I think having won 3 consecutive Court victories against Gerry and Kate McCann, Goncalo Amaral deserves the right not to be called disgraced. Unfortunately the knock on effect of the Netflix documentary has been the elevating once more of the parents to sainthood and the demonisation of the former detective who searched for their child.
Several tabloids have run stories sympathetic to the parents in their continued pursuit of Goncalo Amaral in the ECHRs. The parents owe massive legal fees to GA, not as massive as I thought they would be, but massive nevertheless and with further legal costs looming. Goncalo Amaral has no compassion for Gerry and Kate, a source from the family disclosed. No compassion from GA, well what do you know.
Quite how these tabloid stories make GA the villain and the parents the victims is baffling, maybe it lies in prefixing ‘Disgraced’ before his name. Let me however make it clear to those new to the case or similarly baffled.
The McCanns waited one year after Goncalo Amaral’s book was released to launch a damages claim. That is, they allowed all the damage to be done and the first year’s royalties to accrue. They demanded that not only GA’s book be burned, but all the royalties, anything he earned ever, his Jaguar and the proceeds of the sale of his family home. As Kate said in her own book Madeleine, she wanted him to feel misery and fear.
The McCanns were demanding financial compensation of £1.25m, £250k for each of them and they are a family of 5 as Isabel Duarte informed us. Yes, they were claiming £250k for their missing daughter Madeleine but that claim was ruled out halfway through proceedings when Madeleine's ward of court status was pointed out. Bizarrely, not the fact that she hasn't been seen in years.
They were successful in their initial court actions, and Duarte impounded all of GA’s books from the book shelves and shops. She had a warehouse full of books ready to burn. And yes, I just checked, we are still in the 21st century. Happily several courts thereafter ditched the barbarian route and gave Goncalo Amaral his assets and his voice back, though it must be said, he has never had a voice in the UK.
Another good article, Ros. You have such a way with words, they just flow, you make it sound so easy, I have trouble doing a short comment, I get brain freeze and can't think of simple words sometimes!!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't know why I bother trying to comment on the likes of DM and other newspaper articles as mine never get printed maybe because they don't like printing the truth about the McCanns i.e. the £250,000 they ring fenced for a rainy day, although I've now read elsewhere it's £750,000. I wonder what the general public would think if they knew the amount of money the McCanns are sitting on but are still pleading poverty to pay their court costs.
AS a member of that public I'd like to know where your proof is.It would be fitting, given the context of a blog discussing far too many opinions and guesses but reluctant to talk about evidence of it all. What is this 'truth about the McCanns' ? You could make some good money passing your source to a newspaper you know. Do share with us all the laws they broke and are breaking. Interesting that so much has been talked about already on this thread alone ( 4 comments) yet i see nothing about Madeleine. It's a blog about her-remember. Not just the parents and what is imagined about them.
DeleteAnon 25 March 15.26
DeleteYes, we are all aware about Madeleine, I couldn't care a s*d about the McCanns, they have reaped the whirlwind and are now having to sit through it.
Pity, they didn't think about Madeleine on 3rd May 2007 when she "disappeared" or did she?
Ask yourself that question.
Please don't insult us that we don't know it's about Madeleine. Ask the McCanns and their friends who were there that night or whatever night she "disappeared" on.
Why do you think we're all here after 12 years. We are waiting for justice for Madeleine, what are the McCanns waiting for - a get out of jail free card? Please don't insult us again by saying "the McCanns did nothing wrong, really? really?"
After all we only have the McCanns word that she was "abducted" or "disappeared" as it has now changed to. They still let her down whatever happened to her, not good parenting that is it? They couldn't be arsed to pay out for a baby sitter (or strangers as they say, although the girls from the creche were the babysitters), yet they don't mind £12m be spent on a search as long as the PJ and SY don't point the search in their direction.
Anonymous25 March 2019 at 17:09
DeleteAnon 25 March 15.26
''Yes, we are all aware about Madeleine, I couldn't care a s*d about the McCanns, they have reaped the whirlwind and are now having to sit through it.''
OK. My mistake. I thought you might be irrationally biased. have you the evidence of the whirlwind and how they reaped it ?
''Pity, they didn't think about Madeleine on 3rd May 2007 when she "disappeared" or did she?''
Two police forces seem to think so-or are they liars too ?
''Please don't insult us that we don't know it's about Madeleine. Ask the McCanns and their friends who were there that night or whatever night she "disappeared" on.''
Ask them what ?
''Why do you think we're all here after 12 years. We are waiting for justice for Madeleine, what are the McCanns waiting for - a get out of jail free card''
Justice for Madeleine is the buzz phrase. It's to hide the real reason.It's revenge on the parents. The parents who have no evidence to have them arrested according to two police forces after 12 years.
''After all we only have the McCanns word that she was "abducted" or "disappeared" as it has now changed to.''
We only have Amaral's and thousands of internet detectives who go for the obvious because they watch too many documentaries.The police;'s word is that she was abducted too.
''They still let her down whatever happened to her, not good parenting that is it?''
It's neglect.Not murder.
''They couldn't be arsed to pay out for a baby sitter (or strangers as they say, although the girls from the creche were the babysitters), yet they don't mind £12m be spent on a search as long as the PJ and SY don't point the search in their direction.''
You think that's the deal ? They tell the police forces where they can and can't look ? You want to be taken seriously ?It's all bad mindedness, accusations and no evidence or fact. I only asked for sources instead of opinions. You gave more opinions.
@15:00
Delete“…the McCanns … are still pleading poverty to pay their court costs.”
You don’t know that.
Pooh
Apologies for the delay in replying to you 18:17.
DeleteYou are right it would be an entirely different cast in a criminal trial, but it would be two parents up against the Portuguese prosecutor, not Goncalo Amaral. It would be for them to prove their case, not GA. And in any event, GA would not be on trial. You may dream about scenarios where GA is in the dock, but it's never going to happen.
No, it would be for the prosecution to prove their case against the McCanns - not the other way around.
DeleteNobody mentioned GA being in the dock. He wouldn't be considered a reliable witness due to his criminal record.The prosecution would prefer him to take a holiday if truth be told. His book wouldn't be produced as evidence by the prosecution either as it's only a literary work in which he expresses opinions (according to the libel case in the supreme court).That's how 'important' his work is.
The comparison was made between a libel trial and a criminal trial to emphasise the vast difference between them. It's unfortunate that it escaped you and went cleanly over your head again.
Anonymous25 March 2019 at 22:41
Delete@15:00
“…the McCanns … are still pleading poverty to pay their court costs.”
You don’t know that.
Pooh''
The intention of posts like that on blogs like this isn't to share knowledge, it's to spread hate.Hence the lack of sources backing it up.
I know exactly what you were doing 13:00, you weren't referring to a criminal trial you were referring to a character trial. Mr and Mrs Stepford up against drunken bum.
DeleteI know you cannot miss an opportunity to smear and slander the former detective, but not only does it make you sound it deranged, it is also boring. Please, please, I beg, try to widen your mind and your vocabulary it would be so much more interesting for all of us.
what's another way of saying 'he was given a suspended jail sentence' as a fact ? It is one.
DeleteAnonymous 28 March 2019 at 19:29
DeleteWhat's another way of saying “The truth of Amaral’s own opinions/conjectures has not been examined in a court of law. He has not been charged with, arrested and convicted for libel. Nor has he been made a formal suspect.. Presumed innocent until proven guilty!” as a fact? It is one.
''the Netflix documentary has been the elevating once more of the parents to sainthood and the demonisation of the former detective who searched for their child.''
ReplyDeleteI feared the worst and here it is. The documentary doesn't portray the parents in a bad light.It has to be borne in mind that Netflix isn't a youtube channel.It isn't an eager wannabe detective with an internet connection. It's a major company the plays for big stakes. It wouldn't just come up with the idea of making a documentary covering the twelve year old case without researching first. It would know the audience and it would have seen all the mini series and more popular videos ( Hall etc) and not want to repeat it. You can't sell stale bread. So, we get the other side of the coin.No canonization of Amaral, no demonization of the parents and no insistence that lies were told and the investigation was bent in favour of the Brits.Maybe they thought it would balance the debate.
'Several tabloids have run stories sympathetic to the parents ...Goncalo Amaral has no compassion for Gerry and Kate''
Again- the tabloids are a big business and know what sells papers.Headlines that make the pack excited or angry.Job done. Amaral called the parents liars and wrote a book about it and said they buried their own child. Do we really need a tabloid to explain that that translates as no compassion ?
''Quite how these tabloid stories make GA the villain and the parents the victims is baffling,''
Note my previous comment.
''maybe it lies in prefixing ‘Disgraced’ ''
Tabloids are written for silly people who can't concentrate but who love shock headlines and 'scandal and gossip' about celebrities.But they have real lawyers.They can say 'disgraced' as it refers to him being dismissed from his position due to an up and coming guilty verdict against him for perjury.
''They demanded that not only GA’s book be burned, but all the royalties, anything he earned ever''
GM's rationale was that Amaral couldn't prove a word he had written so he was guilty of illicit profiteering.
''As Kate said in her own book Madeleine, she wanted him to feel misery and fear.''
Why though ? She lost her child- he wanted them to suffer more from allegations he made which he had no proof of.
''For the psychopath spotters here, psychopathy would explain a lot''
Correct. I've spotted two. Neither of them a McCann.
'' Do we really want to see detectives sued by former suspects?''
No. But They're suing an author.
How do we define a demon or an angel in human form ?How do we define a martyr ? I'd suggest we need good reason for any of that.At the risk of sounding repetitive, evidence would help far more than bias or opinions. Amaral is seen as martyr who took one for the cause.He has thousands of followers online promoting his book. The main reason being that so many who don't like the McCanns and therefore see no reason to ask for evidence of their crimes have someone with a bit of gravitas to represent their standpoint.He has no evidence either.He just made accusations he couldn't support.So, in the eyes of those who look no further than the surface of things, he is a hero.He has become lionized for no good reason that can be proven.The parents, in those same eyes, are demons.Why ? Because they challenged their accuser to prove his truth of the lie or withdraw the allegations.He never has.But the parents are the demons...How very looking glass..
