc. It happens.They feed on mass gullibility.It's salesmen's tactics.
Ros 18.14
ReplyDelete"I did sometimes wonder if there was any drama coaching, but I suspect not."
There's been no drama coaching but advice from very expensive lawyers, why else would they employ the highest paid lawyers in the land, not forgetting the ridiculous statement "that their method of checking on the children was within the bounds of responsible parenting". My God, who came up with that piece of sh*t, did the parents really think that would make them look entirely responsible. I'm surprised they ever qualified as doctors with that attitude let alone parents of three children.
As for cuddle cat peeking out of KM's back pack, it was nauseating and total manipulation. These so called "parents" never have and never will have any idea of self awareness of what mayhem they have caused for the past 10 years, not only to the manipulation of the free press, with GM complaining about the media scrutiny when they've courted it for many years, but to their own remaining children and the memory of Madeleine. They are truly very evil people who will go to any extent to wash themselves clean of any wrong doing with regard to Madeleine. They would rather an innocent police officer be seen to suffer with no money, no house, no income, no family then see themselves with nothing when it was they who started this nonsense in the first place.
That is something (the truth) they cannot face and blame everyone else for their circumstance.
''These so called "parents" never have and never will have any idea of self awareness of what mayhem they have caused for the past 10 year''
ReplyDelete'' the manipulation of the free press''
'' They are truly very evil people''
I don't understand what you mean about self awareness. I'm not clear on the 'evil' bit either. Is it evil to lose a child or to take one ? The press hasn't been free since long before any of us were even born.it serves a purpose though. Who started the nonsense in the first place ? Is there a link to that truth ?
17 May 2007 [Jane, Russell, Matt, Rachael and Dianne flying home].
ReplyDeleteKM (‘madeleine’):
“I’m sure this was a very difficult step for them all to take and they probably felt quite guilty about leaving us behind in Praia da Luz with Madeleine still missing, but obviously they had to return at some point. Their lives had to go on. But the terrible experience we shared would stay with us all, on one level or another, and bind us together for ever.”
I wonder whether the Tapas Five agree with Kate’s statements. Do they really need a spokeswoman and a fortune teller?
An event like the one talked about is sure to bind people together. The trauma and the fallout are both powerful. It doesn't matter if the bond is negative or positive, it would happen. It's human nature .What are you trying to read into the statement ? It's the Tapas 7 by the way. If you include the parents, it's 9 .There's a famous five, but they all have alibis.
ReplyDelete"But the terrible experience we shared would stay with us all, on one level or another, and bind us together for ever.” - Kate McCann ('madeleine')
ReplyDelete--------------------------
'The source told The Sun Online: “He [Amaral] will always remain a thorn in Kate and Gerry’s sides. They are determined to continue fighting him to the bitter end, forever if needs be.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4433711/madeleine-mccann-latest-parents-fight-silence-cop-goncalo-amaral-disappearance/
You could actually interpret 'He [Amaral] will always remain a thorn in Kate and Gerry's sides' as 'there's no talking to them'. That is, they are beyond reason.
DeleteOK, I might be reading a bit too much into it, but it didn't sound like a vote of confidence.
Thank you for posting it 21:08 :)
A 'source' and Sun.A lethal combination. An invisible man and a comic. I dare say the parents wouldn't want to pursue all of this nonsense and keep themselves in the limelight if they were as guilty as the majority imagine.Worth thinking about.
ReplyDeleteThey have no choice but to continue on this chosen path. They chose to jump on the tiger's back and they know if they jump off, the tiger will rip them to pieces.
DeleteGerry McCann:
Delete"Personally, we don't use social media, although we have used it in Madeleine's campaign. But for our twins who are growing up in an era where mobile technology is used all the time, we don't want them not to be able to use it in the same way that their peers do."
11.9 22:47
DeleteOf course it may not be the parents who are doing all this 'pursuing'.
After 10 years there appears to be little, if any, consensus among the general public as to exactly what crime was committed, and by whom - negligence/abduction/homicide/concealment of a fatal accident - take your pick.
What all the MSM and internet banter does most assuredly is keep the parents in the cross-hairs, as though they are (and always were) the key decision makers in this disgraceful epic. One only has to appreciate Gerry McCann's utter passivity at the onset of the drama to realise this is not the case.
06:41. Gerry can't stop his kids using the internet, any more than any other parent and nor should he.
DeleteThe idea that he can clean the internet up before they embark on it, is however batshit crazy and some might say a sign of megalomania. No Judge in the world is going to rule it illegal to criticise these particular parents online. Nor are they going to whoosh the internet of everything GA related.
Destroying Goncalo Amaral won't make any difference to what the twins see online, claiming they are taking their case to the ECHR to protect their children is disingenuous. They are in fact creating more headlines, more news and more discussion for the twins to see on the net. If they truly wanted to protect their children, they would have stepped out of the public eye years ago.
Gerry and Kate took to the limelight from the off 22:47, and it was fascinating to watch, it is how they have maintained their false narrative. But more than that, they became addicted.
DeleteStaying in the limelight is not a sign of innocence 22:47, the internet is filled with videos of the 'guilty' making public appeals and giving in depth interviews.
By contrast, most people who suffer trauma and loss, nurse their wounds in the bosom of their family. When I lost my beloved Dad, I stayed in my bedroom for a week. I couldn't bear to see or speak to anyone, I definitely could not have stepped out in public.
And that's how most people feel 22:47, that's why the parents' behaviour was so strange. I couldn't have put on make up, heck, I couldn't even get in the shower. The McCanns' highly polished appearances went against them 22:47, there was nothing there that the public could relate to.
We could empathise with the bedraggled Sara Payne and Coral Jones, they looked exactly as we would have looked. Tired and worn out from lack of sleep, with their eyes puffy from tears. And I mean no disrespect to either them, I want to give them a hug now, just as much as I did then.
Gerry and Kate's need to stay in the news is not normal. Their payment of £500k to Bell Pottinger to keep them on the front pages, takes their 'awareness campaign' into the realms of lunacy. What are they making the public aware of now? Their nasty vendetta against Goncalo Amaral?
Every time they make an announcement it puts their and their children's names back on the front pages. Every time the kids in the playground move onto another subject, Gerry and Kate pop up again, with a 'we're back'. What effect do their TV appearances have on their sensitive young teens and their peers? They are seeing the same old arguments dragged up again and again. Aren't the kids more vulnerable to what they see and hear in the real world, than on social media? The tabloid front pages for example?
Rosalinda @11:59
Delete"If they truly wanted to protect their children, they would have stepped out of the public eye years ago."
I agree with you, but as Gaggzy at 02:28 says "they have no choice but to continue on this chosen path".
Kate McCann: "I think the whole social media has got huge pros, but huge cons. On the downside, and all that's been written... I guess we protect ourselves really. We don't go there to be honest. We are aware of things that get said because people alert us to them. I guess our worry is for our children."
Why would people alert parents who don't go there themselves?
Yes, Gaggzy has a point, I had mean't to say so.
DeleteI don't believe for one moment the McCanns 'don't go there' with social media. The first thing you do when told someone has written something, is go take a look yourself. A-listers and politicians read about themselves, all the time! Pretending they have minions to read it for them, just sounds snooty. And of course, disingenuous, how many pictures are there of Gerry and Kate at their laptops?
At the beginning, they and their family, loved technology, social media especially. Almost the first thing they did was set up a team of monitors and send out chainmail.
Why be so petty as to pretend not to use social media? It's a silly lie, just for the sake of it. If they were prepared to pay hundreds of pounds per hour for Carter Ruck to watch social media 24/7 (to catch Bennett), it's unlikely 'they don't go there'.
Agree with your last line 13:40, why would people alert the parents to the unpleasantness they are avoiding?
Hi Ros, totally agree with you on this. The McCanns statement about fighting GA all the way really shows where their priorities lie. They are more worried about their reputations than finding Madeleine. I can see their actions at ECHR backfiring spectacularly, the good people of Portugal I imagine won't be thrilled at having their justice system analysed. The police at SY & PJ won't be thrilled either as they take on a fellow police office who at the end of the day was only doing his job. I hope someone from SY comes out & says enough is enough here's what we really think. Don't forget other people have published books on the same lines as GA's views, but they haven't sued them. I wonder why.
ReplyDeleteThe officers of SY would not be human if they weren't affected by the McCanns behaviour towards a fellow police officer John. Each aware that, 'there but for the grace of God, go I'.
DeleteGoncalo's book I think, was too close for comfort John, and his was a first hand account of the original investigation, the one the parents claim, was so spectacularly bungled.
It is ridiculous however to pretend that Kate and Gerry's claims against GA are based on reason and logic. This is pure vengeance. Pure hatred. They have lost everything and are suffering, so should he.
I spoke recently about the difference between white collar and blue collar crime. In this case, those lawyers and professionals who are egging the parents on, have less morals than the average street mugger stealing an old lady's handbag.
Vulnerable is not a word I would use often with Gerry and Kate, but they are quite clearly not of sound mind. When for example does getting people to sign contracts for hopeless cases become malpractice?
