Saturday, 17 March 2018

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM - GONCALO AMARAL'S THEORY

In reply to Team McCann's chief publicist overleaf, Goncalo Amaral's theory wasn't disproved by the archiving report and the information contained in the files! In fact the Supreme Court highlighted the fact that the McCanns were not cleared by the archiving report.  You are believing your own propaganda!  
 
The police have never discussed the evidence they have, though both the PJ and OG said they were satisfied with the original investigation, ie. the one led by Goncalo Amaral. They had no need to revisit it. Let that sink in. They had no need to dismantle everything GA had done, and start again. The police files and GA’s book correspond, nothing has been disproved.  You are mistaking your daydreams for reality.  And your bravado about 11 years and no arrests is hollow because the investigations haven't finished. Any arrests will come at the end and we are not there yet.  Until then whoever is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance is still very much on the hook.
 
I should add however, that in 11 years, GA’s theory is the only one that hasn’t fallen by the wayside. Thousands if not millions have been spent on trying to find alternatives, not only by the McCanns but, it would seem, by the UK and Portuguese governments.  Dozens of oddballs and innocent blue collar workers have been plastered over the tabloids as possible abductors of Madeleine, lives wrecked to keep the abductor theory going. People have been invited by Jim Gamble on breakfast TV to inform on their neighbours and friends, anyone they think may be hiding the crime.  Paedophile gangs, people traffickers, deceased paedophiles, tractor drivers, cleaners, laundry workers, soothing couples, men with learning difficulties and the latest from SY’s finest, burglars, have all been offered as alternate theories, but none have stuck.  It takes quite an imagination to believe that an inept burglar has been able to cover up the crime of the century for 11 years, but there we are.
 
Neither the McCanns nor the MSM have ever bothered with the bonkers theories, mostly because on reading them, it quickly becomes apparent that they are bonkers.  The UK MSM have steered clear of GA’s actual theory, just as they have steered clear of (for the present) his toxic book. His theory, bizarrely, is 'illegal' in the UK and several news organisations have paid the penalty. The taking away of Goncalo Amaral’s freedom of speech outrages me, I cannot believe that laws exist that suppress the other side of the story, and deeply ashamed that the UK still practices them.  
 
I celebrated the fact that Goncalo Amaral ultimately won his long legal battle with the McCanns. Justice was served and the truth prevailed.  GA had been publicly accused of bungling the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, there was a vindictive campaign to portray him as lazy and incompetent, and most hurtful, ‘a bad dresser’. He was ‘disgraced’ by the British media, with lazy and incompetent columnists latching onto the racist spitefest with glee.  Who can blame him for wanting to tell The Truth of the Lie, and some might say he had no option.  He had to explain his side for his own reputation and for his family and loved ones.  Former suspects pursuing the detective who searched for their daughter is not a concept that should sit comfortably with anyone, it gags the police and leaves them vulnerable to financial claims from suspects they pursue.  Gerry and Kate wanted GA's family home. 
 
Goncalo Amaral's theory has not been disproved, it remains the ginormous elephant in the room that journalists like Martin Brunt and Richard Bilton skirt around.  In fact it is skirted around by every journalist who interviews them and writes about them, on the grounds that it is unthinkable and offends British sensibilities.  I think if Lorraine Kelly had to interview a guest who was stark naked and told not to mention it, she would do so without raising an eyebrow.  She has avoided the elephant more than most
 
All the McCanns' legal actions against Goncalo Amaral have been prey to the 'Streisand Effect'. But who knows, maybe that is what they were going for. By SE, I mean they have drawn more adverse publicity to the subject they wanted to hide.   Whether they in fact helped sell more copies of GA's book is debateable, but for many years now it has been available free online to anyone who wants to read it.   
 
Until the PJ and OG reach their conclusions, the only credible theory is that of Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation.  As the archiving report pointed out, the McCanns lost the opportunity to prove their innocence.  How they managed to spin the archiving report into 'cleared' and a declaration of innocence, was a feat worthy of some kind of 'Spin Oscar', under the category 'Most Convincing BS', it fooled most of the leading broadcasters.  I wonder if they kicked themselves when the Portuguese Supreme Court deconstructed it [the archiving report] for them? 
 
Nevertheless, GA's theory stands unchallenged, no-one has come up with a more logical or reasoned conclusion, and as mentioned above, it hasn't been for lack of trying.  The bonkers theories, I will deal with in a Part II, they are crying out to be shot down in flames, they have no objective other than to stir up hatred, and they are doing this by fantasising that the crime is far more heinous than it appears.  I find the Madeleine died on the Sunday theory particularly abhorrent. 
 