You are still going with the juvenile idea that people suspect the McCanns simply because they do not like them. You conveniently forget the dogs, the discrepancies in the statements, the refusal to answer questions, the refusal to return for a reconstruction etc, etc, etc. There are a multitude of reasons for suspecting the parents, ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
DeleteYour final paragraph shows how bitter you are towards Goncalo Amaral and how jealous you are of him. Public support for GA particularly infuriates you. So GM alleges GA was illicitly profiteering. This from the man who wanted an annual Madeleine for the whole world, with all profits going to him.
Goncalo Amaral was libelled, slandered and smeared by the McCanns and their allies in the MSM. No-one can blame him for telling his side of the story, he owed it to himself, to his fellow officers and to his family. The McCanns believed they could silence him and make him go away, they couldn't.
They didn't challenge GA to prove his truth of the lie or withdraw the allegations. They demanded financial compensation in the sum of £1.25m. They left his allegations unchallenged for a year!
The McCanns vendetta against Goncalo Amaral is not born of injustice or morality, it is pure spite. They cannot restore their reputations, those reputations were shot to pieces when they were made arguidos. They want GA to suffer, and they are not ashamed to admit it. Their obsession with GA has lost them a lot of sympathy, even among their supporters I am sure. Even billionaires balk at supporting vexatious litigants.
I don't know what it is with Kate and Gerry McCann, it is not enough that they have blown most of the millions collected for Madeleine on legal costs, but they are determined to carry on until they lose everything. A common trait in vexatious litigants, they are much like gamblers, they won't stop until everything is gone.
@15:01
Delete“Because they challenged their accuser to prove his truth of the lie…”
Where and when did they challenge? A cite?
“…or withdraw the allegations.”
He hasn’t.
“He never has.”
He’s never had to.
Pooh
There is no need for a citation, Pooh. They brought it to court for what reason ?To finally have him eat his words as they were backed by no proof.In the civilized world that would equate to libel.They had gone on record as saying he (Amaral) was guilty of illicit profiteering unless he could prove his allegations.Amaral had the opportunity to withdraw his allegations and avoid the trial or gamble that the judge would say it's fine to accuse parents of killing their child or just burying their body.It was a long shot. But it was up there with OJ and his long shot.
Delete''You are still going with the juvenile idea that people suspect the McCanns simply because they do not like them. You conveniently forget the dogs, the discrepancies in the statement''
DeleteThe dogs evidence has cobwebs on it.So do the statements.In fact, all of the things the antis say is evidence is covered in dust as they haven't been used in 12 years by a single detective let alone one of the two forces investigating it all . That equals 'no evidence' and no case against the McCanns. What's left is people who have suspicious minds only.They've seen loads of couples making pleas in press conferences from the past who turned out to be guilty.That;s their argument.But you call my rationale juvenile...
''Your final paragraph shows how bitter you are towards Goncalo Amaral and how jealous you are of him. ''
Jealous of him ?That's more juvenile an attitude wouldn't you say. I see Amaral as a detective who made mistakes in the case early( he would agree).I see Amaral who held a responsible and respected position of trust expected to help keep the law but who was found guilty of perjury and who received an 18 month suspended jail sentence( really happened).Amaral came up with Murat as a certainty . Then he came up with the McCanns as a certainty.Then he came up with a number of conflicting guesses and theories.So far, all wrong.But he managed to make a million out of it all via a book and it's gullible audience.I see those as valid criticisms.You see it as bitterness and jealousy.Which of us has laid out a sensible case ?
'' Public support for GA particularly infuriates you. ''
Ignorance irritates me.Different thing.
'' So GM alleges GA was illicitly profiteering. This from the man who wanted an annual Madeleine for the whole world, with all profits going to him. ''
Look up 'illicit' to see the difference.
''The McCanns vendetta against Goncalo Amaral is not born of injustice or morality, it is pure spite''
Any vendetta was instigated by Amaral against the parents.He struck first.They hit back.You don't begin a vendetta having to defend yourself.
''They want GA to suffer, and they are not ashamed to admit it.''
They lost their child.he failed to find her.Then, he decided they were guilty of her disappearance(no evidence) guilty of burying her ( where?) and they have lied to keep themselves free ever since( no evidence in 12 years).You think them wanting him to suffer for making the malicious allegations is wrong.
''A common trait in vexatious litigants, they are much like gamblers, they won't stop until everything is gone.''
They'll stop when Madeleine is declared dead or the case is declared closed.But any parent who sees them as vexatious litigants just because they want to sue a man who can accuse them of anything he feels or dreams up has some work to do on themselves. If you had lost a child you'd understand pain.You'd taste it daily.That's more than enough to contend with without someone saying you aren't really suffering, and that you're lying. And then doing nothing at all to prove his allegations and raking in the sympathy and cash from it. A charming man ..
Do you think if the Portuguese Judges had awarded the McCanns the £1.25m they demanded, the pain they feel daily at having lost a child, would go away?
DeleteThey won't stop suing Goncalo Amaral until Madeleine is found. Strange mission statement. How will making GA feel misery and fear help in the search for their daughter? Aren't their priorities a tad skewhiff?
Finally, what does it matter what GA says about them? If they know they are innocent, they wouldn't be bothered by what GA or anyone says. And now, 12 years on, they should be even more confident, especially if the police have told them they are not suspects and the dogs' evidence and forensics are worthless. If SY and the PJ have cleared the parents, then GA's book has been discredited, more so than if the Portuguese Supreme Court had ruled in their favour.
Why then do the parents still see GA's book as a threat? In fact, why have they ever seen it as a threat? I remember one time having a twitter spat with Bonkers Bennett, where I sadly lost my temper and told him exactly what I thought of him. The upshot was a reprimand from a police officer who asked me how I would feel if I was called a paedophile. I said it wouldn't bother me because I'm not. Actually as a blogger there is much I am accused of, the infamous dossier even accused me of producing snuff movies! Was I upset at such a heinous accusation? Not at all. Everyone who knows me, knows that my favourite movie is Despicable Me and everything above PG I watch with a pillow handy in case there is any gore.
Goncalo Amaral is not to blame for the loss of the McCanns daughter. That lies solely with them and the poor choices they made on that holiday. Perhaps their obsession with GA lies in their projecting their own guilt onto him. They have clearly never accepted their own guilt, their own culpability, within hours they had forgiven themselves. That isn't normal. Parents never forgive themselves, even when they are completely innocent.
As for raking in the sympathy and cash....., again you sound jealous.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 March 2019 at 11:07
Delete''Do you think if the Portuguese Judges had awarded the McCanns the £1.25m they demanded, the pain they feel daily at having lost a child, would go away? ''
Losing the child and being slandered are two separate things. Can't you understand that ?
''They won't stop suing Goncalo Amaral until Madeleine is found. Strange mission statement. ''
Yes-why did you invent it ? Or were you hoping to pin it on me. Desperate.They will stop what they're doing when the case is closed and no more is to be said. What parents of missing children have to contend with is hard enough without some ex copper with a grudge and a criminal record for lying about cases leeching off their plight.
''Finally, what does it matter what GA says about them? If they know they are innocent, they wouldn't be bothered by what GA or anyone says.''
Quite astonishing coming form a former legal secretary.It's a good job you kept your legal mind quiet back then.Imagine a prosecution counsel saying that to someone demanding that an accuser retracts his lies if he can't prove them. Hilarious. Shall we suspend defamation of character and slander until the McCann case is over then ?
''Why then do the parents still see GA's book as a threat? In fact, why have they ever seen it as a threat?''
Who said they see it as a threat ? It can damage their reputation-and it has due to the online vigilantes- but that's it. it can't put them or anyone else in the dock.It would have by now. The judge in the supreme court said it had contributed nothing to the case.
''Goncalo Amaral is not to blame for the loss of the McCanns daughter''
No, nobody said he was though. Some cod blame him for not finding her.Either way. the McCanns didn't want him in court charged with that did they.
'' Perhaps their obsession with GA lies in their projecting their own guilt onto him.''
Yes. Projection. It has to be doesn't it.Doesn't everything.Nobody apart from you says they're obsessed.Maybe you're projecting.They're angry because he lied about them, failed to prove his lies as truths and was allowed to publish them in a book.
'' They have clearly never accepted their own guilt, their own culpability, within hours they had forgiven themselves. That isn't normal''
It also isn't a fact you can prove.You're speculating as you continue to try to cast aspersions on them which you can't support.
''As for raking in the sympathy and cash....., again you sound jealous.''
To you.To those with a mental attitude of an adult, I made a logical observation.How about you discuss facts that can be proven and less opinions that are mere guesswork. Spend less time trying to sell the McCanns as a package that as many people as possible will hate unless you can give them enough facts to do it and less opinions you can't back up.
Agree there is no comparison between losing a child and being slandered, on a pain scale, being slandered shouldn't even have registered.
DeleteWon't stop suing. You were replying to my vexatious litigants statement, claiming they would never stop [litigation].
Libel and defamation. Even when I was a legal secretary I found all libel claimants to be complete arseholes, humourless, stone faced creeps, nothing likeable about them.
Now I laugh and scoff at the Libel laws because they are so hopelessly outdated and impotent. No one cares very much about the hurt feelings or reputations of others and every affront is lost in a sea of affronts. The wise will understand that we are the Masters of our Fate, we alone have the power to make or break our reputations, we don't have go down the legal route.
As for trying to 'sell the McCanns as a package that as many people as possible will hate', I am merely countering the McCanns' propaganda. They are again painting Goncalo Amaral as the villain with the aid and the assistance of the tabloids. I can see why you would like me not to comment on their fake news, but it's kind of what do. For every action there is a reaction. They trash GA, I provide the truthful backstory.