@John 100
DeleteThe McCanns are trying to prevent what they consider 'lies' being published about them. Obviously, they'll look foolish behind bars once Amaral's theories and hypotheses are proven to be correct. When will that be I wonder.
The good people of Portugal should welcome their system being analysed. It might result in more arrests and better investigations.It wasn't that good before 2007 remember. Who cares if the PJ and SY won't be thrilled by any scrutiny. Ten years of wasting tax payers money doesn't really give them a choice or an argument. The officer who 'was only doing his job' was taken off the case by the way.As for the McCanns worrying about their reputation, maybe, maybe not. We're all entitled to worry about our reputation if we think somebody's out to ruin it.It's our human right.I think thousands of online sleuths are more worried about the McCanns reputation. They seem terrified by the thought that it being viewed as good in some places.
Hundreds of people have published ideas along the lines that Amaral likes, you're right. The case has proven to be a nice little gravy train for people trying to make a name for themselves off the back of an innocent child. I dare say the reason that the only one being sued is that he was the only one of who was coordinating the actual investigation initially .
You can't seem to accept that Goncalo Amaral also has the right to defend his name and reputation. As you say, he was removed from the investigation - at who's request? What did you expect him to do, just go away and crawl under a rock?
DeleteNot only was Goncalo Amaral forced to resign, he has been the victim of a vicious smear campaign by Team McCann and the British MSM. He defended himself by writing his account of the Madeleine investigation, as he had every right to do.
The McCanns want the right to destroy GA's life and reputation, and they want his right to reply taken away. Good luck making that a Human Rights issue.
Everyone has the right to defend their name and reputation.At whose request was he removed ? First we have to know there was an actual request, not just suspect that there was.But I take your point and I think there was one, or i suspect it, rather.My suspicion is that it cam from above his boss. I don't believe that there's a shred of evidence that any of the McCann family were employed in that kind of capacity.It must have been a political decision. I'm more interested in what the McCanns think about that area.But, on the subject of name and reputation, the detective has been calling the McCanns liars and accusing them of hiding their child's corpse.It's bad enough that thousands of strangers who have nothing but media and rumour to do it, but it's unprofessional of a detective to do it.He should have attacked whoever requested his removal. In return, the McCanns have called him a liar and stated that he has no evidence to back himself up. Who instigated this 'reputation damage' war ?
Delete''The McCanns want the right to destroy GA's life and reputation, and they want his right to reply taken away. Good luck making that a Human Rights issue.''
He was removed from the investigation and he responded by writing a book that called the parents criminals and liars.That looks to me like a concerted attempt at destroying them.He knew they'd lost a child and still went ahead.Yet the McCanns are 'vexatious litigants' for trying to stop him.Why wasn't he as determined to get his revenge on the people who removed him ? Book sales issue ? As for the human rights issue, I think it's less important and it should never have gone this far.But, anyone who is told that somebody can say or write accusations about you that can potentially destroy your career and your family, yet not offer to provide proof of those accusations without a challenge,has a basic human right to sue or have the decision overturned unless they assertions can be proven.
VT
Gerry and Kate hated Goncalo Amaral (he was closing in) and he was removed from the investigation. Not many dots to join there.
DeleteAs for the mud slinging - the McCanns started it! Within hours they were criticising the Portuguese police. And when they turned on GA, the UK tabloids, or Team McCann, raked up every bit of dirt they could and every dishevelled picture, to make him appear like an incompetent oaf.
Goncalo Amaral purports a theory, which you would know if you had read his book. He doesn't call the parents names, he recounts details of the investigation (which correspond with the PJ file)and he explains how the evidence tallies with his theory.
As for unprofessional - are you saying GA's status as a detective should strip him of the right to defend himself? That suspects (which they were are the time)should have the right to slander, libel and destroy the reputation of the detectives who investigated them, safe in the knowledge that the detectives are forbidden by law to reply?
GA didn't set out to destroy Gerry and Kate (why is it always about them?), he set out to restore his own reputation and give his side of the story.
Of course Gerry and Kate would have much preferred the world only got to hear their side of the story, but GA has the same rights to a good name and reputation as they do. And he defended his reputation in the honourable way, not by trying to silence the other side, but by giving his own detailed and honest account.
As for GA proving his theory, that Madeleine is dead, after ten years the evidence for that has stacked up, even without a conclusion from Scotland Yard.
On the abduction front however, still nothing. Years of police investigations, millions of pounds spent, thousands of leads followed, and still not one solid bit of proof of an abductor.
Seems to me, we have two theories here, neither of which (at this time) can be proven. Why should one be allowed, but not the other?
''Gerry and Kate hated Goncalo Amaral (he was closing in) and he was removed from the investigation. Not many dots to join there.''
DeleteHe was 'closing in' on Murat too.He had him followed for 24 hours.He told him after the first session of grilling that it was 'only half time' implying he'd get him in the second half.Strange from a man who had strong suspicions of the parents from the off.Tell the PJ and SY about the few dots to join.
''Goncalo Amaral purports a theory, which you would know if you had read his book. He doesn't call the parents names,''
He calls them liars and insinuates that they hid the corpse of their child and faked an abduction.He proved neither, nor have his colleagues.Forensics didn't support him either.
''As for unprofessional - are you saying GA's status as a detective should strip him of the right to defend himself?''
He had every right to defend himself to his superiors for taking him off the case.His book attacks the McCanns .
''GA didn't set out to destroy Gerry and Kate (why is it always about them?), he set out to restore his own reputation and give his side of the story''
It's 'all about them' because Amaral's accusations are and it was their child that disappeared.His reputation suffered due to his being removed.
''Of course Gerry and Kate would have much preferred the world only got to hear their side of the story,''
The world heard it hours after it happened.They left their children alone and went out.In between checks Madeleine vanished. It'ds never changed.One story.One theory.How many did Amaral have ?
''he defended his reputation in the honourable way, not by trying to silence the other side, but by giving his own detailed and honest account.
There's nothing honourable about publishing a book that calls the parents liars and of being guilty of hiding their chlid's body. It's vengeful. If he thinks that MI5 and politicians decided he should be removed they should have been his targets.If he was 'closing in' as you say, plenty of policemen have had time enough to arrest the parents using his hypothesis.His 'honest account' is still only one hypothesis.
''Seems to me, we have two theories here, neither of which (at this time) can be proven. Why should one be allowed, but not the other?''
Theory one is the parents turned their backs for too long and discovered an empty bed when they got back-hence abduction.Unless there are obvious visual clues suggesting otherwise the police have to act on that immediately.They can still maintain an open mind while doing so.Theory(theories) two is that the child was dead either by accident or otherwise and the parents and their friends hid the body ( in a wardrobe, fridge or coffin) then dumped it. The child is definitely gone. Where's the evidence for theory two ?
Where's the evidence for theory two, Ziggy? Woof woof.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am genuinely pleased that the children are doing well, but let's please respect their privacy.
DeleteI'm sorry that post got through, but I can't see posts in their entirety until they are published.
Hi Ros, spot on, GA's book was to close for comfort for them hence their hatred towards him. Also again serving MET officers & possibly other forces donated money towards his appeal fund so this tells us that some at SY don't believe their version of events either. This to me was clearly shown when SY started digging around PDL, this was certainly not for show. What was missing was the parents themselves. If that was my child I would be out there with SY helping to contribute towards their efforts.
ReplyDeleteRosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 September 2017 at 11:59
ReplyDelete" Gerry can't stop his kids using the internet, any more than any other parent and nor should he."
"They are in fact creating more headlines, more news and more discussion for the twins to see on the net."
----------------------------------------------
How old are the twins - about 12?
Don't worry Ros - when they are old enough they will read your thousands and thousands of comments about their parents and I know what their reaction will be.
I'm perfectly OK with that 17:44, I don't write things I would be ashamed of. Besides which, my musings, I'm sure, are only a very small part of the Madeleine canon, and probably the least sensational.
DeleteI think Ros is the least of the twins' worries, they will be looking closer at home and the embarrassment their own parents have forced on them with the "disappearance" of Madeleine. Don't worry, the twins will suss out themselves what is going on with this whole charade, they may be only 12 but I'm sure they're very intelligent and cringe whenever they walk past a newsagents with the headlines their own parents have thrown into their faces "I Couldn't Make Love to Gerry" for example and the cringing revamp of the Diana and Charles pose, Diana with her arms around Charles, for f*ck sake, who do the McCanns think they are, bloody Royalty? They really are deluded, they lost the plot a long time ago and live in their own fantasy world.
Delete@ anon 18:28
Deletelet me quote from anon @ 19:07 and ask you the same question:
"But how do you know what the twins’ reaction will be? Do they really need a spokesperson like you?"
Anon 20.03
DeleteI assume you're thinking the twins walk around with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears so they can't see anything and can't hear anything, no they don't need a spokesperson like me, I'm sure they're well capable of speaking for themselves and will tell their own parents what they think when they're old enough and brave enough and start asking questions.
I hope their reaction won't be as bitter as your own 20:44. I hope someone close to them is telling them this is a still a beautiful world filled with caring and compassionate people, not a hostile place filled with haters.