50 comments:

  1. Thanks for this blog Rosalinda.

    It is high time someone explained the difference between UN-proven and DIS-proven to those who insist Goncalo Amaral's thesis has been shown to be wrong.

    It has not - after all these years and millions spent, it has not.

    Not a single piece of evidence has been uncovered that would enable the McCann supporters to say "There you are, you see - there it is, the EVIDENCE that Amaral was wrong"

    It's never happened, and the fact remains, to this day, that as far as any of us know, Goncalo Amaral's theory might be right on the money.

    No-one can say , with certainty, that it's not - including Scotland Yard it appears.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's only one non-bonkers theory. She was abducted.

    John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a problem with that though.

      Amaral's theory takes into account the evidence that IS available ( the cadaver dog alerts, the upstairs neighbour who heard a child crying in the McCanns apartment for over an hour, the open bedroom window that no-one climbed either in or out of, and the witness who is fairy sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child that night )

      The abduction theory, conversely, does not incorporate any of that existing evidence.

      Indeed, in order for the abduction theory to be accepted it is necessary to IGNORE what little evidence does exist. ( by pretending it did not happen or coming up with obscure reasons to dismiss it as irrelevant )

      The only 'evidence' that exists to support the theory that Madeleine was abducted is that the McCanns 'say' she was - the entire theory hinges on that alone.

      Delete
    2. Alone or not, it stands.Unlike Amaral's.

      Delete
    3. Outside social media, Amaral's theory has never got off the ground. Abduction will always be the most likely explanation for Madeleine McCann's disappearance, evidence or no evidence. The alternatives just don't pass the plausibility threshold.

      John

      Delete
    4. Far from wishing to be the grammar police, I do think the word 'fairy' and fairly need some clarification, since I took a long time over the missing 'l'

      Delete
    5. John, can you provide any evidence to support the theory that Madeleine was stolen from her bed by people or persons unknown? Without any evidence this is simply an opinion. The opinion of the parents. As you know, in cases where children disappear mysteriously in the majority of cases those responsible are family, friends or those well known to the child and trusted. I would be interested in seeing any evidence at all that the Madeleine McCann case is any different to the statistical norm in such cases.

      Delete
  3. "LETTER TO PORTUGAL: The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: New evidence of what happened to her

    Post by Get'emGonçalo Today at 10:28
    A LETTER TO DRª JOANA MARQUES VIDAL, CHIEF PROSECUTOR, PORTUGAL, 28 FEBRUARY 2018, FROM MMRG

    Introduction by forum owner, Jill Havern.

    On 28 February 2018, members of the Madeleine McCann Research Group posted, by Special Delivery, a letter to the Chief Prosecutor of Portugal, Drª Joana Marques Vidal."
    https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14979-letter-to-portugal-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-new-evidence-of-what-happened-to-her#383208

    Etc Etc - there follows a pack of lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, is anyone else cringing with embarrassment on their behalf?

      I suppose Madeleine McCann Research Group sounds better than shower of nosy bastards with nothing better to do. I can't say I'm inclined to read it, in fact I would go so far to say, that I would have to be strapped into a chair with my eyes prised open Clockwork Orange style to read anything written by Bennett. My sympathies lie with the poor sods who HAVE to read it.

      I should imagine the PJ and OG have got the measure of Tony Bennett and CMoMM by now, and file his voluminous correspondence under loons and headcases.
      The idea that this group of armchair detectives can bring anything new to two official police investigations that they are not privy to, is laugh out funny.

      Delete
    2. Even BEFORE it's translated ( back ) into English it has all the hallmarks of Bennet - endless reams 'numbered' points and addendums all couched in pseudo legalese language that is supposed to convey 'expertise' but actually only manages to sound pompous and pretentious.

      The frustrating thing is though, that this drivel will be grist to mill for those who wish to tar anyone who questions the McCann's version of events with the "conspiraloon' brush.

      Bennet and his cohorts continue to be helpful to the McCanns in that respect. ( I'm actually beginning to wonder if there is some truth in the "poacher turned gamekeeper" line )

      Delete
    3. They say: "A team of independent investigators working over the last decade"

      They call it work looking at photos of a missing child and inventing every illness in the world that that attribute to her. They call a 4 year old girl "sexy" and "provocative" and they call it work????

      Delete
    4. "The group, which consists mainly of ex-police officers, former criminal investigators and information analysts, also includes some specialists in digital photography, lawyers, solicitors, English-Portuguese translators, etc."

      Oh really!