'''Libel and defamation. Even when I was a legal secretary I found all libel claimants to be complete arseholes, humourless, stone faced creeps, nothing likeable about them.''
DeleteWas this when you first realised that your true vocation was to set up a stall in all local fairgrounds as Madam Rosalinda, seer and tea leaf reader ? Nice that you were still always readily so judgemental of strangers. An early sign ?Also nice to know that relating people and events completely unrelated in order to force a point too weak to stand isn't a recent habit you picked up...
''Now I laugh and scoff at the Libel laws because they are so hopelessly outdated and impotent.'
Of course. But that's your thing isn't it.If it disagrees with a mad theory of your it's 'from the middle ages'.Like it or hate it, laws were made for a reason. You just hate laws that might just defend the rights of a McCann. That in itself is evidence that you aren't interested in this case, your obsessed with vengeance on the parents to the point you're blinded to anything else.
'' The wise will understand that we are the Masters of our Fate, we alone have the power to make or break our reputations, we don't have go down the legal route.''
So we should scarp all laws then.What about human rights ? They next ?
''I am merely countering the McCanns' propaganda. ''
Expressing yourself isn't propaganda.
''They are again painting Goncalo Amaral as the villain''
Nobody else slandered them or tried to ruin their reputations and failed to prove his allegations.Who else should they blame ?
''. I can see why you would like me not to comment on their fake news, but it's kind of what do.''
How very American and 'cool'. So you're down that route now. If it's a lie, blame the 'fake news' phenomenon.
''They trash GA, I provide the truthful backstory.''
good. If it's truthful you can provide sources can't you. What-you can't ? Why-is it a fake news back story ? How convenient. Still, at least you've set your stall out now.We won't have to read your empty and unconvincing fake news statements about 'having no idea' what happened and 'i never blamed the parents for what happened to Madeleine'.You've now told us your position. It's behind convicted liar Amaral and his unfounded suspicions and allegations.But he wants pain for the parents so that's good enough for you...
@00:46
Delete“There is no need for a citation, Pooh.”
I beg to differ. The onus of justification is on you. Please cite court records in support of what you are saying. A short while ago, we established that Amaral’s book was essentially factual.
Namaste.
There is no onus on me.It was a general discussion and a general point. If we want to analyse everything like scholars and bring citations to the table that's fine. I'll do it my end.But I'm fucked if i'm googling for people who can't be arsed clicking a mouse..
DeleteWhy are tabloids still lying ? Why are you still reading them ?
ReplyDeleteQuestion : Are the tabloids truly 'lying' or are they stating an opinion ? Can the lie be proven ?
ReplyDeleteSimple question yet no answer from the author of the blog
DeleteThe simple answer is that they aren't lying. He is a disgraced cop.
DeleteDisgraced is such a subjective term though 14:26. We could also argue all day about whether he is a clever cop, or a determined cop, or an opportunistic cop.
DeleteHe wasn't found guilty of being clever, determined, or opportunistic. He was found guilty of perjury.It was determined that he had been lying with the facts concerning a missing child case.Nothing at all subjective about those facts.Nothing clever either.
DeleteAnonymous 28 March 2019 at 19:33
DeleteHas he been found guilty of libel?
19:33
DeleteI find it so strange that he was allowed to go back to work. Why do you think his bosses did that?
Ros you have told us time after time that you don't read tabloid MSM.
ReplyDeleteI never take any notice of them.
D
I have never once said I don't read the MSM or tabloids - and actually, that would be a particularly stupid stance for a commentator or blogger to take. How could I comment on news I have never read? I know some do, but I'm not among them. I read everything. I don't have banned reading material, and I don't censor myself, as if, lol.
DeleteYou have frequently slated both the MSM and tabloids throughout your blog as poor and untrustworthy sources and not worth commenting on. Yo have also quoted both often if they say what you think. I believe that's called hypocrisy.
DeletePeople can't fail to miss the fact that they sued a detective who suggested they were responsible for the child's death, and lost.
ReplyDeleteThey sued for libel, slander and defamation and lost.Amaral won the right to publish a book. The same cast in a criminal trial would yield a far different result.It would be two parents whose child is missing who have no tangible evidence against them versus a former detective with a criminal record for perjury earned by lying on paper about a missing child case.
DeleteI'm not sure you can accuse the papers of lying.They're possibly writing with a biased view but they're using
Delete'disgraced' as their opinion. It's not an officially status is it. To refer to a former detective this way usually means that they can because it's common knowledge that his career ended in some kind of controversy or a cloud.Previous good records stop mattering.
Amaral had what some seem to consider a long and distinguished career.Then he made a cock up. He committed perjury. That's bad for a detective.Worse, he was found guilty of tampering with statements and couldn't defend his actions. During the period awaiting the trial, the McCann case occurred.
Unfortunately, Amaral's perjury concerned his investigation into a missing child who was them declared murdered.It didn't bode well that he was now in charge of the highest profile missing child case for decades. He seemed to have been replaying the case in which he made his mistake and addressing it to the McCann case; the missing child, the delay in calls to the police; the disposal of the body by a parent; the guilt of a parent. None od which he could prove applied to the McCann case.So, when he received an 18 month suspended prison sentence he was persuaded to move away from the McCann case. I think this is where the papers are entitled, legally, to opine that all of that adds up to him being 'disgraced'. he didn't bow out on a high did he ?
Those who support him support his theories too.So they sympathise with him when he receives criticism and support him when he's challenged to prove his accusations. That's not sensible is it. It's blind faith tainted by heavy bias.
An opinion can never be a lie. Ever . It can be right or it can be wrong. Ironically if an anti is accused of expressing an opinion they won't accept it even though they can't prove it.But if they see an alternative opinion they call it a lie.Yet,they won't accept their view is too narrow and blinkered.
Indeed Oscar. Had they won I am sure we would never have heard the end of it. It would have been proof of their innocence and a huge reprimand for Goncalo Amaral and the PJ.
DeleteUnfortunately strategist Gerry gave away what he wanted from the Portuguese Supreme Court with his direct plea to the Judge from the witness box. 'The dogs barks were rubbish and my wife and I are innocent', or words to that effect. He believed the Judges' Decision would rest on whether they believed he and his wife were involved in Madeleine's disappearance. Had they won he would have felt absolved.
Bizarrely they still act as though they won even though they didn't, they are infuriated for example, that he was included in the Netflix documentary. They firmly believe he shouldn't be allowed to speak, at all.
just couldn't help himself from addressing the Judge directly about the dogs' evidence. Gerry believed he had to persuade the Judge of his innocence before leaving the witness box. A last ditch attempt to get an innocent ruling from a Court. Unfortunately with that plea, strategist Gerry gave away his biggest fears.
''Had they won I am sure we would never have heard the end of it. It would have been proof of their innocence and a huge reprimand for Goncalo Amaral and the PJ. ''
DeleteI doubt it.A possible reprimand and plenty of criticism maybe. Not directed at the Pj- just Amaral-it was his book.It wouldn't have proven innocence as they weren't on trial.That's the major difference between the trial over a book and one over the supposed death of the child they lost( according to Amaral).Not quite the same are they ? It would have confirmed there was lack of forensic evidence that was keeping them 'innocent until proven guilty'.That had to be done by the PJ later.Nothing to do with the book, but a sort of unintended verdict passed on it's importance to them nonetheless.
''Unfortunately strategist Gerry gave away what he wanted from the Portuguese Supreme Court with his direct plea to the Judge from the witness box. 'The dogs barks were rubbish and my wife and I are innocent', or words to that effect''
They brought the charges against Amaral.They considered him a fantasist.The onus was on them to state their case. What you're actually criticising is normal protocol.
''He believed the Judges' Decision would rest on whether they believed he and his wife were involved in Madeleine's disappearance. Had they won he would have felt absolved.''
I think anyone in that position would have thought the same.I think the public expected the same too.Especially in the UK. But, the judges agreed it was OK to cast aspersions on anybody about anything without an iota of proof as long as you do it within the context of a literary work that merely expresses opinions.Somehow, Amaral dodged the bullet.Maybe there was some Portuguese sympathy or guilt over his dismissal...
They consider that Amaral was lying or guessing without reasonable cause or evidence and fomenting hatred towards them as parents who buried their child.Why would they change that opinion now ? He hasn't proved a single theory to be correct and neither has anyone else who may agree with him.The force who once employed him have confirmed they aren't interested in the parents as suspects.After all these years.
'' Gerry believed he had to persuade the Judge of his innocence before leaving the witness box''
No mind reading. It isn't real. Gerry had to state his case and his argument.He wanted the hearing so he had to say something.He had to explain his position. The judges didn't agree with him about the dogs. Then again, they didn't agree with Amaral about the dogs either.I think they were more interested in the actual claim the trial was about ; the right to publish a book.Not a murder.
'' A last ditch attempt to get an innocent ruling from a Court. Unfortunately with that plea, strategist Gerry gave away his biggest fears.''
And was punished by the PJ declaring him and his wife '' not suspects -period''.And left to live his life in liberty while two police forces suck on their thumbs, and Amaral comes no closer to proving his case.
Yes Ros, they have never been found guilty of anything. But they haven't been shown to be innocent either.
DeleteHow they must wish that the abduction could be pinned on someone.
"There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when Gerry NcCann claims that he has something to say.
DeleteThe judge says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!
GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Gerry_McCann_08_07_2014.htm
Many thanks for posting that 10:31, and it is just as cringey as I remember. Gerry is clearly not a poker player.
DeleteHe knew that much would depend on whether the Judge believed he and his wife were involved in the disappearance of their daughter. It wasn't a criminal trial, but for Gerry and Kate it kind of was, if they could prove GA was lying, it would, in their eyes, vindicate them.