Delete"Hi Ros, spot on, GA's book was to close for comfort for them hence their hatred towards him."
ReplyDeleteUtter garbage. They sue him because as far as they are concerned he has written a load of unsubstantiated theories and hypothesies concerning the disappearance of their daughter. They have every right to defend themselves If GA is so confident of the 'truth' in his book, why doesn't he self publish in the UK?
Hi Anonymous@18:07
DeleteThe reason why GA is so confident of his book is because he was the senior detective in charge. Now let's suppose for arguments sake an investigator from Metodo 3 or Dave Edgar wrote a book saying that abduction was the only theory or hypothesis that made sense, yourself & others would be quoting verse & chapter as gospel. I've read books from both sides of the argument but the two main books are Kate's & GA's. Sorry but for me GA is more plausible.
@ John 12:31
DeleteHe was the co-ordinator and was not the senior detective in charge.
I don't suppose he is in any rush 18:07, there will probably be a bidding war when the story breaks and there certainly will be for any new book he may have.
DeleteNow that's an interesting idea John, in fact it has me wondering just many close to the McCanns have books planned? Maybe not Edgar, he doesn't appear to be a man of letters, but maybe a few who have a lot of explaining to do.
The McCanns did have a go at countering GA's theory with the instantly forgettable Summers and Swan book. The only one I have seen quoting from it however, was Jim Gamble, who referred people to it for a credible explanation as to why the dogs were wrong, iirc.
But you are right John. There are only two relevant books, 'The Truth of the Lie' by Goncalo Amaral and 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann. Two theories, both as yet unproven, and up to the reader to decide which account to believe.
We should remember however, that the McCanns are not appealing to have GA's book banned. They have already lost that argument. The are appealing against the Portuguese's Courts decisions not to award them a huge amount of cash. While Scotland Yard were digging further along the coast for the body of their child, they were in a Court in Lisbon demanding financial compensation from the detective who wrote a book.
I agree John, GA is more plausible.
I heard Sonia Poulton on her recent youtube video mention she's writing a book too. I wonder what will come first, the book or the documentary. i suppose that will depend on bidding wars too . I think both will be along the lines of 'the parents did it' as we all know what makes more money . Very few are interested in the defending of this point of view. it isn't 'juicy' enough.No men or women 'of letters' are needed for tack.
Delete@John10012 September 2017 at 12:31
Delete''The reason why GA is so confident of his book is because he was the senior detective in charge''
No, John, that's why so many people desperate to see the parents charged are so confident. They'll hang on to that straw as long as they can. If Amaral really had that confidence he would have arrested somebody before his bosses had the chance to remove him.
''. Now let's suppose for arguments sake an investigator from Metodo 3 or Dave Edgar wrote a book saying that abduction was the only theory or hypothesis that made sense, yourself & others would be quoting verse & chapter as gospel''
I'd be more interested to see how many chapters or verses you could get from that simple,straightforward theory . It only takes a page. it's only one theory you see . Nothing complicated .
'' I've read books from both sides of the argument but the two main books are Kate's & GA's. Sorry but for me GA is more plausible.''
And if this was all about a battle over publishing your opinion would be more important.It's an investigation into a missing child first and foremost.The tedious legal actions about books is about one man's right to make allegations about two people and get away with it without being challenged or instructed to provide evidence for them.
Plausible does not equal right any more than probable does. A lot of respected crime writers ( fact as well as fiction) and investigative journalists have written and published 'chapter and verse' tomes claiming to name Jack The Ripper.They provide endless eye witness accounts, old files and police 'off the record opinions'. All good books and all tightly reasoned, and all arriving at a different culprit to every other writer. Thank God the Victorians didn't have the internet.
VT
@Anonymous at 17:44
ReplyDeleteAre you one of those people who alert Kate and Gerry McCann to "things that get said"?
You say the twins, when they are old enough, will read "thousands and thousands of comments". So, you know that what happens on the internet stays on the internet. But how do you know what the twins’ reaction will be? Do they really need a spokesperson like you?
@ Anonymous11 September 2017 at 19:07
ReplyDeleteAre you one of those people who alert Kate and Gerry McCann to "things that get said"?
--------------------------
Yes and I get paid a fortune for it.
Telling 20:00
DeleteGotta love the antis song list.Make sense to them or question them and it all starts : ''are you one of the McCanns?'' ''Are you from the inner circle'' ''are you one of their shills''. Anything but a decent counter.
Delete"I know what their reaction will be" is not a question and doesn't make sense.
Delete@ anon 22:34
Delete"I know what their reaction will be" was not a question because it was a statement and it makes perfect sense if you read the whole sentence.
@Anonymous 11 Sept. at 22:24
Delete('Gotta love the antis song list.Make sense to them or question them and it all starts : "are you one of the McCanns?" "Are you from the inner circle" "are you one of their shills". Anything but a decent counter.')
Kate McCann: "We are aware of things that get said because people alert us to them."
Well that's what I would call the perfect touche 07:06!
DeleteSo here we have it - the twins when they are old enough to go on the internet and research will go to the Mccanns and say - hey we agree with Ros when she she wrote the following about you:
ReplyDeletestomach churning
spiteful
f*cked up
not in their right mind
defeatist
bizarre
terrible people
haters
destroyers of lives
ferociously litigious
vexatious litigants
soulless pair
scoffing at the little people
superior attitude
manipulative
beyond reason
batshit crazy
megalomaniac
false narrative
strange
not normal
nasty vendetta
liars
vengeful
not of sound mind
vicious smear campaign
Oh and that is just from one blog and comments.
How many blogs has Ros written about the Mccanns?
(I have saved this comment Ros in case it goes into your spam box)
* you forgot 'open minded' and 'popular'
DeleteWhen the truth finally comes out I think the twins will agree with all that Ros has written as set out above AND then some more
DeleteGiven my absolute abhorrence for the McCanns persecution of Goncalo Amaral, and a lot more besides, I have gone remarkably easy on them.
DeleteAlongside their announcement that they are appealing to the ECHR, was a torrent of abuse towards Goncalo Amaral from their onside journalists. It outrages me that these people are knowingly and maliciously, hounding an innocent man. A cop who was just doing his job.
Sit picking out as many words as you like, but I am still not responsible for the McCann's children, they are. Nor am I responsible for the actions of their parents. I am not the one creating the stories and the headlines, Gerry and Kate do that themselves.
Being a parent doesn't give anyone immunity from criticism on the internet. The children of the McCanns are not the only ones reading unpleasant stuff about their parents online. It is a modern day hazard and one that EVERYONE is getting used to.
If Gerry and Kate want to protect their children, they should sit down and have honest conversations with them. Explain to them, why people are angry are their decision to appeal to the ECHR.
Telling their kids that their critics are driven only by hatred, is disingenuous and disturbing. If they want their kids to feel secure online, then they need to be completely honest. It is wrong on every level to tell young children there is an army of 'haters' out there. Before they even log on they will be afraid.
Whilst we should always teach our children caution, we shouldn't fill them with fear. The family have attracted more than their share of loons to be fair, particularly in the early days, but there has never been any threat or danger, especially not towards the children. I winced as I heard threats of kidnap from one of the McCanns witnesses at the last trial. Threats he couldn't produce for the Court, but which made the front pages of most of the UK tabloids the next day.
Imo, people who fill their kids with fear, weaken them. The hungry lion doesn't go after the strong members of the pack, it picks off the weakest and the hesitant. The best gift you can give your child is confidence, belief in themselves. And they can only find this if they aware of the whole picture. This is especially painful for Gerry and Kate, but if they hold stuff back, they will leave them disarmed and vulnerable. And worse, the kids won't be able to trust them.
But anyway, I have given you another load of adjectives there to add to your list 00:15, I have a very wide vocabulary :)
"The family have attracted more than their share of loons to be fair"
DeleteThe cap fits you very well Ros - wear it.
If protesting at a huge miscarriage of justice, deceit and downright cruelty, makes me a loon, I'm happy to wear that cap.
DeleteYour problem 01:58, is that I am clearly NOT a loon and my blog is read by hundreds, if not thousands, of people who are also NOT loons.
Your side have tried their utmost to destroy my name and character online 01:58, 'loon' being a favourite as I speak freely about my bipolar. They have ripped into my books on Amazon and dedicated entire websites to my 'lies'. As if destroying me would make the abduction story more believable.
Unfortunately for them, unlike Brenda Leyland, I have the means and the ability to defend myself. They forget, with my convent background, I have been down this whole 'we will beat, starve and torture you until you believe' route before. Didn't give in then, won't now.
''Given my absolute abhorrence for the McCanns persecution of Goncalo Amaral, and a lot more besides, I have gone remarkably easy on them.''
DeleteHe told the world the McCanns had hidden their child's corpse and faked an abduction without proving either.The parents who lost that child expressed rage.You call it persecuting Amaral.
'' A cop who was just doing his job.''
And was removed. His allegations went public in his new 'job' - author.