      Delete
    5. Of course the group should have made everyone aware that one of their "solicitors"

      "(i) that he failed to comply with a finding of inadequate professional service dated 20 July 2001, confirmed on appeal on 30 August 2001

      (ii) that he failed to act in the best interests of clients in that he acted for them in a private capacity thereby outside the scope of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund Rules 1995

      (iii) that he acted in breach of principle 17.01 in that he accounted to clients in a personal capacity and not as an employee of his firm thereby failing to act with frankness and good faith towards his employers

      (iv) by virtue of the aforementioned the Respondent had brought the profession into disrepute and is guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor

      The Tribunal Order that the Respondent,solicitor, be Reprimanded and they further order that he do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £3000."

      Hence he is an ex solicitor.

      Delete
    6. How embarrassing is this letter to the AG?

      Very embarrassing, as the Ministerio Publico and Judiciaria have available to them, the whole picture.
      What does this group of desperados have?
      Assumptions, distortion of facts available and they don't have like many of us Mrs.Smith statement to police.
      A bright journalist from Ireland obtained more or less, Mrs Smith account, good for her keeping some of it to herself
      Let's allow Judiciaria to do it's job

      Isabelle M

      Delete
  4. ''In reply to Team McCann's chief publicist overleaf, Goncalo Amaral's theory wasn't disproved by the archiving report and the information contained in the files!''

    Yes, Ros, That's right, anyone who requires evidence to support theory and refuses to hate strangers for no tangibly supported reason is part of Team McCann. What were you calling conspiracy theorists recently ? Was it 'deluded' ? Anyone who advances a theory has the onus placed upon him to support or prove it. It isn't for anyone else to disprove it.

    ''They had no need to revisit it. Let that sink in. They had no need to dismantle everything GA had done, and start again.''

    Yes, that's correct. It had failed once so why bother ? Let that sink in.

    ''The police files and GA’s book correspond, nothing has been disproved. You are mistaking your daydreams for reality''

    The reality being that the theories in the book are just literature.That's why they'll remain there.Gathering dust.

    ''And your bravado about 11 years and no arrests is hollow ''

    They're neither.It's a fact.

    '' Any arrests will come at the end and we are not there yet. Until then whoever is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance is still very much on the hook.''

    That's one big hook. How many men does it take 11 years (and counting) to unhook the catch and take him /her to court ?

    ''I should add however, that in 11 years, GA’s theory is the only one that hasn’t fallen by the wayside.''

    Only if you include book shops. No police have done anything to suggest they're impressed.

    ''It takes quite an imagination to believe that an inept burglar has been able to cover up the crime of the century for 11 years''

    Only a minority believe that.The bored pretendy detectives believe it's a movie and the parents did it, closer observers are trying to figure out why an abductor has been protected.It isn't the crime of the century merely because it occupies the majority of your time.

    ''His theory, bizarrely, is 'illegal' in the UK ''

    No it isn't. Calling it / them factual is illegal. it comes under laws you probably consider draconian( for this case only) called slander, defamation, and libel.

    ''Until the PJ and OG reach their conclusions, the only credible theory is that of Goncalo Amaral''

    No, it's just the flimsiest of straws to grasp at by you and others like you.Implying that blood, DNA and cadaver scent has been lied about make up that straw.Conspiracy theorist.

    ''the McCanns lost the opportunity to prove their innocence.''

    Both forces said they are not suspects.That's been proof enough.

    ''I celebrated the fact that Goncalo Amaral ultimately won his long legal battle with the McCanns. ''

    You always pretend you 'have no idea' what happened to Madeleine- why celebrate anything ?

    Good liars need a good memory.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19:39

      "The reality being that the theories in the book are just literature."

      As are the theories in 'madeleine'.

      Delete
    2. As Jónatas Machado points out, in "Freedom of Expression, Public Interest and Public Figures and Equalities", BFDUC, vol.LXXXV, 2009, p. 91, The presumption of innocence, because it's only a presumption, cannot overcome the search for the truth and the right of citizens to the truth. It cannot as well prevent public criticism and public scrutiny of the functioning of justice. The same happens, furthermore, with the attempt to demonstrate the innocence of a condemned person and thereby to move aside the mark of the conviction. The search for truth, including the truth about justice, has always been one of the main justifications of freedom of expression.

      http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm#68

      Delete
    3. "Good Liars need a good memory"

      Not necessarily - getting others to tell lies FOR you means you don't have to worry about "remembering" - as long as 'conduits' ( or pals ) are used for the lies it's all deniable should push comes to shove.

      Some folk are very good at that ploy.