Unfortunately Gerry revealed his Achilles heel, the barking dogs that neither he nor anyone else can explain. And he feared the Judges would not get past those barking dogs either. He also showed that he knew they had not proved their case. Their witnesses and experts had been more of a hindrance than a help and he knew at that moment he was facing defeat. Why he wants to put himself through it all again in the ECHRs is anyone's guess.
They say there is no such thing as bad publicity 00:42, but if they had never sued Amaral, I wouldn't have read his book.
DeleteFurther action at the ECHR will just bring more focus on them.
Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 09:48
Delete''Yes Ros, they have never been found guilty of anything. But they haven't been shown to be innocent either.
How they must wish that the abduction could be pinned on someone.''
A trial would find them one or the other wouldn't it. Any idea why they've never stood trial in 12 years with all this evidence against them ? It's as though somebody else did the deed isn't it. How we all wish the police would find whoever did. Or tell us why they refuse to arrest the two guilty parties despite everyone 'knowing' they're guilty.
Anonymous26 March 2019 at 10:31
Delete''For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation''
In plain English :
This case is about a book, it's contents and whether or not it should be allowed to be published. It isn't a criminal trial and we can't comment beyond our own remit.Do not confuse the two.
Too accept this judgement as the reasoning behind Amaral's victory we have also to accept that the court case was nothing to do with a crime or criminal case regarding the fate of Madeleine Mccann.So nobody can cite one to support the other.It wouldn't be right legally.Nor would it be honest.
Ask the PJ 12:05. Just because they haven't been on trial doesn't mean they didn't do it.
DeleteHow they must wish they had just answered the questions, put their faith in Portuguese justice, stood trial and been officially cleared
Instead they have to live with suspicion and rumour, having every aspect of their lives opened up and analysed by all sorts of nuts on the internet.
People who accuse them of being swingers, or oaedoohines. People who seek to psychoanalyse their behaviour, people who dig into the lives of family and friends.
It's a tragedy for them they have never been able to clear their name. Yet, here we are, 12 years later, and they are still the only plausible suspects the public have.
''Unfortunately Gerry revealed his Achilles heel, the barking dogs that neither he nor anyone else can explain. And he feared the Judges would not get past those barking dogs either.''
DeleteI believe the only people who can't get past the barking dogs are the barking antis.Only they desperately drag them up daily ( over 12 years). Move on. The forensics team moved on, as did Martin Grime and the detectives of two forces.Look at the calender.
You say Gerry M 'feared the judges would not get past those barking dogs'. You still insist on passing yourself off as a reader of minds. Surprisingly when the minds contain thoughts that suggest the guilt of a McCann.Is this a newer more desperate tactic you're sliding through ? No evidence, no proof so go for mind reading. When will you be inviting psychics to your blog ? The case was about a book and the allegations made within it's pages.If Gerry saw the dogs alerts as a danger to his liberty and innocence why was it him who wanted them to be discussed do you think ?Why expose his so- called achilles heel ? Why would he have a fear of the judges not getting past them but bring them up before they even referred to them ? What's your crystal ball telling you to say ?
Emma Loach: "They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says."
DeleteOscar Slater26 March 2019 at 12:38
Delete''Ask the PJ 12:05. Just because they haven't been on trial doesn't mean they didn't do it.''
In which case you, me and every Tom, Dick and Harry are arguidos. Murat too ?
''How they must wish they had just answered the questions, put their faith in Portuguese justice, stood trial and been officially cleared ''
They ? have you got any examples of the questions Gerry didn't answer-or refused to ? We know the infamous 49 Kate let go. Why would innocent people wish to stand trial just to be proved innocent ? They already are unless someone proves differently.They have nothing to be cleared of.No official charge- nothing to be officially cleared of.
''Instead they have to live with suspicion and rumour, having every aspect of their lives opened up and analysed by all sorts of nuts on the internet.''
Nuts on the internet were already nuts on the internet.They will be even if this case is solved.They'll just have someone else to occupy their short attention spans and bitter, self -imposed isolation.
''It's a tragedy for them they have never been able to clear their name. Yet, here we are, 12 years later, and they are still the only plausible suspects the public have.''
Their name was cleared by the police. It's a police investigation remember, not a Twitter trend.They need to accept what the law states and what the police have stated if they want to maintain an interest in the case.If they just need to hate they should goggle elsewhere. They won't have to look far.
Oscar Slater25 March 2019 at 17:16
Delete''People can't fail to miss the fact that they sued a detective who suggested they were responsible for the child's death, and lost.''
Nor can they fail to see that the detective had lost his job, been found guilty of lying and failed to prove a single one of his allegations. That is still how things stand. And still that fool has an army of other fools championing his crusade.It's like the blind leading the silly.
Good point made my Emma Loach. They knew the book was a load of lies and malicious rumour. They probably expected a bit more from the PJ.It was an insult.But time has confirmed that now anyway.
Delete13:22 ("Good point made my Emma Loach.")
DeleteReally?
'Emma Loach: "They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says."
The judge (Maria EmÃlia de Melo e Castro): "In which way is it different?"
Emma Loach doesn't answer, she is obviously upset. The judge says she may leave. Previous witness Mrs Susan Hubbard gets up immediately and follows EL out of the court room.'
Perhaps if they would have left the detective to do his job this would have been solved, instead, everybody and his brother arrived from the uk, hampering their work. Seriously, have you ever known so many top people descend within days when theres has been an incident abroad, usually families at home are begging our Foreign Office to help ! Also, Whichever way you look at it there is no denying the dogs alerted to something in the appartment, they were successful in many missions up to this case and very successful in the ones following. It really is time for a person with enough power and courage to say enough is enough, this case will be reviewed from the start, investigating EVERYBODY involved whether they like it or not. This country needs that someone to restore faith in our legal system, oh, and perhaps he/she can then sort Brexit and restore faith in our government too ! Ha, ha not asking much really. By jove,feel better after that rant.
DeleteIndeed 13:16. There is a mystery to be solved, however I don't think I can think of a case when the defence has relied on the integrity of the cops making the accusation.
DeleteI'd have thought any jury would say, "they would say that wouldn't they."
13:12, I don't know about you, but I can account for my whereabouts when the child went missing. Arguidos, you're having a laugh.
An example of the sort of question they might have answered was, "why did you not join the search?" It might have helped.
When did the police say they didn't do it?
It seems to me that the arguments that they are innocent are centred on the fact they haven't been charged yet. Pretty weak stuff.
13:22, why do you say the book was lies and rumour, when it was merely a set of observations, based on what was on record. IIRC it concluded with a hypothesis put forward by Amaral.
DeleteContrast the cool, objective approach he took to the vicious and scurrilous attempt by the McCanns to paint him as a villain. Their approach played on the worst aspects of the British character, namely that Johnny Foreigner is an uncultured beast, with no compassion.
How ironic, given that the one thing Portuguese people cannot fathom is how you can go on holiday with your kids and spend less then three hours a day with them. Not to mention, how you could go out boozing with your chums and leave them alone in a dingy apartment.
Oscar Slater 25 March 2019 at 17:16, 26 March 2019 16:52
DeleteWell said, Oz man.
Pooh
“They sued for libel, slander and defamation...”
DeleteNo, dear.
Pooh
Start giving and less taking Pooh..it's that time.
DeleteZs
I don't think it helped the McCanns claim that several of their witnesses hadn't read the offending book Oscar. Imo it is the height of ignorance to criticise a book, film or anything, if you haven't read it or seen it.
DeleteSeveral who post here wear it as a badge of pride that they haven't read GA's book, they think it shows contempt, it doesn't, it shows laziness.
GA's book is an account of the police investigation during the summer of 2007, it is contemporaneous with the official police files which were released to the public. There are no lies in it. The dogs were brought in, the dogs barked. The original investigation reached the same conclusion as GA. That Madeleine had died in the apartment.probably by accident, and the parents hid the body. GA was saying the same thing as the PJ, so how is it a rumour or a lie?
There are two accounts of the summer of 2007, one from Goncalo Amaral and one from Kate McCann. Both are valid, neither is fiction. You believe only Kate McCann's book should be on sale, not GA's, and you have largely been successful with that. But GA's book got out there anyway, it was shared far and wide. Hopes of keeping the British public in the dark about the PJ's theory were dashed. Not just with GA's book but with the release of the police files. Arguable, the police files are more damaging to the McCanns' reputations than GA's book.
Anyway, please know that your posts are much appreciated Oscar, I like your style. Namaste.
Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 16:52
Delete''13:22, why do you say the book was lies and rumour, when it was merely a set of observations, based on what was on record. IIRC it concluded with a hypothesis put forward by Amaral.''
Amaral's faithful gullible bought his lies and rumour. The child is dead- says who ? The child is buried-where ? The parents lied- proof ? The child was secreted in a coffin in a chapel- where and when ? The supreme court added that the contents in his book hadn't contributed to the investigation and hadn't been used as part of it.
A hypothesis isn't truth or fact, it's a guess based on what you consider probable. It has to be tested and show significant support to claim it's more than a guess.To claim it is truth is a lie.Hence- 'rumour and lies'.
''Contrast the cool, objective approach he took to the vicious and scurrilous attempt by the McCanns to paint him as a villain.''
Yes, It's as though Amaral hadn't lost a child but the McCanns had. Weird. To make malicious allegations at the parents you used to be employed to help is vile. That he had already been found guilty of perjury speaks volumes about his lack of integrity.
''Their approach played on the worst aspects of the British character, namely that Johnny Foreigner is an uncultured beast, with no compassion.''
Yes, your child goes missing so you immediately set about attacking the police of the country.That's important isn't it. The police could have been efficient and Amaral could have avoided being taken to court for perjury. he wasn't found guilty of being a foreigner, he was found guilty of lying on paper about a case involving a missing dead child.
''Not to mention, how you could go out boozing with your chums and leave them alone in a dingy apartment.''
Yes. That's murder isn't it.No wonder it enraged the Prime Minister and his chums..