''It outrages me that these people are knowingly and maliciously, hounding an innocent man''
He can call them liars and it's fine even though he's failed to prove it.But they can't call him a liar ? Has he made allegations and accused the parents of something but failed to back it up ?If so, he isn't innocent . Have the parents been charged with anything ? If not they're innocent until proven otherwise.
He told the world where the evidence led him and the original investigation 15:29, and it is all there in the police files. That he was removed from his job is one of the points of contention 15:29, and whoever arranged it has much to worry about.
DeleteHe has freedom of speech as do the McCanns. He is not trying to silence them, no-one is. They can and do say pretty much whatever they want about anybody. Quite often through onside journalists, Sky News and trolling research teams.
But as I mentioned in an earlier post, the subject of stopping GA from saying what he wants is moot. The ban on his book 'The Truth of the Lie' has been overturned. It was a separate legal action, and one which the McCanns lost.
The book is back on sale and there is nothing they can do about it. This appeal is about the parents failure to be awarded £1.25million by the Portuguese Courts. Goncalo Amaral got to keep the Royalties from his book, and the McCanns have been ordered to pay all the costs.
I am curious as to why the McCanns didn't take their book banning request all the way to ECHR, therein lies the alleged damage to their reputations and the alleged lies. All the while it is on sale the damage continues, and no amount of financial compensation will make up for that.
I suppose their Appeal to the ECHRs in the matter of their compensation, sends out a warning to publishers worldwide. Some are, I have no doubt, considering publishing Madeleine books, especially in the wake of the McCanns loss in Lisbon. GA's book is just the tip of the iceberg, if they let him get away with it, others may take their chances. A ruling from the ECHRs would give Gerry and Kate total control of the McCann canon, only books approved by them available in the shops and on Amazon. Pretty much the way things are now.
If you were a watcher of real crime documentaries 15:29, you would know that 'not been charged with anything' is a very weak defence. Some cases take years, decades even, for the culprit to be prosecuted. There are many dogged detectives out there touched by the plight of the victims, who will simply never give up.
''He told the world where the evidence led him and the original investigation ''
DeleteHe didn't have any evidence.He was led by his suspicion.
Amaral's so called 'victory' was a victory for any author intending to say whatever they like with or without evidence without having to fear consequences. It was a defeat for the right to defend yourself against such. A sweeter victory would have been to solve the case. A book about how he did that would deserve to sell well.
''I am curious as to why the McCanns didn't take their book banning request all the way to ECHR, therein lies the alleged damage to their reputations and the alleged lies''
I was curious too.I suspect they weighed the options up.On the one hand their giving Amaral and his merry band of torch -wielders credence, therefore giving him more.It also seems that OG has been called in to try and come up with an acceptable way of saying ''we give up''. That would mean, in my opinion, the prospect of pursuing the search privately would be costly and wasting any on Amaral would be a waste even if they won. Is he worth the gamble ? I don't think so. None of his hypotheses have been brought any further forward anyway.
''If you were a watcher of real crime documentaries 15:29, you would know that 'not been charged with anything' is a very weak defence.''
I am one. I've watched a lot and read about a lot.Not being charged is good enough for any suspects if it keeps them free.It isn't good enough for the police though, even if it's a force of the future reopening a cold case.The evidence isn't going to be any newer.How many 'dogged detectives' have been on this for ten years ?
Name calling aside, what exactly is the ' huge miscarriage of justice' that you're protesting ?Is it about Amaral's book(again) ? I thought you'd be happy that the court in Portugal reversed the initial decision. Isn't a miscarriage of justice a situation where somebody is wrongly convicted of a crime ? As the only trial connected to this case has been over a book, I assume that you are in fact referring to this. As the court's most recent judgement went in his favour, why would you call it a miscarriage of justice ? Or are you trying to suggest that the McCanns remaining free of conviction is one ? If so, it isn't a miscarriage of justice is it ( no trial).
DeleteI disagree with your , at times, irrational emotional attacks on all things 'Kate and Gerry'. I think they're mistakes more than lies though.I wouldn't suggest that your torment as a child or your bipolar is behind them either.Too many others do the same thing without having those two factors to blame.
I see once again you've brought Brenda Leyland's name to the fore while under attack.That's poor taste.
He had plenty of evidence Ziggy, you really should read his book. It's the rudeness and bad manners that give you away. Also your irrational hatred of Goncalo Amaral.
DeleteI suspect they didn't go ahead with the book banning because book banners are universally despised. Not only would they be up against the European Court, but also the entire Freedom of Speech lobby.
I would imagine fear of being charged is just as agonising as being charged Ziggy. There is always a constant fear - the old Edgar Allen Poe 'Tell-Tale' heart. Are they really free?
You say, quite confidently, that nothing will change, the evidence will never be 'newer'. True, but the techniques to examine that evidence, advances daily. DNA evidence especially, which is bringing convictions in decades old cold cases.
22:33. Ziggy again, I presume, due to the time wasting nonsense of the first paragraph. You don't need to play dumb, it's accepted as a given.
DeleteErr, my criticism of the McCanns doesn't mean there is something wrong with me.
I don't happen to think Brenda Leyland should be forgotten. Her death was the result of an outright abuse of power, a co-ordinated attack to terrorise one older lady, and as a warning to all McCann critics, that they would be next.
Anonymous 12.9, 20:13
Delete"I am one".
I am too.
"The McCanns won a libel case against Amaral in 2015 and he was ordered to pay them 250,000 euros (£209,000) each in damages.
ReplyDeleteBut this was overturned on appeal and that decision upheld in another court this April, meaning Amaral is now able to sue the McCanns for damages potentially totalling tens of thousands of pounds.
To prevent this, Kate and Gerry, both 49, have lodged an appeal in July with the European Court of Human Rights. They now wait for the date of their Strasbourg showdown with Amaral to be confirmed."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867872/Netflix-making-eight-Madeleine-McCann-documentary.html
The McCanns have lodged an appeal with the ECHR to prevent Amaral from suing the McCanns for damages?
Anonymous 00:15
ReplyDeleteFucking tosser, fucking tosser.
(Copyright © Kate McCann 2011)
I wonder what Kate McCann would say if one of her twins asked her if it was okay to call a policeman a 'fucking tosser?'
DeleteHopefully 'yes'
DeleteAbsolutely "yes" if the police are trying to fit them up for something they didn't do.
DeleteRosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 September 2017 at 13:24
Delete"I hope their reaction won't be as bitter as your own 20:44. I hope someone close to them is telling them this is a still a beautiful world filled with caring and compassionate people, not a hostile place filled with haters."
-------------------------------------
Of course they will find that when they look at your blog won't they Ros?
I'm not a lawyer (thank God) but it can only be a delaying tactic as soon as Brexit happens the whole question of the ECHR becomes moot. However the McCanns I believe will still have to settle their bills regardless of Brexit.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering about Brexit too John, but I am sure it will affect their appeal. Portugal are still in Europe, and they are appealing against a decision made in Portugal.
DeleteI'm sure it is a delaying tactic, but also I think, one last act of defiance, a middle finger to GA. We don't care what the Courts say, you were still wrong and we were right!
Their Appeal cannot put off the legal debts they owe - and isn't strange that nobody has yet put out a figure for these? If I were to hazard a guess, they must be from £1million upwards. Litigation is a ridiculously expensive hobby, that's why media moguls and billionaires avoid it. It was cheaper for example, for the Times to give the McCanns £55k, rather than fight the issue of whether they suppressed the evidence from their own private detectives.
@ John and Ros.
DeleteWhat does any of that have to do with Madeleine McCann or solving the mystery of what happened to her ? Money, money, money . Why get excited over the thought that the McCanns might face financial ruin ? I think you both get so caught up in wishing the worst on them that you forget you're both supposed to be concerned about the fate of that child and the delay in solving the case .
VT
Yet you were all positively gleeful at the thought of Goncalo Amaral facing financial ruin? Not only did he face it, he experienced it. All his financial assets were frozen, including his family home and the royalties from his book. Any gainful employment he attempted was scuppered by the McCanns malicious campaign. GA was living with financial ruin for many years 22:22, that's why fair minded people contributed to his legal defence. The McCanns with their Madeleine Fund had millions, he, the hardworking former detective, had nothing.
DeleteThe McCanns have brought the financial ruin on themselves VT. They chose to pursue their claim through every Court in Portugal. Maybe they were ill advised, but nevertheless, it always been their choice.
They were ones running up those exorbitant legal bills they now face. That the costs would land in GA's lap, was always a gamble. A gamble they continued even when the odds were heavily against them. Think of a gambler in Vegas putting his Title Deeds on a roulette wheel.
Another throw of the dice won't win back everything they have lost. Why no-one has staged some sort of intervention baffles me. Of course the intervention should have been long, long ago, before it got this far. At this stage I think they would have more success if they sued their advisors.
I wan't gleeful at the thought of Amaral facing financial ruin at all. I don't think he was treated fairly or respectfully by his superiors either.I don't get any glee at the thought of Amaral or the McCanns facing financial ruin. I find that kind of thing churlish and childish. I just think it could have and should have been avoided. That's Amaral's sacking, his accusations and the book.