      Delete
    4. It's not about hating strangers for no good reason, and you have been told many times before. It is about the actual crime that has been committed and by whom.

      I don't consider Goncalo Amaral a conspiracy theorist. He was the lead detective on the original investigation and his book is a first hand account of the summer of 2007. His theory is based on the facts and evidence produced by that investigation, ie. not fantasy.

      Is it really a good idea to be taunting the police? 'How many men does it take......?'. As many as it takes and as much money as it takes. There are no signs they are giving up.

      Who thinks the abductor is being protected? Even the crackpots in the cesspit and Textusa don't think that. I'm trying to think of scenarios where an abductor might be protected, like Robert Kennedy being airlifted out of LA before the body of Madeleine Monroe was discovered. Of course it could be one of Queen Victoria's sons, also on the Ripper list of suspects, but that would just be silly. Who, in the 21st century is of equal VIP status? And why choose a not particularly upmarket Warners family resort in PDL to carry out their seedy shenanigans? Hmm. Do tell who and why this abductor has been protected for 11 years, I am intrigued.

      Calling Goncalo Amaral's theory factual is illegal. Ok, thank you for clearing that up. I think by now we have all learned how to say things without actually saying things, lol, which must be endlessly frustrating for you. The Law is of course an ass, it reminds me of the many ways the old film makers got around the censorship laws.

      If GA's theory were nothing more than a straw to clutch onto, why have the McCanns gone to so much trouble and spent millions to suppress it?

      If both forces saying they are not suspects is 'proof enough', why didn't the McCanns use this 'proof' in their claim against GA?

      My statement is not ambiguous. I clearly say I celebrated GA winning his 'long legal battle', and I do. I think the McCanns vendetta against him has been malicious and unjust.

      Your response just hangs there, unrelated to anything.

      Delete
    5. ''His theory is based on the facts and evidence produced by that investigation, ie. not fantasy.''

      This case has dragged on for eleven years because there is no facts or evidence that could stand up in court as a case for the prosecution.Theories don't cut it.

      ''There are no signs they are giving up.''

      There are no statements saying it. Signs? What signs can you see ?

      '', like Robert Kennedy being airlifted out of LA before the body of Madeleine Monroe was discovered. ''

      Before who was discovered ?

      ''If GA's theory were nothing more than a straw to clutch onto, why have the McCanns gone to so much trouble and spent millions to suppress it? ''

      What price do you put on truth ? Besides, he's publicly accused them of burying their child without being able to provide proof.Normal people call that slander and defamation.

      '' think the McCanns vendetta against him has been malicious and unjust. ''

      According to their status - 'innocent of any crime' - calling them liars and accusing them of burying their child on top of that, i think your definition of 'malicious' needs some work.Come to think of it, 'vendetta' does too .

      ''Your response just hangs there, unrelated to anything.''

      That's the opposite of the truth.

      Delete
    6. There are enough facts and evidence for Operation Grange to have been granted further funding. That they are requesting further funding is a sign they haven't given up.

      You are the one suggesting a VIP abductor is being protected, that some sort of professional cover up was underway before the alarm was raised for Madeleine's disappearance.

      What price do you put on truth? Odd question, truth just IS, it isn't a commodity that can be bought and sold. You can't buy it in a Court of Law or on the front page of a tabloid and claim that the one with the most money owns it.

      The McCanns have had 11 years to speak their truth, but they have hidden behind lawyers, spokesmen, pals and sources. Nothing has stopped them from disputing each and every one of GA's theories with explanations that would have proved he was wrong. If they are telling the truth, that shouldn't be difficult. Kate in her book 'Madeleine' could have dismantled GA's theory, she could have answered the '48 questions' and explained why she couldn't answer them at the time. It would have been far less costly than their libel actions.

      As for slander and defamation, it sounds so last century. Why would parents of a missing child put their own reputations above the search for their child? Public opinion changes by the day, sometimes by the hour, the McCanns were implicated in the eyes of the public when they were made Arguidos, long before GA's book was released. They were never going to return to their former hero status after that.

      Their hatred of Goncalo Amaral is illogical. I am amazed that you cannot see how destructive it is. It has eaten them up and it has eaten up the huge fund they once had at their disposal. There are far more important things in life than worrying about what other people say about us. The McCanns especially, who's daughter is still missing.

      They lost the battle for public approval when they pursued the detective who searched for their daughter for £1.25m. Book burning should have no place in the 21st century. The McCanns have always had the means, the resources and the public platform to rebut GA's theory, why haven't they?