Thanks Ros. It comes down to simple questions that remain unanswered, we should never lose sight of that.
DeleteOscar Slater26 March 2019 at 16:47
Delete''Indeed 13:16. There is a mystery to be solved, however I don't think I can think of a case when the defence has relied on the integrity of the cops making the accusation.''
I think the defence relies on the lack of any evidence to make it a short trial.The cops are of secondary importance unless they've cocked up ( again).
''I'd have thought any jury would say, "they would say that wouldn't they."
Yes, the classic ad hominem attack. Meaningless, shallow, and pointless. A quarter decent defence counsel would see that before it popped up and swat it out.
''It seems to me that the arguments that they are innocent are centred on the fact they haven't been charged yet. Pretty weak stuff.''
It would be weak if it was anywhere near the truth.
''Haven't been charged in 12 years'' isn't as weak is it.Are we going to call that 'semantics' again ? Or admit that it's the truth in the cold light of day. Another argument you may have allowed to slip your mind for a second is that in twelve years nobody has produced a spec of evidence against them. In 12 years ? Come on, get real. Yes, I know- 'wait til the DNA advances have been made''. To quote Ros ' ''LOL''
Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 16:52
Delete''Their approach played on the worst aspects of the British character, namely that Johnny Foreigner is an uncultured beast, with no compassion.''
The race card. Haven't seen that dealt for weeks.
You realise I hope, that in Portugal, the McCanns and friends represented 'Johnny Foreigner'.They were the visitors.Maybe Amaral and co treated them as Johnny Foreigner' :
''Oh no..not another allegation of Portuguese Paedophilia..not another Casa Pia case..not another Joanna Cipriano case..just waht we need..let's get these Brits stitched up..''
It would explain his later bizarre determination to create alternative narratives and trying to cover all bases. Racism at it's most unpleasant.
18:33 Amaral bad, McCann good.
DeleteHow do you think Gerry would feel if his patients' relatives walked into the operating theatre, and started giving him instruction on how to fix their heart?
More to the point, how would the rest of us feel if Gerry changed what he was doing, because the relatives told him to?
Then, when their loved one passed away, the relatives turn round and blame Gerry because Gerry did nothing to help them?
Because the arguments you are making seem to be based on the fact that the emotions of those effected by the stress, or loss, are more important than the objective practice of people trained in the matter.
Yes, in the cold light of day, they haven't been charged in 12 years. Some people might answer, "how have they gotten away with it", others might say, "clearly no evidence of wrong doing then", and others still might say, "why is the case still open?"
I'm afraid being a quarter decent counsil is way beyond my wildest aspirations, for I don't even know what an ad hominem attack is. I bow to your superior knowledge on the matter, and withdraw the suggestion.
You pays your money, and takes your choice.
16:52, and others in the vicinity.
Delete"Amaral's faithful gullible bought his lies and rumour. The child is dead- says who ? The child is buried-where ? The parents lied- proof ? The child was secreted in a coffin in a chapel- where and when ? The supreme court added that the contents in his book hadn't contributed to the investigation and hadn't been used as part of it."
A child is missing, and has not been seen for 12 years. What's the chances she is actually dead?
"Amaral's gullible", grow up, do you think I have pictures of him on my wall? More to the point, do you really think you are going to win anyone over to your point of view, by calling them names?
You are more likely to raise suspicion as to why you are doing that.
"A hypothesis isn't truth or fact, it's a guess based on what you consider probable. It has to be tested and show significant support to claim it's more than a guess.To claim it is truth is a lie.Hence- 'rumour and lies'."
I know what a hypothesis is son, that's why I used the word.
Yes, It's as though Amaral hadn't lost a child but the McCanns had. Weird. To make malicious allegations at the parents you used to be employed to help is vile. That he had already been found guilty of perjury speaks volumes about his lack of integrity.
Amaral wasn't employed to work for the parents, he was employed to work for their daughter and the Portuguese people. I suppose using your logic, every cop that accuses someone of a crime is making a malicious allegation.
I'll see your "race card" and raise you a Sardine Munchers and "small police force". You know, that was the first time I started to take a real interest? Why were the British press so keen on bad mouthing the investigation, and then I heard that the parents could be suspects.
Call me a bad man, but it just summed up the attitude of the British abroad, where everyone else is the foreigner. A novelist called Christopher Brookmyre once said, "the English destroy other cultures by pretending they don't exist". (Don't think I am anti English by the way, the English are wankers, we are colonised by wankers. It' shite being Scottish, we are the lowest of the low.)
"That's important isn't it. The police could have been efficient and Amaral could have avoided being taken to court for perjury. he wasn't found guilty of being a foreigner, he was found guilty of lying on paper about a case involving a missing dead child."
I would posit that Amaral was too efficient. That's why we know so much about that one case, and very little about the other cases he was successful in.
"Yes. That's murder isn't it.No wonder it enraged the Prime Minister and his chums.."
You'd have to raise that with the Portuguese people, I'm only relaying their opinion, lest we take an imperialist attitude, and dismiss anything Johnny Foreigner has to say.
Well, that was interesting, despite all the attempts to sound like you are interested in open discussion, your sole contribution appears to be "Amaral baaaaaaaad."
By the way, people who introduce the subject of paedophilia, when it isn't even on the table worry me. A bit to keen to smear the discussion with the stench of the unpalatable.
This is a simple case, which never reached its conclusion because the thing became a circus.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 March 2019 at 18:17
Delete''I don't think it helped the McCanns claim that several of their witnesses hadn't read the offending book Oscar. Imo it is the height of ignorance to criticise a book, film or anything, if you haven't read it or seen it.''
They had a missing child. That might have taken precedence I think. They knew the man once charged with leading the hunt for their child was now accusing them publicly of lying and burying her. You think their reaction was 'the height of ignorance'. Either you have a mental illness or you misunderstand ignorance. Maybe they go together.
''Several who post here wear it as a badge of pride that they haven't read GA's book, they think it shows contempt, it doesn't, it shows laziness.''
I know the PJ have read it. They're loyal to their old friend and colleague.Just not loyal enough to take it's contents seriously enough as an aid to investigating the case. That's the kind of endorsement I need to ignore the book. Plus nobody's found the frozen or cremated corpse.
'' GA was saying the same thing as the PJ, so how is it a rumour or a lie?''
The PJ and SY and OG are saying that Madeleine is presumed alive, but 'possibly' dead and the parents are NOT suspects.Period.That's how.
''There are two accounts of the summer of 2007, one from Goncalo Amaral and one from Kate McCann. Both are valid, neither is fiction. You believe only Kate McCann's book should be on sale, not GA's, and you have largely been successful with that''
I personally can't be arsed. I won't read either book. I'm interested in the investigation and the crime. Not books.
''Anyway, please know that your posts are much appreciated Oscar, I like your style. Namaste.''
For style see standpoint.Another blog shock. But to be fair, at least Oscar puts forward arguments with intelligence and reasoning unlike your usual couple of echoes. They're rarely lucid.
Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 20:25
Delete''A child is missing, and has not been seen for 12 years. What's the chances she is actually dead?''
Your guess is as good as mine.But probably tainted by bias. But they're both guesses. If she's dead who killed her ? Nobody knows. people have chosen a side and need someone to hate.It means little at most. You're right about 12 years. But Amaral said it when ?
''"Amaral's gullible", grow up, do you think I have pictures of him on my wall? More to the point, do you really think you are going to win anyone over to your point of view, by calling them names?''
No idea what that's referring to.So rather than instructing me to grow up, maybe you could sober up. I called nobody a name. Somebody else here has the monopoly on name calling. And the moral immaturity.I made an observation. It is based on the fact that Amaral's theories haven't been proven right at all and nothing has come of his allegations. All through the fact that no evidence against the parents exists.So, those who quote and praise the perjurer are naive and gullible if trying to prove his case with the same flaws still there.
''I know what a hypothesis is son, that's why I used the word.''
Your conclusions suggest you used it out of context in that case.
'' I suppose using your logic, every cop that accuses someone of a crime is making a malicious allegation.''
Unless he can support it yes.Ask 'every cops' boss.
The race card argument is wasted. It was a missing child not a world cup.
''Well, that was interesting, despite all the attempts to sound like you are interested in open discussion, your sole contribution appears to be "Amaral baaaaaaaad."
I think you've confused me with the judge who gave him an 18 month suspended sentence.
''By the way, people who introduce the subject of paedophilia, when it isn't even on the table worry me. A bit to keen to smear the discussion with the stench of the unpalatable.''
Tell jc and bjorn. Your attempt at trying to be subtle is wasted on me.Not interested. I'm not in the same corner as the mugs.
''This is a simple case, which never reached its conclusion because the thing became a circus.''
What kind of police force fails in a simple case. Oh, scrap that. I'm criticizing 'johnny foreigner'. Can't have that.
Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 20:03
Delete18:33 Amaral bad, McCann good.
''How do you think Gerry would feel if his patients' relatives walked into the operating theatre, and started giving him instruction on how to fix their heart?''
Surprised I expect seeing that he isn't a surgeon.
''Then, when their loved one passed away, the relatives turn round and blame Gerry because Gerry did nothing to help them?''
This analogy is too awkward. And long.
''Because the arguments you are making seem to be based on the fact that the emotions of those effected by the stress, or loss, are more important than the objective practice of people trained in the matter.''
Seem to be maybe but you'r wrong. They're two separate things.I don't recall reading that Gerry donned his deerstalker and pipe and told Amaral to sit down.
''Yes, in the cold light of day, they haven't been charged in 12 years. Some people might answer, "how have they gotten away with it", others might say, "clearly no evidence of wrong doing then", and others still might say, "why is the case still open?"
And yet others might say 'they haven't got any evidence to say the parents did anything other than leave their kids unguarded.' Those people tend to think the case still being open means nothing.That's why we hear nothing.Nothing's changed.