DeleteVT
Hi Ros, I can only think it's a delaying tactic as well. As far as I can see their Human Rights have not been infringed in any way. They can publish their views and experiences on the night in question but nobody else that has a difference of opinion or as in GA's case a professional police officers view.
ReplyDelete@ John 13:28
Delete"Around nine million people are the subject of criminal proceedings every year in the EU.[1] All of them are entitled, by law, to a fair trial irrespective of the charge faced. The presumption of innocence (set out in Article 6 (2) ECHR and Article 48 (1) EU Charter) is the cornerstone of the right to a fair trial. It is rooted in the need to protect the individual against the improper use of coercive state power. The principle is derived from, and entrenched within, the constitutional traditions of all EU Member States. In essence, it relates to both the procedural burden and standard of proof (the prosecution must prove the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt) while also constituting a privilege in its own right."
The Mccanns have never been charged. They are innocent of all the allegations made on this blog and numerous forums. That situation may change in the future.
The Supreme Court in Portugal ignored that right.
The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with the Supreme Court Decision . The decision had to do with the McCanns disturbed need to have a court state they had been cleared by the archiving dispatch . They were not cleared by the archival dispatch and the court correctly responded to their appeal . This has nothing whatsoever to do with the principle of the presumption of innocence . Different legal matter all together .
DeleteAre they innocent ? I don't believe so . But that's for another day . keep dreaming and spinning . Things are what they are . You won't change a thing , you won't change the course of events .
Anonymous 13 September 2017 at 00:24
DeleteA perfect post. Many thanks.
T
Err, the McCanns aren't the Defendants 23:15. They are the Prosecutors - they are prosecuting an action for financial compensation on the grounds that Goncalo Amaral shouldn't be allowed to get away it. He should be punished for causing them psychological pain and suffering by being made to hand over all his financial assets to them.
DeleteThis is a Civil action, not a criminal one. Whether the McCanns did or didn't do it, is not within the Court's remit. It's about GA's right to publish his side of the story.
Gerry tried to bring the dogs into his final summation as a witness, and the Judge told him they had no relevance. The matter can't be decided in a Civil court. The present 'prove it' taunts are meaningless, they won't stage a mini criminal trial within a Civil trial, in order for the claimants to say I told you so.
Despite everything the McCanns are saying, there are no allegations, and neither does GA call them liars. (have any of them read it?) Like every talented writer, he lets the reader take the next step themselves. Golden rule for would be authors: NO EXPOSITION, 'show, don't tell'. Note the lack of direct quotes from GA's book calling them murderers or liars. Why haven't these damning allegations being singled out and given the front pages of tabloids? Could the answer be, because there aren't any?
13 September 2017 at 00:24
Delete''Things are what they are . You won't change a thing , you won't change the course of events .''
I think we've all known that for 10 years.The guilty party is untouchable and must be protected at all costs so will be. That's why nothing has genuinely looked like changing despite the over dramatic and over sentimental media spin.
For the record, a strained or dangerous relationship between two countries will never happen because a married couple of doctors were charged with murder, manslaughter or conspiracy to conceal a crime.Storing nuclear weapons maybe, but that's about it.
VT
Nobody is untouchable VT and no-one in this case warrants 6 years of police time and £11m+ of public funds. Even if you go into the loopy twilight world of the permanently deranged, who is that important?
DeleteIf you are arranging a cover up, you don't involve more people, especially not 33 homicide detectives. And you don't keep extending the investigation if your intention is to announce 'we got nothing'.
Whilst I agree there is unlikely to be a war between the two nations VT, it is inevitable that will be competition. The watching world will compare and judge both sets of results, and as we know, the PJ will publish the details of their investigation.
I would imagine however, that both forces are working together quite amicably. Unless, those who believe there is a cover up, think the PJ are in on it too?
I don't think the police are part of a cover up by intention or will.But it's a ladder isn't it ? There were men under Amaral's direction at first but he had his bosses too and we know where that went. It's about rank I suppose. A bit like Hillsborough, far more police (uniform) were involved in that and those who knew were tormented by their conscience.But that went to the top rung of the ladder and beyond.That's were the 'important' people are.I don't think thy're important by the way , I'd like all politicians nailed to trees. But we need governing apparently.Even if it's by law-breaking psychotic tax fiddling kiddy fanciers. I never underestimate the depths to which they're prepared to sink to save their own necks.
DeleteI'm not so sure about the 'working amicably' claim myself. I think there was a schism as early as 2007. But, as Amaral says, there's some kind of collusion between two countries to hide the truth. The PJ are the team who were gunning for Murat and McCann/s ( Brits) early doors. The met never were.That's a pretty crucial point to have opposing views on don't you think ? If the PJ believe that the McCanns are out of the woods ( as the UK faction tell us), is it what they really believe, or is it what they've been told to say they believe ? If the PJ back Amaral's beliefs they see things in the opposite way that the met see them . How can both forces work amicably with that prevailing ?
VT
So para 1, you are saying the police forces (and judiciaries) are working together to cover up the disappearance of a child? Put the glass down and walk away from the table.
DeletePara 2, you say the PJ were gunning for the Brits, the 'met' ever were. Sweeping statement and totally untrue - you still haven't read those books have you?
Several UK police agencies flew out to PDL, and one of them, CEOP I believe, were pointing the finger at Robert Murat. Mark Harrison, from the NPIA was advising the PJ to look more closely at the parents. It was he, who suggested bringing in the dogs. So it wasn't the PJ going after the Brits.
You seem to think the two police forces hold opposing views with nothing whatsoever to back it up. The fact that they are still working together over 6 years on, completely negates that.
They are all cops VT. They don't choose the suspects, the evidence does. Whilst I agree there have been miscarriages of justice, fortunately they are very few. And they certainly don't involve large police forces in TWO counties.
The evidence is as it is VT, and it will lead both teams in the same direction. Your final question, 'how can both forces work amicably with that prevailing' is nonsense. They can and they are. All the other scenarios you put forward are pure speculation on your part and shows how ill informed you are. For heaven's sake, do the reading!
''So para 1, you are saying the police forces (and judiciaries) are working together to cover up the disappearance of a child? Put the glass down and walk away from the table.''
DeleteOr you could put yours down and read it again.
''Para 2, you say the PJ were gunning for the Brits, the 'met' ever were. Sweeping statement and totally untrue - you still haven't read those books have you?''
I do apologise. I don't need to read them to know the main players who were taken in as suspects were the McCanns and Murat(twice). The tapas group have been subjected to equal suspicion by those at the PJ. All Brits I believe. Unless, of course, you can identify non-Brits that have received equal coverage. The Met were told to look elsewhere regarding the McCanns if you recall.
''You seem to think the two police forces hold opposing views with nothing whatsoever to back it up''
Why not just concentrate on what i suggested, rather than what you think that I think. The Met : McCanns are not and were not suspects. PJ: The McCanns (and friends) lied
The evidence may well choose the suspects. It doesn't give the orders though. You emphasise TWO countries. Since when did even ONE country's politicians and intelligence service interfere with a police investigation ?
''Your final question, 'how can both forces work amicably with that prevailing' is nonsense. They can and they are.''
That would explain the ten years then.All that 'evidence' and a shared path of pursuit.. Because you don't want to believe or accept something doesn't make it nonsense.
VT
I am surprised that you have not expressed outrage at Netflix is making a true crime series on the disappearance on Madeleine McCann yet Ros.
ReplyDeleteWhy would I be outraged 22:55? I don't think like you (thank God), I welcome new ideas and perspectives, I'm looking forward to it.
DeleteI'm not trying to corner the market on everything Madeleine 22:55, and I certainly wouldn't do it by trying to silence or nobble the opposition. Unlike Bennett I don't petition to ban things I haven't seen, or even things I have - tbh, I'd just like to ban the word ban.
Anyway, I look forward to the series, I've just started watching 'Making a Murderer' - first episode, man wrongly convicted, released after 12 years in prison by new advances in DNA.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 September 2017 at 12:52
Delete'' I welcome new ideas and perspectives''
In the same way you welcome toothache ? Nice to have a bit of a laugh though. It's needed reading all this
Anonymous13 September 2017 at 00:24
ReplyDelete''The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with the Supreme Court Decision''
''This has nothing whatsoever to do with the principle of the presumption of innocence . Different legal matter all together . ''
Deputy director of the Judiciary Police, Pedro do Carmo 2017 :
''What I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period.''
It would seem that the deputy doesn't agree with Amaral. It seems also that he presumes the parents innocent. He speaks for the PJ. So, it seems that the internet majority has him to thank for the McCanns continued freedom. So, what's the response to the deputy ? Is he 'lying' too ?
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html
I always take 'not suspects' from the police, with a very large pinch of salt 02:02, there are many examples of 'not suspects' being arrested, sometimes the next day, as in the case of the Philpotts.
DeleteThe Portuguese police chief like the British police chiefs, are not pandering to the online sleuths and commentators. And who can blame them? Could you imagine the media reaction if a police officer announced the McCanns were suspects?