      Delete
    7. Slander and defamation sounds so last century? WTF does that mean. As for why would parents of a missing child put their own reputations above the search for their child, it's possible to do both. I wonder what your motive is for linking the two.

      John

      Delete
  5. I think you might be forgetting that there are major problems with the theory that Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May and then: they planned a hoax abduction, sat down for dinner calmly at 8.30pm, hid the body and planned a hoax checking regime that evening. Didn't happen like that. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. who's theory is that then ? - that Madeleine died just before the McCanns went out for the evening ?

      Not Amaral's - he thinks the missing child died some time 'during' the parents absence, and that on discovering the tragic event the parents hurriedly hid the body and concocted a fake abduction plan ( fearing the consequences of a negligent homicide charge perhaps )

      He believes the body was retrieved from it's initial hiding place at some point later and disposed of more thoroughly.

      The theory makes sense of the cadaver dog alerts and the window being opened from the inside ( staging ). All in all, it is a logical thesis and I don't see why it is ridiculed in some quarters as if he has claimed something outrageously inconceivable.

      Delete
  6. Sorry but how can anyone take Tony Bennett seriously? Has he ever explained how he came to stalk the "wrong" Smith family for two years? Has he ever apologised to said family? He's a joke and a bad one at that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There are major problems with Amaral's theory . For cadaver odour to be present in the apartment , the body would have to have lain in situ for at least two hours. That would be presumably the site of the 'accident' which Amaral gives as between the sofa and the wall. If the 'accident ' happened between 'High Tea' and the McCanns leaving the apartment around 7.30 for the Tapas Bar , the timing and the logistics just cannot add up. Would you leave the body of a precious child laying on the floor?
    He may well have bee right if the event took place on an earlier night but that then brings in the crèche forging as being a possibility which then opens up a whole new scenario.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Would you leave the body of a precious child laying on the floor?'.

      How about, would you leave the body of a precious child in the wardrobe for 3 days and carry on your holiday as if nothing had happened?

      Goncalo Amaral's theory is based on what the dogs indicated, it is very carefully thought out and the timing of cadaver odour developing has been taken into consideration. At the time of the digs in PDL, DCI Redwood said Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment.

      The collective alibi of the tapas group does not appear to allow for death in the apartment, which is why it was imperative for the group to return to PDL to do a reconstruction. Not returning for a reconstruction has left them in limbo for 10+ years.

      Delete
    2. Sorry but you're wrong. Very wrong. Amaral's theory spoke of Madeleine falling in between the sofa and wall having tried to see her father who was speaking to 'Jez' outside the apartment. We know this cannot fit in with odour development and logistics. If the McCanns left their DEAD daughter inside the apartment for any length of time then you HAVE to go with crèche record tampering. As I said this introduces a completely different scenario.

      Delete
    3. 11:09

      Not "for at least two hours".

      Not "about 7.30"

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton18 March 2018 at 12:14

      'Would you leave the body of a precious child laying on the floor?'.

      How about, would you leave the body of a precious child in the wardrobe for 3 days and carry on your holiday as if nothing had happened?''

      How about an obvious 'no' to both silly ideas. What happened to you not claimimg to have any idea what happened to the little girl, Ros ? Was that another lie ? Or is it coincidence that the only theory that excites you into discussing it is her being dead and the parents and friends being well aware of it ?

      ''Goncalo Amaral's theory is based on what the dogs indicated''

      Goncalo Amaral's theory only appeals to one section and that's the internet bloodhounds with a need for a salacious story to enliven their surfing. Unless of course the police and Co have been scrutinising it for 11 years.

      ''Not returning for a reconstruction has left them in limbo for 10+ years.''

      Do you seriously think they think that ? Limbo ? It's left them free to get on with life.Nothing some whacky virtual crime novel book club thinks has or will change that.If the parents have been cleared by the police forces investigating the case then what have they to worry about ?

      Delete
  8. They can only equate the McCanns dunnit by moving the time to pre May 3rd.
    Everything these idiot researchers post is twisted and ignored to accommodate their crazy theory.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The whole process was reviewed after Dr Amaral's departure. It was again reviewed by the next level of the Portuguese legal system before archiving.

    I would imagine it has been reviewed again in Portugual at the time they had renewed interest before\at time of op.Grange. That three reviews

    It has been reviewed by the MET. That's four.

    There is only one point of real interest to anyone, is\was Smithman, that is the man carrying a child, as seen by the Smith family at 10pm carrying Madeleine McCann.

    No need to consider what happened before* and all that crap, or potentially what happened once the man disappeared down the road, past the Smiths.

    Who is Smithman.

    That simple.