''I'm afraid being a quarter decent counsil is way beyond my wildest aspirations, for I don't even know what an ad hominem attack is.''
Nutshell version for future ref. Basically, when you can't take an argument down, you attempt to take the person down instead.The hope being that placing them in a bad light might make a jury or third party take them less seriously, ergo, what they are arguing. The antis do it a lot. Bless them.
23:52, I think we are as open minded as each other, but you seem to have it in your head that when I ask a question, I already have an answer.
DeleteFor example, ''A child is missing, and has not been seen for 12 years. What's the chances she is actually dead?''
Leads to, "Your guess is as good as mine.But probably tainted by bias. But they're both guesses. If she's dead who killed her ? Nobody knows. people have chosen a side and need someone to hate.It means little at most. You're right about 12 years. But Amaral said it when ?"
You had it right when you started talking, our guesses have the same value. But you spoil it by going on to attack my motives, and asking me to defend a position I never took.
"Hater" is so immature, by the way. It makes me think of teenagers who tell adults that they are criticising them because "you hate me!"
"No idea what that's referring to.So rather than instructing me to grow up, maybe you could sober up. I called nobody a name. Somebody else here has the monopoly on name calling. And the moral immaturity.I made an observation. It is based on the fact that Amaral's theories haven't been proven right at all and nothing has come of his allegations. All through the fact that no evidence against the parents exists.So, those who quote and praise the perjurer are naive and gullible if trying to prove his case with the same flaws still there."
Sorry mate, but somebody posting rambling paragraphs at 23:52, isn't really in a position to question anyone's sobriety.
I really wanted you to understand that I see all the characters in this case as flawed human beings, rather than super heros. I am not that gullible to think that all the cops are good guys, nor am I that gullible to think that all doctors are saints.
Calling me gullible was immature, just because I hold a point of view that is different from yours.
"Your conclusions suggest you used it out of context in that case."
Eh, no, I accept that without tested evidence then Amaral could not do anything other than posit a hypothesis.
"Unless he can support it yes.Ask 'every cops' boss."
Must try that one. Unfortunately the only cop I know is Inspector Rebus - might hang out in the Oxford Bar, on the off chance that he comes in.
"The race card argument is wasted. It was a missing child not a world cup."
If it wasn't you that brought up the issue of racism, I apologise. Think about it though - that was a pretty illogical statement you just made. "It's a missing child, not a world cup."
"I think you've confused me with the judge who gave him an 18 month suspended sentence."
Oh dear.
"Tell jc and bjorn. Your attempt at trying to be subtle is wasted on me.Not interested. I'm not in the same corner as the mugs."
It seems to be all about you, to be honest.
"What kind of police force fails in a simple case. Oh, scrap that. I'm criticizing 'johnny foreigner'. Can't have that."
LOL
Oscar Slater27 March 2019 at 11:04
Delete''You had it right when you started talking, our guesses have the same value. But you spoil it by going on to attack my motives, and asking me to defend a position I never took''
Let's talk about the position i failed to read properly then.You suggest that the parents negligence led to the child's death and that KMs refusal to answer questions pointed toward her guilt-right or wrong ?
''Sorry mate, but somebody posting rambling paragraphs at 23:52, isn't really in a position to question anyone's sobriety.''
Yes. Very cutting. Was that what you wanted to get there ? I accept no responsibility for your short attention span.
''I really wanted you to understand that I see all the characters in this case as flawed human beings, rather than super heroes. I am not that gullible to think that all the cops are good guys, nor am I that gullible to think that all doctors are saints.''
The best way to make me really understand that wold have been to a actually say it.But, we're only talking about a small number of specific doctors and policemen here anyway.
''Calling me gullible was immature, just because I hold a point of view that is different from yours.''
You chose to take that personally. I explained i was talking about the gullibility of the many who repeat Amaral's accusations while they are still as flawed as when he made them himself.
''Eh, no, I accept that without tested evidence then Amaral could not do anything other than posit a hypothesis.''
And that's the hypothesis he should have tested before writing a book about conclusions he just guessed at.
''It seems to be all about you, to be honest.''
Acccording to you.
Oh right.
DeleteExcuse me interjecting 14:00, but I can't let your final comments stand.
Delete'And that's a hypothesis he should have tested before writing a book.....'. It was not a hypothesis he pulled from thin air 14:00, it was the conclusion reached by the original investigation, the result of 4/5 months of intensive gathering of evidence, statements and of course the use of the blood and cadaver dogs supplied by the British police. There are, and I think you will agree, hundreds of interviews carried out and searches made and thousands of tip offs followed up. The police files are online, but I doubt you have read them either. GA's hypothesis was based on the evidence and it was the hypothesis reached by the investigation.
Kate herself has taken how many years to read the police files? £100k to have them all translated. The files show how and why that conclusion (death in the apartment) was reached by the original investigation.
You are being extremely disingenuous in trying to suggest GA formed his hypothesis out of spite and that it was somehow contrary to what his colleagues also thought. GA's book recounts the original investigation and it's validated by the original investigation. You really should read it.
Unfortunately as none of you are brave enough even to use a make up name or even an initial, I take it you are the one with the pathological fear of books (fear of enlightenment?).
Gerry and Kate lost a child, ergo reading books was not their priority. Strange because Gerry had lots of books by his bedside, supplied by CEOP I believe. But regardless, I find it incredible that they, the parents, have not read GA's book. How could they resist not reading what he wrote about them? I would not have been able to stop myself.
If they read it, they would have been able to challenge the conclusions reached by GA and the PJ. And if they read the book as a whole, they would have a greater understanding of where GA was coming from. They may not feel so angry or offended if they read his words for themselves. Even if it didn't help to lessen their anger, it would have given them an insight into the mind of their enemy to better prepare themselves for battle.
As it is they have spent 10 or is it 11, years fighting something they don't know. That sounds ludicrous to me.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 March 2019 at 18:32
Delete''GA's hypothesis was based on the evidence and it was the hypothesis reached by the investigation. ''
Evidence ? What evidence ? Did I miss the trial ? Consider Amaral's evidence then. Where is the evidence that the MCanns buried a child. Where's the evidence that a child died ? Where's the evidence that they stored the child in a freezer / coffin/ car then buried the cremated body ? Where's the support for the evidence ? If it exists they can take it to court surely.A prosecution would take a gamble with public money if all that evidence was on the table.How did Amaral 'test 'the hypothesis ? Tell me.
''You are being extremely disingenuous in trying to suggest GA formed his hypothesis out of spite and that it was somehow contrary to what his colleagues also though''
And you're stooping low trying to put words into my mouth that you're able to counter. I didn't say he came up with his theories out of spite. I said it was more naivety and smacked of being influenced by a previous case - Joana Ciprano.That he tried to fit the clues to the theory when he should have left all avenues open.
''Unfortunately as none of you are brave enough even to use a make up name or even an initial, I take it you are the one with the pathological fear of books (fear of enlightenment?). ''
Have you read 'how to beat your paranoia' ? Don't mistake someone getting annoyed by ignorance and shallowness as someone not being enlightened. I've studied more of that area than you could even imagine.You think throwing a quote in a sentence from Nietzsche makes you deep ? I could debate enlightenment, spiritual psychology or any other related area with you all day. But you'd fall over dizzy after ten minutes.
'None of you' ? You think there;s a gang sat here at the computer ? A branch of the 'Team McCann Cosa Nostra' ? Very 'enlightened'...I've told you and the others enough times before about the anonymity BS. I'm out here. This is just the internet here . I'm happy not to be anonymous out here for anyone who thinks it's important enough to want to see me and have an introduction.
''I find it incredible that they, the parents, have not read GA's book.''
Do you believe that ? That's too naive. They wanted to see him suffer and pursue him for what he wrote. You think they wouldn't go through the pages first ?
'' it would have given them an insight into the mind of their enemy to better prepare themselves for battle.''
No police force arrested or charged the parents. Amaral went public saying Madeleine was dead- which the police didn't say. He said she died in the apartment- which the police didn't say. He said they had buried her corpse and invented an abduction story-which the police didn't say.Isn't that enough to declare war over ?
19:47, another triumph of imagination over substance. I take it there is a time bar on bringing a criminal action in Portugal? You know, "if we don't charge you within 12 years, you're free to go?"
DeleteNo. It's more ''you're innocent and not a suspect''. Until they find evidence, it remains that way .
DeleteOscar Slater26 March 2019 at 09:48
Delete''Yes Ros, they have never been found guilty of anything. But they haven't been shown to be innocent either.
How they must wish that the abduction could be pinned on someone.''
Yes, Oscar. That would be called 'solving the crime'. What a shrewd observation.
Thanks 13:37, I would hardly call it shrewd though. So, here we all are, an unsolved crime, and a whole load of theories about what happened.
DeleteI guess we would all like to know one way or another.
Naturally.But we never will.Nothing suggests otherwise now.
DeleteIt would appear so 18:21. That poor couple having to go through life with those suspicions hanging over them.
DeleteIf only they had co operated with the PJ, it would all be over now.
'Meet Ineqe Group, the Belfast security consultancy with a bizarre mix of courses on sale; child protection, internet safety, cyber bullying and … riot control. Ineqe, a play on the words ‘innovative’ and ‘unique’, is directed by several retired police chiefs turned entrepreneurs, who are now profiting from the specialist skills that they gleaned during decades of state-funded work.'
ReplyDeletehttps://corporatewatch.org/for-sale-top-uk-riot-cops-export-to-war-zones-and-dictators/
'Response from Ineqe Group
After publishing our article, Corporate Watch received a reply from Ineqe’s Chief Operation’s Officer, Bill Woodside:
“I refer to your recent enquiry regarding PSNI assistance in Sri Lanka.
I can confirm that the Ineqe Group had no involvement in this project, indeed it predated the creation of the company.
Two members of the Ineqe Group who were at the time serving police officers, were deployed via the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to assist the Sri Lankan Police in 2009.