Didn't FBI Director James Comey tell Donald Trump 3 times he wasn't under investigation - look at how that turned out.
Anonymous , 02.02 You are mixing up the presumption of innocence with being cleared by the archival dispatch. They were not cleared at all and that will not change until the case is solved. The presumption of innocence is a different legal concept that exists within criminal process. It has no relation to being cleared or found guilty .
DeleteYou are quoting the PJ Deputy Director , and I would just like to point out that he has no competence with regards to clearing or convicting people, the PJ is not even in charge of charging people. That is the court and the Public Ministry's responsibility, respectively. The PJ is in charge of criminal investigation and presenting their case to the Public Ministry.
AS for them not being suspects, yes I am sure they are not arguidos, at least not that the public is aware of it, and I am sure we would all know if they were. That does not mean they are not suspects or persons of interest and the object of a criminal investigation. The public ministry would not make them arguidos unless they are quite sure it will lead to charges. I have to sadly agree with Blacksmith that, as things stand at the moment there is no evidence one can bring to a court of law , as far as we know.
Finally, as Ros says, do you believe that the Deputy of the PJ could come to public via Sky News or the BBC or Portuguese media and talk about who the suspects are in an active criminal investigation that is under judicial secrecy? Not a chance.
Don't you think explaining away ten years as 'shhh it's a secret'' is a bit far fetched ? I don't believe the deputy director or anyone would release the name or names of genuine suspects via the media of course. Suspects watch the same news programmes as all of us. Plus there's the fact that Sky and the McCann case are global so wherever the culprits are they'd see it. But the PJ have had a decade now, as have the met.If they haven't found anything to back up an arrest of the McCanns by now they won't any time soon. They'd all look crooked or incompetent. The praying for a new advance in DNA investigation is nothing more than wishful thinking on behalf of all who have decided to hate the parents.For all they know, that advance might incriminate someone else.
DeleteHello. Anonymous, 13 de setembro de 2017 Ã s 15:45
DeleteThanks for your sober, sensible post. Now, the comments this year by the police.
Q: Andy Redwood… said his policy was to go right back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction…which suggests … you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.
MR: Firstly the involvement of the parents: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation.
PdC: I do not want to talk about what happened up to 2008. This has been sufficiently debated at its appropriate place.
These replies are flannel. Not clever mass deception, flannel consistent with attempts to deceive the free world, cover-up for Jimmy Savile, protect themselves from Pat Brown etc. etc. No, junk flannel that has not the slightest chance of being accepted as the truth. This doesn’t bother them.
It’s intentional: their defence if asked one day to justify their comments. They will reply that it’s obvious they only said these things because they had to, not because they believed them to be true: the public interest in both countries for fairness to all those under investigation, but particularly to the parents, justified, them. So their careers will survive.
How could it be otherwise? How could they believe that “the involvement of the parents was dealt with at the time by the original investigation”? It wasn’t. How could it be true that “the material…was all dealt with” in 2008? It wasn’t.
The reconstruction section of the Archiving Summary says so explicitly: the investigation of T9 collusion had been prevented by the group “for reasons unknown”.
De Carmo: “I do not want to talk about what happened up to 2008. This has been sufficiently debated at its appropriate place”. It hasn’t. It has been debated everywhere in the world except its proper place, a courtroom. The Attorney-General’s dept. was not such a place. It dealt with the prosecution question – is there evidence NOW to hold the McCanns and charge them as the constitution requires?
The “now” is the nub and frankly it screams out what’s happening. The obvious role for Grange/ PJ is the dog that never barks in the night: with no “NOW!” deadlines, no EAW fears, no crisis between the two countries, no threat from the MSM/McCanns dead PR machine, go ahead and complete what couldn’t be completed in 2007 – Amaral’s “interrupted investigation”. They won’t even mention it.
But silence, as I’ve pointed out before, is itself evidence and usually very reliable indeed. That’s why I’m an optimist. Cheers.
DNA ? Never crossed my mind . A body , unlikely . A confession by one of at least 5 people or a witness or witnesses have crossed my thoughts and it's very likely to happen.
DeleteHate ? No . Characters are too irrelevant for such strong feelings . It's a matter of justice . Justice for the child and the falsely accused .
There is no one else to incriminate although they tried . Oh how they intercontinentally tried . All that remains is their obvious and so far judicially unprovable guilt .
Thank you Blacksmith .
DeleteAgree with your line of thought . Also , your last blog entry is superb . Sums it up .
''All that remains is their obvious and so far judicially unprovable guilt . ''
Deleteobvious ?
John Blacksmith. That's an awful lot of conjecture and all accusatory of a cover up by the police at all costs. Have you any conjecture as to why they'd go so far just to protect the parents and who they'd do that for ?
DeleteSeptember 14 at 1.09.
DeleteHello. It's no use me blaming people for not understanding what I've written: the fault is mine for not having made it clearer.
Not a word of the post accuses the police of a cover up: I have always dismissed that idea as a complete and childish fantasy and have gained many on-line enemies for doing so.
I thought, apparently wrongly, I had made that clear when I wrote that their statements are flannel that they do not believe. So I'll clarify it: if their statements were part of a cover up then it would be the most unsuccessful cover-up in history since I had no difficulty in demonstrating that their answers are not true. The two police forces have not constructed a story that holds water.
There certainly is conjecture in the post: I am conjecturing from the facts listed there that both police forces are making no attempt to actually convince people that they are not investigating the couple, for reasons I've been giving elsewhere over the last few years.
What alternative do they have except to bat questions about investigating the couple away without giving a sensible answer?
Well that depends, doesn't it, on what they are investigating. If they are not investigating the McCanns then obviously they can reel off the reasons why and state unambiguously that the parents will never be charged because they are known to be innocent. Then they can add the reasons and evidence that demonstrated this to them.
They've done none of these things, have they? They have never given a syllable of reassurance that the investigation has uncovered facts that demonstrate their innocence. Quite the reverse.
If they had done so then the McCanns could sue every blogger and anti-McCann commentator in the UK, certain in the knowledge they would win. They could completely recover their reputation. Not to allow them to do so is an act of sheer cruelty and an abuse of their investigative role. Unless...
Unless, of course, they are not sincere in their denials, just as de Carmo's PJ wasn't in 2007 when they said the parents were "not suspects" after the pair had appointed defence lawyers!
So "not suspects" means nothing. You'll know when the McCanns are genuinely not suspects when both police forces state formally that "they have been eliminated from the enquiry," together with the reasons why.
But you will never hear those words.
Now, if the question people ask is "why should police forces wish to stay silent about the McCanns being under investigation" then they should look up the various standing rules governing what UK and Portuguese forces are allowed to say about any suspects before charging and trial and they'll find the answer.
Whether they'll believe it or not is another matter.
Pretty much on the money there Blacksmith.
DeleteHi John, and what a pleasure that was to read. I have to admit I found 1:09's post baffling, but I am pleased that you have explained so logically and articulately why talk of a cover up is nonsense.
DeleteI have waivered over the years, I must admit, but the more extensions, the more determined the police appear to be, they seem very unwilling to give up.
I am always amazed at the naivety of people who take sentences out of a text, and then interpret them literally and carve them in stone. Everyone wants to be a lawyer and wordsmith eh, lol. 'You said, and I quote from page 180, subsection 20, of my notebook dated........'. Apart from being major bores, they don't seem to understand that we, like language, evolve and grow - all the time. Our views change and expand as we receive new information. They however live for that 'gotcha' moment when we contradict ourselves, which is actually quite sad.
I can see why things written down for them are important, they are stuck in the pre adolescent stage, when other people told them what to do. If it's written down, it's a rule, please refer to star chart on the fridge, it's next to your 'I swam one width' certificate.
This case unfortunately, has been a magnet for the narrow minded. They reflect the views of post war Britain, when the populace believed that politicians, newspapers and police (especially) never told a lie. It's quaint, but creepy.
They believe the statements put out by Operation Grange are the gospel truth, word for word, whilst simultaneously believing all the Officers working on this case are involved in a major cover up. They don't seem to be able to correlate two trains of thought at the same time, but I guess that's what happens when you wear blinkers.
12.00.17 @20:13
ReplyDelete"How many 'dogged detectives' have been on this for ten years ?"
Liberty? Hillsborough? 911?
Is dogged another new word for you?
DeleteHundreds I would imagine 12:39, quietly working away, not seeking the limelight.
'I have for the past few months gone easy on the McCanns, because, well, I felt sorry for them.'
ReplyDeleteI just choked on my sandwich when I read that.
Why thank you 12:54, that's exactly the kind of reaction I go for! ;)
Delete12.09.17 @20:13
ReplyDeleteSeeking pecuniary gain while alleging libel?
Anonymous 12 September 2017 at 20:13
Delete“Anonymous 13 September 2017 at 12:56
12.09.17 @20:13
[The McCanns] Seeking pecuniary gain while alleging libel?”
And the answer to my question, comrade, is?
Namaste.
T
Ros 13.09.17 @10:25
ReplyDeleteConcur.