    *before At or during the Tapas meal, where were all the men at 10pm, and that is harder than it would at first appear, finding independent witnesses of the the most strangest piece of paperwork the collaborated statement of all times.

    ReplyDelete
  10. can you trust a cadaver dog if there is no body

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/scent_of_a_dead_woman.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we can safely trust a cadaver dog even without the presence of a body. What we CAN'T trust is a devious establishment with MI6 connections.

      Delete
  11. 12:28

    Yes, I can. (I haven't checked your link yet.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207

    The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous at 12:28

    From your link:

    "One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month."

    ---------------

    'The police are also relying on the reaction of "cadaver dogs" trained to react to the scent of a corpse. One is said to have "smelled death" in the hire car and the apartment. Kate McCann's work as a doctor, in which she handles corpses, could mean she had slight traces of such odours on her clothing.'

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562818/Questions-over-Maddy-McCann-blood-traces.html

    --------------

    "the scent wouldn't last more than a month."

    "slight traces of such odours on her clothing."

    What corpse did Kate McCann handle in Portugal?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous 18 March 2018 at 11:09 wrote: "There are major problems with Amaral's theory. For cadaver odour to be present in the apartment, the body would have to have lain in situ for at least two hours. That would be presumably the site of the 'accident' which Amaral gives as between the sofa and the wall. If the 'accident' happened between 'High Tea' and the McCanns leaving the apartment around 7.30 for the Tapas Bar, the timing and the logistics just cannot add up. Would you leave the body of a precious child laying on the floor? He may well have been right if the event took place on an earlier night, but that then brings in the crèche forging as being a possibility which then opens up a whole new scenario".

    Well, exactly. Amaral did so much right, but made an error by trusting that Cat Baker (and the McCanns) were telling the truth about the so-called High Tea. Without a shadow of a doubt, she helped to 'prove' that Maddie was still alive that very evening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm

      ---------------

      Kate McCann ('madeleine):

      "I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry."

      According to Catriona Baker, Gerry was playing tennis.

      Delete
  15. '' I cannot believe that laws exist that suppress the other side of the story, and deeply ashamed that the UK still practices them. ''

    ''As for slander and defamation, it sounds so last century''

    Yes, how dare they refuse to abolish defamation, slander and libel when you have a crime to invent (then solve).
    What is it with you and the crusade to see a reformation of the legal system so you can simplify things you don't understand ? It has to be the height of narcissism to blame 'out dated' or 'draconian' laws rather than admit that your own bizarre views on controversial crimes are off the scale of credibility.Yet, nobody is as fast as you to call anyone who exposes your strange ideas as wrong, or corrects you, a narcissist. That too is narcissistic.


    Yet again, Ros unveils more laws we need taken away.Why ? Because they make sense and, therefore, ruin her latest crackpot theories. Be told, everyone, it's never Ros that's wrong or slightly mad, it's the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see why you want to hang onto the old slap around the face with a silk glove and pistols a dawn approach, but it's out of place in the 21st century.

      In case you haven't noticed there has been an information and communication revolution, anyone and everyone now has a voice, it is no longer logistically possible to gag someone with a Court Order.

      I'm not sure how narcissism connects to my views on censorship, I am merely pointing out that technology has overtaken the law. Secrets can go viral with moments, and all the legislation in the world won't stop it. The gagging laws that applied in the last century are not workable on the internet. Even when Gerry and Kate were able to ban GA's book, it was still available online - and in English.

      I'm a liberal by the way, I'm not trying to inflict anything on anyone, I'm merely voicing an opinion.

      Delete
    2. ''I'm not sure how narcissism connects to my views on censorship''

      In your intellectual vanity,rather than admit you could actually be wrong about something, you'd rather put the law in the dock and argue that it's out of date .

      Delete
    3. So pointing out that dusty old libel laws from the 18th and 19th century don't work in this age of internet and information, is narcissism.

      I can see why you are often confused.

      Delete
  16. Friday 2 March 2018

    (MEDIA MONITORING - MCCANN MEAN GIRLS)

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 March 2018 at 11:05

    ''you still don't seem to comprehend just how irrational your hatred of Goncalo Amaral is...Any victory against him won't mean anything to anyone other than themselves. The world has moved on. ''

    Saturday, 17 March 2018

    (THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM - GONCALO AMARAL'S THEORY)
    ( part 1 ?)


    I thought the world had moved on.Maybe you could clarify for future reference.Is it a case of the world has moved on when somebody mentions the holes in Amaral's performance and theories but fine if it's to reference them with the intention of blackening opinion agains the McCann parents ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You didn't mention any holes in GA's theories, you were attacking him personally as you always do. I'd love to read these so called 'holes in GA theory', why don't you post them? Please do tell us where he went so badly wrong?