The project was entirely focused on helping to develop a ‘community policing policy’. Two visits were undertaken, both based exclusively in Colombo.
No actual training was provided.
There was no ‘Public Order or Riot Control’ aspect to this project.
I trust that this information is of assistance, I would advise that any further query would need to be addressed to the UK FCO.”
This begs the question, how does Woodside really know what advice his current business partners gave in Sri Lanka – if the FCO are keeping that information classified?
Perhaps Ineqe are trusted with such secrets though – after all, its CEO Jim Gamble was head of the RUC Special Branch...
I really don't like the Nanny State approach of Jim Gamble. The first line of protection for young and vulnerable people online must come from within the home from the parents and care givers. Right now there is no-one on the planet of reading age, who is not aware of the dangers online. Families don't need outside intervention.
DeleteTo be fair I don't really know how the Ineqe safety guidelines work, but if it involves a panic button to report paedophiles, it stinks of Nanny State. And who does the panic button connect to? Regular police? Internet police? gawd 'elp us, or groups of vigilantes?
Jim Gamble believes the internet should be policed and I'm sure, that he should be the man to do it, he would like nothing more than to get tweeters and bloggers in the dock. Unfortunately for JG, he is too old and his ideas too antiquated for the Kool Kids in Silicone Valley. Their goal is to share information, not to categorise it, restrict it or use it for nefarious purposes. True the goal posts have shifted over the years with politics becoming involved, but there are still no calls for a police presence on social media, and I doubt there ever will be.
''Jim Gamble believes the internet should be policed and I'm sure, that he should be the man to do it''
DeleteWhen did he say that ? Source please.
12;40. Sky News Brenda Leyland debacle. JG wants to see all those trolling the McCanns in the dock. Not his exact words, except for the 'in the dock' bit. I have also read many articles and seen countless interviews, JG sees the internet as a danger, he sits alongside vigilantes. Have I totally misjudged his motives? Wrongly interpreted his messages? Please feel free to clarify if I have.
DeleteIs that a smear or is it fact? It's neither 1;20, it's spam.
DeleteI believe we're talking about the malicious communications act.That was 1988.It's still relevant to the internet. Digital bullshit is still bullshit.Malice is still malice.The law is still the law. I don't think we can accuse Gamble of the act in 1988 can we.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988
Malicious Communications Act 1988
Deletei see no 1.20
DeleteNo, because 1:20 is in my spam box alongside several more one liner slanderous and malicious posts. I'm not giving you a platform to abuse Goncalo Amaral. Grow up.
DeleteAhh yes, the censorship box. You're against censorship. You hate it-remember ? It sounded good at the time didn't it. A few believed you too. But you believe anyone can say anything because it's free speech. But if they believe you need to support accusations or point out your dishonesty they aren't entitled to say a word against it. More hypocrisy. You have the power to publish what you like as its your blog. Like the spiteful child who'd say 'its my ball and we're not playing'. The popular child. Maybe you should check your poodles for for their malicious posts. The same 2 who can't stop talking about death and abuse but wont supply sources. They're malicious communications too.And you pass them
DeleteIf you want to write nasty malicious statements about Goncalo Amaral you will have to go do it elsewhere. May I suggest the walls of a public toilet.
DeleteI am not going to publish you, I am not going to give you an audience. And yes, I do hold the power, it's my ball. A bit like the McCanns Facebook book, where they state it's their blog neh.
I have hundreds, perhaps even thousands of readers, to post here is a privilege, so you either keep a civil tongue in your head, or you sod off back to the murky corners of whatever cesspit you crawled out of.
so revise your position on censorship being from the middles ages..Amaral's a big boy. You call the exposition of his criminal record and clumsy allegations malicious. They aren't. They're observations.You just don't want too many seeing it written. It's old fashioned boring censorship and control.
DeleteYes Ros, you tell him. It's wrong to make malicious allegations that you can't prove.How dare he.
Deletethe very thought
Delete18:55 in much the same way that parents who leave their kids in an apartment to go on the piss are untrustworthy, and that people who change their story when questioned by the police are suspicious.
DeleteMothers who sit in the house whilst others search for their kids are different.
Grandmothers who are more worried about the insult to their son, than the fact that their granddaughter is missing are rare.
People whose body language shows all the signs of lieing are usually lieing.
Dogs who have never wrongly alerted to the scent they are looking for, are rarely questioned.
Innocent people don't do a runner before the police are going to call them in for questioning.
All observations, some of them unquestionable. The fact that a detective had been done for perjury can't mean that much in Portugal, because he got his job back.
Oscar Slater 28 March 2019 at 10:48
DeleteGood Ozmology, Oz.
Prthaps it’s time we had that tête-à -tête.
Tea?
T is on tea, tea is on T
T
Oscar Slater 28 March 2019 at 10:48
DeleteI tell you no lie: I love your “lieing”, Oz, but I think my “Prthaps” wins on this occasion. Winns wins. :)
Winns
In your dreams - there's specialist sites for that.
DeleteOscar Slater28 March 2019 at 10:48
Delete''People whose body language shows all the signs of lieing are usually lieing.''
What's this, a child's guide to crime busting ? You've been watching a couple of little youtube vids haven't you. Bless.
''Dogs who have never wrongly alerted to the scent they are looking for, are rarely questioned.''
It would be a waste of time questioning a dog. They'd only bark and there isn't a single youtube video around that can read barks ( yet).The dogs are not used in an evidentiary capacity.
''Innocent people don't do a runner before the police are going to call them in for questioning.''
Good observation.Guilty ones do though. And they still haven't been caught up with according to all the evidence.
'' The fact that a detective had been done for perjury can't mean that much in Portugal, because he got his job back.''
Says so much about the PJ and goes some way to explaining why the UK criticised them.Good spot.
Anonymous 26 March 2019 at 09:27
DeleteThank you for your post. Interesting.
Oscar Slater 28 March 2019 at 15:46
DeleteYeah… Sweet dreams they are and shall remain. How unfortunate I don’t surf. :(
You are not an animal lover then, Oz man, are you?
Actually, all I meant was talking shop without interference. If you ever change your mind, come over with some honey.
Pooh
''Anonymous29 March 2019 at 09:27
DeleteAnonymous 26 March 2019 at 09:27
Thank you for your post. Interesting.''
Says 09:27 to 09:27. After not posting anything.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete''Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 09:45
Delete''That's some twisting you're attempting 18:19.
Could you possibly condense it into the sort of punchy language newspapers like to read: or is that the short version?''
Could you possibly show us all where 18:19 is and what was said. Might help.
No, I've misquoted the time, and can't find what was said.
DeleteI've deleted my post instead.
Doesn't 'disgraced' stem from his criminal record?
ReplyDeleteNo. Disgraced comes from the campaign by Team McCann to smear and discredit the Portuguese police during the summer of 2007. Now why would they would want to do that?They were ably assisted by the MSM, the British tabloids and the paparazzi especially who were competing with each other to get unflattering photographs of Goncalo Amaral. Where the parents were smart, well groomed and Colgate fresh, GA looked like a man who was working night and day and who had slept in his suit. Ironic really, because while they were preening themselves for the cameras, he was searching for their daughter.
DeleteThe 'Disgraced' label is pure Team McCann spin and shame on those journalists who use it. Ironic too that the McCanns smear, libel and slander GA at every opportunity, yet they cannot accept he has a right to defend himself. I am accused of spreading hate simply for trying to stop them spreading hate and God knows there is enough of it coming from you lot on here.
If we have to analyse where 'disgraced' comes from in this context we have to use a critical objective eye.
DeleteCan anyone say Amaral was disgraced ? Yes. The law can and anyone aware that he disgraced the force as well as himself by committing perjury concerning files about the death of a missing child. He received a suspended prison sentence. That would seem a fair set of circumstances to support an accusation of being 'disgraced'.
Can we ignore all of those recorded verifiable facts and prove that 'disgraced' actually is a concept dreamed up by 'Team McCann' ? No. Because it's ridiculous and there isn't any proof.Those trying to convince others that it's all a team spin by them won't accept the only member of the cast in this drama who has a criminal record, is Amaral. He's also the only one who has an endless list of accusations that he can't prove.But don't call that spin whatever you do...
In his defence, Goncalo Amaral doesn't have a missing daughter he can't account for.
DeleteCan we ignore...? Yes, we can ignore your entire post because GA hasn't been involved in the case since 2007. All the slandering and smearing of GA doesn't make the McCanns appear innocent, it makes them look even more suspicious. All their efforts to shift the blame for the loss of Madeleine from themselves onto the former detective have failed. OK for the moment it is temporarily revived, which is why GA is again getting a hammering and why I am again having to point out the facts behind the civil trials.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 March 2019 at 17:14
Delete''In his defence, Goncalo Amaral doesn't have a missing daughter he can't account for.''
How is that in his defence ? Because he hasn't lost a child he's entitled to accuse parents of burying their's without proof ?
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 March 2019 at 13:42
ReplyDelete''No. Disgraced comes from the campaign by Team McCann to smear and discredit the Portuguese police during the summer of 2007. Now why would they would want to do that?''
I'm sorry. I thought the heading of this particular blog read : '' Disgraced Cop ? Why are the tabloids still lying ? ''
So is Team McCann the journalists that work for tabloids now ? Do they have names ? I'm not sure you know how journalism really works. Journalists come up with stories and headlines and an editor will pass it or not. It helps avoid lawsuits and such. The subject of a story can't call a newspaper and instruct them what they can or can't say and how to portray them.All of that's in your head. It's right next to, and partly touching, your denial.
Of course, i could be proven wrong. If you can identify the instances of the mainstream competing for unflattering photographs of the PJ and Amaral.Then prove the McCanns dreamed that idea up. Because that's how it works isn't it. When a headline case is enraging the public and the detective's fat the public are up in arms because he eats too much.Where do you get this nonsense from....