May I put on your cap please, Ros? :)
Of course 13:14. One request, could it be made of edible fruits (or chocolate), should I ever be called upon to eat it? :)
DeleteRosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 13 September 2017 at 13:43
Delete“…should I ever be called upon to eat it…”
Breakfast at Tiffany's perhaps? Just you and me? Yes, Dear?
T:)
Sounds utterly divine T :) Croissants and diamonds, what could be nicer?
DeleteI have to admit, one of the joys of the internet for me, is gazing at sparkly things! I once stumbled upon a website dedicated entirely to royal tiaras, and I was captivated. Now I spend many a happy hour gazing in awe at crowns worn by medieval kings and queens, fabulous jewels and Faberge eggs!
Ros @13:43
ReplyDeleteYour cap - your choice, Dear.:)
Ros @13:46
ReplyDelete"Is dogged another new word for you?"
Yes(=No), Dear.
Bless.
T
Anonymous 12 September 2017 at 01:08
ReplyDelete“McCanns have called him [Dr Amaral] a liar…”
Yes, that’s something they are well known for…
A liar or not, the matter of lawfulness of Dr Amaral’s statements would have been judicially decided had the McCanns sued for libel.
The McCanns did not sue for libel. They sued only for monetary compensation for damages allegedly caused by Dr Amaral’s statements, the truth of which remains unexamined in a court of law. Had they sued for libel and won, not only the monetary award might have been greater, but also Dr Amaral’s ‘lies’ might have been outlawed.
Why, then, have the McCanns not sued Dr Amaral for libel??
“Who instigated this 'reputation damage' war ?”
The answer has been given by the Portuguese courts. The truth of Dr Amaral’s alleged ‘reputation damaging’ statements remains judicially unexamined however.
I shouldn’t think the McCanns would sue for libel. I would likely eat not only my cap, I would eat my carpet if they would sue and win.
Perhaps comrade The Rising Sun could help you to reply, comrade VT.
Peace.
T
What was the book banning about if it wasn't libel?
DeleteThe McCanns succeeded in getting GA's book banned, but this was overturned by a higher Court, and they lost their further appeals. The books was not ruled libellous and it was allowed back on the shelves.
Having failed to get GA's book banned, I never understood why they went ahead with their compensation claim. The Appeal Court and the Supreme Court ruled the book non libellous. Once the book was Unbanned, their claim for damages was fatally flawed. They should have dropped it, and iirc, they tried to, but GA wanted it to go to Court. He wasn't going to pay them anything, even a reduced amount.
Hello Ros. Nice stuff right on the money from you lately.
DeleteThe problem for us all is the difference between the two legal systems. Leaving aside the fact that I gave up trying to understand Portuguese law because of its tendency to surprise everybody including its judges, the key point is that libel in Portugal is not a "civil" offence, as in the UK, but a criminal one, believe it or not, so we are not at all talking about the same thing.
The aim of modern defamation law in both countries has been the same: to replace personal vengeance and retribution (essentially duelling or vendetta) for an insult to honour with something less bloody and dramatic but still a deterrent.
The UK, that nation of dishonourable shopkeepers, rightly or wrongly gave up on the "honour" concept and civilised/monetised it rather earlier than most countries in Europe, especially in the south: there, though not in Portugal, there are places in which vendetta is still tacitly accepted.
The ease with which Duarte turned a defamation question from a possible risk of bankruptcy into a medieval horror film threatening Amaral's very existence shows that the honour question there is still red in tooth and claw - blood red. The nearest I can find to explain this for readers is here:
https://ipi.media/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says/
Looking at their 'anything goes, no holds barred' approach to freedom of expression I suppose it could be said that the Tapas group and Teflon Murat touched lucky with their libel and defamation cases being in the UK.
Delete@Anonymous14 September 2017 at 05:10
DeleteIn terms of reputation, I don't agree that the parents damaged Amaral's as much as the gesture of no confidence that his removal amounted to.They can be viewed as victims of a crime or as culprits and suspects. But his bosses still removed him.A show of strength and good faith would have been more appropriate considering he'd served the force for over 25 years.He should have taken them to the proverbial cleaners.In terms of libel and / or lies, there's a loophole that prevents suing for 'lies'.The ruling had a proviso that the contents would be allowed as literary musings rather than him stating that they're facts. It's a catch 22. The McCanns called Amaral a liar because they think he's lying. Amaral called them liars because he thinks they were . Should the onus be on someone accused of lying to prove that they're not, or with the accuser to prove that the accusation is well founded and true. I know what the logical answer is.
VT
Same old Ziggy nonsense, GA should have blamed his employers. It's never worked btw, so please stop labouring it.
DeleteIt was the very slick media campaign by the McCanns that destroyed GA's reputation. From the very beginning they were smearing the police, starting with the first two officers who arrived on the scene, who Kate referred to as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
The UK tabloids were filled with malicious stories and rumours about the Portuguese detectives, and some were obligingly publishing 'bad' pictures of Goncalo Amaral, to support the rumours that he was a drunken, incompetent sardine muncher. None of that came from his bosses VT, that was pure Team McCann.
Hi JB, thank you for that. I agree the Portuguese legal system is indeed baffling!
DeleteThe 'punishment' makes sense, because that is of course what the McCanns claim is all about. The 'pros' are positively apoplectic that he [GA] should not be allowed to 'get away with it'.
The amounts claimed by Gerry and Kate for themselves and their THREE children for pain and suffering(psychological) were astronomical and how do you quantify their pain, in comparison to, say, losing a child? And how do you quantify it for children, when one of them isn't even here? I'm glad GA didn't challenge the psychological evidence, with a real expert, that would have been excruciating.
As for Duarte, I am still astonished by her press interview, at the outset of one of their trials. Her priority that day was to get GA to reveal all his assets and their whereabouts, so they could be ringfenced for Gerry and Kate. She was utterly shameless as she stated they were demanding £250k each 'and they are five', making sure we understood the missing Madeleine was to be compensated too.
Hm, Duarte.We all know the McCanns have this thoroughly creepy ability to draw out the pus from certain individuals in the UK, if only from the sizable numbers of them who've been publicly disgraced since 2007.But it takes a special kind of malignancy to bring out the worst in the Portuguese, of all people.
DeleteMost lawyers in my experience keep a distance from the cases they work on, part of that whole justice detachment ethic in which, for example, judges address people on trial with studied courtesy as Mr This or M/S That, before sentencing them to 30 years inside.
But Duarte, who had a big reputation and comes, I believe, from a respectable background, seems to have been as corrupted by mere contact with the McCanns as Clarence Mitchell. It was she who suggested to the couple that they should ambush Amaral by the civil rights route first for maximum and immediate impact.
While the other lawyers in the libel trial acted with courtesy and restraint, putting their questions without animus, listening to Duarte was like eavesdropping on a witch who'd broken into a church with a rock-drill. She has an exceptionally unattractive voice and the beautiful and melodic Portuguese tongue was tortured into a 90 decibel magpie megacroak, whatever question she was asking.
Her identification with the couple seemed as complete, as vicious and as strange, as that of the pair's UK twitter fans.
They do seem to bring out the worst in people JB, or is it that they attract the worst people?
DeleteIsn't it strange for example, that 10+ years on, they haven't got anyone friendly, likeable or diplomatic, to speak on their behalf? No names attached to their facebook page or their Madeleine Fund. Those who do, Jim Gamble, Clarence Mitchell, are aloof and authoritarian, nothing that would make an audience sympathetic to the McCanns.
I don't know very much about Isabel Duarte, other than her gleefully counting up the Euros outside the door of the Court. From the little I have seen, she certainly fires the parents up along those same 'don't let him get away it' lines. She and they are well matched, we can only look forward to when they turn on each other (which they will).
I'm not sure Clarence was corrupted by Gerry. I suspect when this pair met, they made an instant connection. Two ambitious schemers and a human interest story they took global, the biggest appeal Fund for one child, the world has ever seen. They were planning pop concerts, arts festivals, sports events, an annual Madeleine Day. You can see why they were really pissed off at being made arguidos.
Anonymous 14 September 2017 at 20:28
DeleteMorning, VT
“Should the onus be on someone accused of lying to prove that they're not, or with the accuser to prove that the accusation is well founded and true. I know what the logical answer is.”
Why didn’t the McCanns (the plaintiffs) sue Dr Amaral for libel?
Thanks you.
T
john blacksmith
DeleteMorning, john
I can’t help but notice that some of your comments regarding Isabel Duarte are malicious.
I would’ve thought someone of your prominence should know better than that.
T
She can always sue me, can't she?
DeleteOnly in the British courts, not her favoured weapon of choice, medieval ambush-land.
You cannot sue for damages in a criminal case . Any penal process where damages are required must have a parallel or agglomerated civil law suit to claim for pecuniary damages. They could have tried for both , however i think they'd have lost the penal case far quicker . But even after that, they could go for a civil law suit if their case met the criteria established in the articles of the processual codes. If the aim was to simply prove they had been defamed then yes I see Blacksmith's point re the type of action their lawyer chose .