      Meanwhile, GA hasn't been involved in the investigations since 2007, and a lot has happened since. For instance, SY are now involved and they have been digging in PDL. The McCanns battle with GA is over, they lost. They have not convinced the Courts or the public that GA is somehow to blame for Madeleine's loss. Their daughter is still missing, that should be their priority.

      Delete
  17. ''I'd love to read these so called 'holes in GA theory', why don't you post them?''

    If no holes existed in his theories at least one would still be floating.But that's not the case.They only see the horizon when the online antis dive deep and drag them back up for air. I told you his first mistake was letting the Cipriano demons haunt his clarity and judgement but you won't have it.You call it 'embarrasingly weak'' but don't say why you think it.But, I'm a gentleman when need be and i'll post them shortly.


    ''and a lot has happened since. For instance, SY are now involved and they have been digging in PDL''


    Yes, that looks impressive. It's to maintain the illusion and keep the crowd interested and to keep them believing it's ongoing. What's the population of PDL ? A thousand ? In eleven years there should be so many holes that the public need hover boards to get about.They know they're just digging holes.Randomly digging holes.Then filling them back in hopefully.


    The involvement of SY /OG hasn't changed anything.Logic says the child, even if she has been killed( which hasn't been stated offline other than it being another unpleasant scenario that has to be entertained as a possibility), wouldn't be placed in any shallow - or even deep - makeshift grave close to where she was taken from or killed.Why go to such elaborate measures to conceal the crime only to leave the body of evidence under their noses ?But the digging news fooled you and many.The only thing that would fool me is them finding something.


    Amaral said she was likely to have been cremated secretly didn't he ? In the coffin of a British woman. Which begs the question of the supposed DNA /blood. cadaver odour turning up in a car aquired weeks later. Didn't he say she could be down one of several wells ? Does he mean her ashes ?He took the close relationship the McCanns had with the local Padre and his allowing them access to pray in their own time and letting them have keys to the chapel and he turned it into a scenario.He believed it was credible.Then he believed it was credible enough to be true.Then he believed it was the truth -ergo the parents , if not guilty of murder, were guilty of manslaughter and definitely guilty of getting rid of the evidence( their child).All that theorising before collecting a scrap of evidence.Then he blamed Military Intelligence of assisting in a cover up without providing evidence and implied the FSS had tampered with evidence .Again, a suspicion.If you think his theories have no holes ask yourself how fast they'd be sunk if he voiced all of that on the witness stand and failed to provide an iota of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goncalo's theory is not only floating, it is the last theory still standing, but kudos at your attempt to make it look forgotten.

      The case of Joana Cipriano has no bearing on the case of Madeleine. GA was an experienced homicide, the case was cut and dried, the mother and brother confessed, and Leonor Cipriano had extra time added to her sentence for perjury. Are surgeons haunted by previous operations? Or do they just get on with the job. Same applies to detectives.

      I thought for a moment you were going to burst into that old sixties classic 'digging an'ole', the subliminal message was just the same. So all the digging was part of an elaborate plot by SY to make the public hate the McCanns? Hmm. Not convinced.

      Err, he's a detective, it's his job to theorise. You are taking random statements and sneering at them, that isn't finding holes in them, you haven't disproved anything.

      You say he did all his theorising before the dogs came on the scene. If true that just makes him all the more perceptive. In your rage, you have again got everything about face. Calm down. Think for a moment, 'does this make sense' before you hit send.

      How far would GA be sunk if he voiced his theories in a witness box? Did you miss the last 10 years of libel actions? GA won, conclusively, in the 3 highest Courts in Portugal. Far from being sunk, GA's theory is upheld.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 March 2018 at 11:49

      ''Goncalo's theory is not only floating, it is the last theory still standing, but kudos at your attempt to make it look forgotten.''

      I didn't say it's forgotten, I said the police have dismissed it and that the only reason it appears to float is because the antis keep dragging it to the surface.


      ''The case of Joana Cipriano has no bearing on the case of Madeleine. GA was an experienced homicide, the case was cut and dried,''


      I never said the cases were related.They are /were independent of each other. The only thing that linked them was that Amaral was leading both investigations.The case was far from cut and dried before the confession.It was initially an abduction.The mother said she had a confession beaten out of her and the media printed photogrpahs of her battered face.It put the PJ and Amaral under suspicion and the media /public spotlight.The court of public opinion wanted the heads of the PJ.The PJ and Amrala wouldn't be human if they didn't feel anger or fear and disgust.It eventually transpired that she had lied.But it isn't unreasonable to suppose that experience would leave an efffect on the officers and armed them for the future. The case wasn't cut and dried until the confessions.But Amaral was caught falsifying evidence and was punished.In a t and dried case, the falsifying of evidence isn't required.