DeleteFor clarity , the first. Case was an " injunction " , a cautionary action . that's when the book was banned . That was then lifted by the appeals court back in 2009 / 10 I think . The book has not been banned since that decision . Why ? Because for the law suit they brought against Amaral to achieve that the last appeal possible must be exhausted. In other words the Supreme Court would have decided in favour of McCanns in 2017. They haven't so the book has not been banned since the decision regarding the injunction . I hope this makes sense .
Hi VT@20:28
DeleteUnless I'm wrong and I will be the first to put my hands up but GA has never ever said the McCanns are liars. Gerry has said publicly that he wanted to stop GA's book because of the lies.
15 September 2017 at 11:04
DeleteHello. I take it from your obvious familiarity with the material that you are Portuguese.
I don’t in the least disagree with you and I’ve admitted that the refinements of Portuguese law remain a mystery to me so I’ll leave it at that.
KM wrote:
“Isabel suggested that first of all we should apply for an injunction against Amaral’s book and the DVD of his documentary with the aim of preventing the distribution and further repetition of his damaging theories. The next phase would be to sue Amaral for libel.”
Much of the UK confusion arises from that. An injunction in an English libel case means an emergency application to prevent the defendant from (unnecessarily, perhaps maliciously) aggravating the libel before it reaches court.
Evidence must be provided to demonstrate the risk, the special circumstances and the likelihood that the claimant will eventually win.
UK journalists, having been briefed by the McCanns that it was such a libel (UK-style) claim, repeated that nonsense thereafter. Even after the Lisbon 2009/10 HR injunction hearing nobody over here dreamed that a “preliminary” injunction could take a civil defendant into a nightmare world of open-ended constraint that has no business existing in a modern European state. M/S Duarte planned that route.
That is why I suggest that, with great respect and speaking as a fellow European and a friend of Portugal, Portuguese libel law is currently in an uneasy and confused transient state between the civil and the criminal law, one in which the defendant is neither clearly criminal nor fully free.
But that "limbo" status itself effectively serves as a severe punishment suitable for criminals rather than a free defendant, as the travails of Amaral have demonstrated. A punishment given before trial! As a result I believe there was every likelihood of a successful finding at the EHCR for Amaral had he not eventually won. I think that the eminent lawyer in the link I provided concedes many of these points.
Finally, as an example of Duarte’s extreme and highly questionable identification with the McCanns and, in this instance, her lack of professional detachment and clear personal animosity to a defendant, KM writes this:
“Six weeks later Gerry went to Lisbon to meet her [Duarte]. Although we were still resisting the temptation to sue, her parting shot left a lasting impression on him. ‘Don’t forget! That man said you buried your daughter on the beach!’”
@Anonymous15 September 2017 at 08:00
DeleteBecause libel laws in Portugal are still in the dark ages. As the court has confirmed.
John10015 September 2017 at 14:47
The McCanns told the police that their child had been abducted from her bed while they were out. Amaral has claimed that the child hadn't left the apartment alive and, further, they were not only aware of that, they were the ones who removed her corpse. Look up 'Amaral's book' on google and check the title.Hands up ? Gerry McCann is entitled to demand proof that he's dumped his child's body.
I agree with you re the action taken and the morosity, yes. Although I always take "the book of attempted amendments" by KM very, very carefully and would not be totally certain to attribute this to ID alone.
DeleteDefamation would also imply that the book contains lies. The book was found to be coincident and not adding anything to the criminal investigation that was already public. Maybe ID knew that a defamation case had no chance and it would be even more damning for the clients to get such a verdict from a criminal court, or worse have the application for such an action denied by the court.
--------
ARTIGO 180.º
(Difamação)
1- Those who addressing a third party, input to another person, even if only as a suspicion, a fact or formulate a judgement opinion about that person, offensive to their honour or perception that others have of them, or reproduces such an opinion or imputation of actions , is punished with a prison sentence up to 6 months or with a fine of up to 240 days.
2- This conduct is not punishable when:
a) The imputation is carried out to pursue legitimate interests; and
b)the agent proves the truth of the said imputation or had a serious grounds to, in good faith, consider that it was true.
3- without prejudice of the disposed in b), c) and d) of nr.2 of article 31 of this code, the disposed in the previous article is not applicable when the imputation relates to facts with regards to the intimacy of private and/or family life.
----
The injunction, cautionary action, has precisely the same grounds as the ones you described in Common Law.
What really amazes me is that ID is specialised in freedom of the press and represents (or represented ) a reputable newspaper in Portugal . Conflicting. As an unrelated curiosity, she also represented Marco Aragão in an inheritance case (Aragão was Cipriano's Lawyer against Amaral) .
I read the article you published some days ago, yes. The technicalities of the civil law system make it impossible though to have defamation as a civil suit, simply because it is a crime. What I think the legislator should do, they could force these cases to enter as defamation first and no civil law suit would be possible if they lost the defamation case. However the nuances are so many that I can see why that is also virtually impossible.
The morosity is because all parties have the right to appeal both to the Relação and then to the Supreme Court . When you have a trial that involves translation, interpreting, witneses from abroad and all the facts and thousands of pages of the criminal investigation brough to the table, then it is going to take years. I agree something should be done to prevent, at least, that someone has their assets frozen for so many years. I am not in favour of taking away the possibility of appeal but maybe some cases could have only one appeal possible , rather than two. Difficult decision.
Yes that sentence in the Bewk always makes me cringe, since he never said that precise sentence whcich is actually not consistent with his theory , the same way there was never an attempted deal by the PJ during her interrogation. Strange book and a big error I believe. Perhaps the biggest error of all.
Blacksmith 09:49
Delete"She can always sue me, can't she?"
Craig Murray once extended a similar invitation to journalist Jake Wallis Simons, who has since engineered an opportunity to accept the challenge.
Result: Murray's looking down the barrel of bankruptcy.
Be careful what you wish for, eh?
Thanks for the reply. I hope you weren't offended that an outsider, and not a legal expert at that, put forward some criticism of Portuguese law.
DeleteAnd yes, it was the asset freezing for so long that most disturbed me.
15 September at 18.12
DeleteThat she can always sue is a statement of fact, not false bravado.Nothing I wrote about Duarte is actionable under English law: it was rude and critical. Rudeness is not libel.
Craig Murray is an irresponsible rumour-blogger loved by twitter loonies for the same reason they love textusa: bullshit calms the soul. He can't complain if he has no defence of truth regarding the very serious allegations he made.
Anyone who takes up a cause and comments about it runs the risk of being sued.
But thank you for your concern on my behalf.
February 10, 2010
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHgdCbOexc
at 4:15
Isabel Duarte: What I've seen was various relevant information, photos, possible locations, license plates...
Sandra Felgueiras: That your clients didn't yet identify?
Isabel Duarte: My clients are knowing it now. My clients knew about this now. I have the documentation with me to deliver to them.
Sandra Felgueiras: And the photos that you've seen, did they seem to be of Madeleine?
Isabel Duarte: There are photos who are similar to the girl, erm, even shocking, and there are others...
Sandra Felgueiras: Shocking, why?
Isabel Duarte: It doesn't matter.
------------------------
?
John Blacksmith rocks..........your summation on the focus of SY, the legal case and the role of Duarte are just excellent. You had the sane readers here at " Hello". The crazies you could write all day for and they would still refuse to comprehend. Ros I must say I am really enjoying your blog these day. The banning of Ziggy, although we know he does still comment ( he doesn't have the same effect when he tries to hide his identity ) has really inspired other contributors. Well done on that decision
ReplyDeleteHello. It's Ros's blog not mine so I don't always thank you for your friendly comments. Thanks.
DeleteI quite agree with you that Ros's blog has become even more enjoyable than it was.
Concerning Defamation, Insult, and False accusation, Portugal.
ReplyDeleteDefamation remains a criminal offence in Portugal:
Defamation (difamação, Art. 180): Alleging a fact or formulating a judgment (or reproducing such) about a third person that is offensive to that person’s honour or reputation. It is punished with a prison term of maximum six months or a fine of maximum 240 days.
Insult (injúria, Art. 181): Alleging a fact or expressing offensive words directly to a person that is/are offensive to that person’s honour or reputation. Insult is punished with a prison term of maximum three months or a fine of up to 120 days.Per Art. 183, the penalty for insult is increased by one-third if the act concerns the allegation of a particular fact that the offender knows to be untrue or committed with publicity. If the act was committed through the media, the penalty is increased to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine not less than 120 days
False accusation (denúncia caluniosa, Art. 365): Publicly accusing or casting suspicion on a person of having committed a crime while knowing the accusation to be false. The penalty is imprisonment for up to three years or a fine.
http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/portugal/
So, removing the right to sue for libel, why hasn't Amaral been nicked yet ? I find that quite interesting. His bosses remove him but believe him at the same time ? Would too much come out in court that Amaral's bosses have been told shouldn't ? Is that where Amaral's confidence comes from- that catch 22 ? His sub-heading to the book is 'the forbidden investigation' . Who forbade it, Mr Amaral ? And why ? Tell the same tabloids who allegedly cost you your job if nobody else.
VT