      ''So all the digging was part of an elaborate plot by SY to make the public hate the McCanns? Hmm. Not convinced.''


      With or without Bernard Cribbens, they are yet to find a thing.I'm convinced.


      ''You say he did all his theorising before the dogs came on the scene. If true that just makes him all the more perceptive''


      There was nothing to perceive.He was suspicious and imgainative.he should have treated it as a blank slate and then started chalking actual details and evidence on it as they turned up or occurred to him.


      ''In your rage, you have again got everything about face. Calm down. Think for a moment, 'does this make sense' before you hit send.''


      I don't think you should accuse doubters who offer reasoned argument asbeing full of rage.It doesn't work.Does it make sense ? Of course it does. It makes far more sense tham discussing non existant evidence or facial expressions and throw away incriminating words.Why wasn't Amaral left to continue by his superiors ?


      The refeences to the libel actions have nothing at all to do with a criminal trial or prosecution. The opinions of the two police forces state the parents are not suspected of comitting a crime. If the decisions of the courts had any weight, they'd be used as evidence by the prosecution following arrests.One judge reshaped the lawas as they'd been set out and adhered to by previous judges.The book is allowed in certain countries. Not in those who recognise slander, libel and defamation as crimes.



      Delete
    3. Leonor Cipriano's lawyer also worked for the McCanns, and the lies she told about the police were quickly uncovered and she had her sentence increased. The McCanns thought if they had GA et al accused of brutality in another case, they could accuse him of the same. The McCanns wanted the public to be up in arms about the Cipriano case, but it didn't happen. Joana was an abused, 'at risk' child, the mother and brother confessed, the case had no bearing on Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever.

      Finally, there is nothing to support your statement that the two police forces have dismissed GA's theory. The opposite in face, DCI Redwood said Madeleine may have died in the apartment, and the digging in PDL pointed suspicion at the McCanns.

      Like it or not the libel actions do have an effect, for one thing they influence public opinion. If they didn't then there was no point in the McCanns pursuing them.

      Unfortunately, it turned public opinion against them. They failed to prove GA a liar, and they failed to have his theory banned. If the McCanns had won, they would have used their win as proof that they were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance, but they didn't.

      Delete
    4. ''The McCanns thought if they had GA et al accused of brutality in another case, they could accuse him of the same. ''


      How can you presume to know the private thoughts of somebody else ? Especially of someone you don't have a personal relationship with ? Nobody has accused Amaral of Brutality in the McCann case, only of making mistakes.He has said he and his team made mistakes early on too. Early on is the most crucial stage by the way. Who said the McCanns wanted the public to be up in arms about the Cipriano case ? The potuguese public had already been up in arms about it.


      ''Finally, there is nothing to support your statement that the two police forces have dismissed GA's theory.''


      As diverse and imaginative the theories of Amaral are, they share a common destination ; the McCanns guilt of at least one serious crime.The police forces stating that they are not treating them as suspects supports the theory of them dismissing them.


      ''DCI Redwood said Madeleine may have died in the apartment,''


      Which by definition ( 'may') says she may not have. The most significant aspect of that statement is the timing. It wasn't made days, weeks, or months later.It was made years later. By that time it was unrealsistic to rule out a death as an unpleasant alternative to an abduction alone.


      ''Like it or not the libel actions do have an effect, for one thing they influence public opinion''


      What effect has it had on the investigation ? It doesn't take a master of mass hypnosis to influence the opinion of a public that believes everything they read in tabloids or on Twitter.



      '' Unfortunately, it turned public opinion against them. They failed to prove GA a liar, and they failed to have his theory banned.''


      That sort of supports what I just said. They haven't proved GA a liar. But, eleven years on, Madeleine's whereabouts and fate are unknown. As long as that remains the case, he has failed to prove he was telling the truth. Nothing supports him.


      ''they would have used their win as proof that they were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance, but they didn't.''


      That's only an opinion. An alternative opinion is that they would have used it as proof that Amaral was defaming them and slandering them and causing them undue alarm and distress. It wouldn't have stopped suspcion or the investigation as there are enough members of the public and media who can't accept that the boring reality of an abduction holds more weight than the drmatic conspiuracy theory of the parents and tapas gang were behind the death of a child.

      Delete