''The 'Disgraced' label is pure Team McCann spin and shame on those journalists who use it. ''
They call him disgraced because when he was a trusted detective heading an investigation into the death of a missing little girl he altered the items of the investigation on file and was found guilty of perjury. His legal team had no defence. But, Amaral calls the parents of a missing child liars and accuses them of burying their own child without evidence and he's a hero.Shame on the tabloids ? What planet are you typing from...
''I am accused of spreading hate simply for trying to stop them spreading hate and God knows there is enough of it coming from you lot on here.''
What's coming from here are questions. Questions asking for evidence, sources and less accusations and opinions pretending to be facts.You hate that too.
15:19, the journalists that work for the tabloids have their copy written for them by the likes of Clarence. It was practically the same story, word for word, that appeared telling us not to watch the documentaries because they didn't approve of them.
DeleteTo be fair, they did lie about several things in the 24 hours following the reported abduction. For example, the curtains going "whoosh", springs to mind.
Oscar Slater 26 March 2019 at 16:58
Delete“To be fair, they did lie about several things in the 24 hours following the reported abduction. For example, the curtains going "whoosh", springs to mind.”
What do you mean by that, Oscar?
Pooh
Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 16:58
Delete''15:19, the journalists that work for the tabloids have their copy written for them by the likes of Clarence.''
That and Ros saying the McCanns are in charge. Makes you wonder why the journalists turn in for work...
If Clarence et al are behind it, it sounds believable as he was a media 'controller' for the government. The McCanns being behind it is plain silly. It's up there with them having control of the media, the police, the politicians, the forensic team and the politicians. To disagree with that groundless assertion is batshit crazy and so on..
''To be fair, they did lie about several things in the 24 hours following the reported abduction. For example, the curtains going "whoosh", springs to mind.''
DeleteI know the old saying ''anyone who lies about a whoosh is a murderer'' or something like that..but is their proof that it was a lie ? Or more opinions...the police need to know..
18:03 "That and Ros saying the McCanns are in charge. Makes you wonder why the journalists turn in for work..."
DeleteMost newspapers are struggling businesses, with staff numbers being cut. Press releases are quick ways to fill column inches.
Just look at the reporting of any McCann story and it is a repetition of the same basic facts, sometimes word for word.
I thought Clarence was the McCanns' spokesman. In that case, it would be a bit crazy if they weren't consulted on what he puts out, or even have an influence on what is put out.
"I know the old saying ''anyone who lies about a whoosh is a murderer'' or something like that..but is their proof that it was a lie ? Or more opinions...the police need to know.."
There is no old saying. I suppose whether the curtains made a whooshing sound or not, is not the issue. It's more a case of facts not cross checking, and changing stories
that's a cool old saying
DeleteYeah 19:19, just like "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not."
Delete''There is no old saying. I suppose whether the curtains made a whooshing sound or not, is not the issue. It's more a case of facts not cross checking, and changing stories''
DeleteYou mean standard protocol for a police force then. The kind of thing they do practically on auto pilot. But not in this case-apparently. Why wouldn't they in this case do you think ? Because the McCanns told them not to ? The way they tell the papers what they can't print and so on. Or is the 'whooshing' debacle not important to them do you think.
Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 19:06
DeleteJ''ust look at the reporting of any McCann story and it is a repetition of the same basic facts, sometimes word for word.''
it's the same on blogs, forums and youtube comment sections. Nothing has happened since May 2007. Nothing at all. No new evidence. No evidence at all. No new suspects.No genuine leads that go anywhere. So what can be said ? Pros repeat themselves and haters can't control themselves. Nothing's new.It's almost as though the police aren't doing anything apart from collect the cheques. Anyone who says 'it's a live investigation...it isn't over..'' and so on along that line are doing it for therapeutic reasons and have been for 10 years.They're self -counselling. You have to feel a degree of sympathy for them, as mental as most of them are.
Pooh @ 18:02. As any fule no, curtains do not go whoosh, in my experience, they tend to move silently. Anybody saying they went "whoosh" is not telling the truth.
DeleteWhether be blown by the wind coming in an open window, with or without a "whoosh" sound, would also be influenced by the presence of a setee holding said curtains against the wall.
Again, anybody saying the curtains went "whoosh", would possibly be asked to have their eyesight checked.
As a rule, if you make a statement, and then change it because you realised it wasn't true, you could be accused of uttering an untruth. Some might say an untruth is a lie.
Particularly when that statement relates to the way you found the room when you discovered your daughter was missing; particularly if you want to promote the idea that the window was open when you arrived; particularly if the only prints found on the window pane were yours, suggesting that the window had been opened from the inside.
Particularly if you were frightened of being accused of doing something you shouldn't have done.
Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 21:35
Delete'Pooh @ 18:02. As any fule no, curtains do not go whoosh, in my experience, they tend to move silently. Anybody saying they went "whoosh" is not telling the truth.''
In your opinion. So how do they vocalise the real action ? ''they went (silence) '' ? Is it an English lesson or a lesson in linguistic analysis you're trying here .
''Whether be blown by the wind coming in an open window, with or without a "whoosh" sound, would also be influenced by the presence of a setee holding said curtains against the wall.''
Not sure what that's trying to say. What settee was holding something against the wall ? Are you saying the curtains were jammed against it so unable to move ? Surely the great detective Amaral would have noticed that, half drunk or not. Or one of the other attending detectives. Or did they choose to ignore it. It would have been a relevant question to slip into the other 48 silly ones.
''Again, anybody saying the curtains went "whoosh", would possibly be asked to have their eyesight checked.''
Because they saw the wrong noise?
''As a rule, if you make a statement, and then change it because you realised it wasn't true, you could be accused of uttering an untruth. Some might say an untruth is a lie.''
Some would say a memory scrambled by a million images rushing around your head leaves you open to a mistake or two.Which did the PJ decide was the case ? They already thought the parents were guilty, did they jump at the chance to believe it was a mistake or a lie ?
'' particularly if the only prints found on the window pane were yours, suggesting that the window had been opened from the inside.''
If an abductor or burglar had been in your house and worn gloves, the only prints would be yours and anyone else's in the house.Would that mean you were lying too ?
''Particularly if you were frightened of being accused of doing something you shouldn't have done.''
I think its safe to say they were frightened for bigger reasons. I know the antis lose sight of it but normal folk don't. Their child was out there and they had no idea where or who with.The police exclude nobody and no scenarios from their inquiries early on if they actually know what they're doing. They have to consider everyone a suspect and the fate of the child unknown. If they decide, with nothing but a guess and a suspicion, that they already 'know' the child is dead and the parents are guilty because their only other case like it previously panned out like that, then they'll try to fit everything to the theory instead of finding clues and analyzing them instead. It's called bad policing . Naive. And it wasted precious time early in the investigation and we've been left with nothing but guesses and accusations based on suspicions. A vicious circle perpetuated by the naive.
Oscar Slater26 March 2019 at 20:44
Delete''Yeah 19:19, just like "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not."
Imagine thee's no charges..it's easy if you try. No evidence below us.Above us only sky.
23:34 - is typing like an elephant the same thing as a drunk slurring his words?
Delete23:30 'Pooh @ 18:02.
Delete"In your opinion. So how do they vocalise the real action ? ''they went (silence) '' ? Is it an English lesson or a lesson in linguistic analysis you're trying here ."
People tend to over elaborate when they are imagining something that didn't happen. Those who have experienced a situation are very precise in their use of language.
"Not sure what that's trying to say. What settee was holding something against the wall ? Are you saying the curtains were jammed against it so unable to move ? Surely the great detective Amaral would have noticed that, half drunk or not. Or one of the other attending detectives. Or did they choose to ignore it. It would have been a relevant question to slip into the other 48 silly ones."
There you go mentioning drunkenness again. Don't know why.
Otherwise, yes he did, and read his book or the PJ files if you want to learn more.
"Because they saw the wrong noise?"
If you say so.
"Some would say a memory scrambled by a million images rushing around your head leaves you open to a mistake or two.Which did the PJ decide was the case ? They already thought the parents were guilty, did they jump at the chance to believe it was a mistake or a lie ?"
Ask any cops boss.
"If an abductor or burglar had been in your house and worn gloves, the only prints would be yours and anyone else's in the house.Would that mean you were lying too ?"
I think you need to read the PJ files before you jump to people's defence by trying to tell us what was in their head. You aren't helping anybody/
Mind you the whole thing could have been cleared up very quickly if Kate had taken advantage of her Arguida status and answered the questions.
Yet here we are 12 years on still speculating. I bet she wishes she had just answered them and moved on in her life.
"I think its safe to say they were frightened for bigger reasons. I know the antis lose sight of it but normal folk don't. Their child was out there and they had no idea where or who with.The police exclude nobody and no scenarios from their inquiries early on if they actually know what they're doing. They have to consider everyone a suspect and the fate of the child unknown. If they decide, with nothing but a guess and a suspicion, that they already 'know' the child is dead and the parents are guilty because their only other case like it previously panned out like that, then they'll try to fit everything to the theory instead of finding clues and analyzing them instead. It's called bad policing . Naive. And it wasted precious time early in the investigation and we've been left with nothing but guesses and accusations based on suspicions. A vicious circle perpetuated by the naive."
Ever since my childhood, I have had an intense fear of people who think they are "normal". Those that would seek to judge others by their own experiences and morality."
Such people tend to turn very nasty when their version of reality is tested by others. I think the only thing that has gone "whoosh" here is your credibility.
Oscar Slater27 March 2019 at 11:21
Delete''I think you need to read the PJ files before you jump to people's defence by trying to tell us what was in their head. You aren't helping anybody/''
What's in the files that prevented the police acting on what you're trying to sell ?
''Mind you the whole thing could have been cleared up very quickly if Kate had taken advantage of her Arguida status and answered the questions.''
Yes. So true. yet Scotland yard didn't think of that or think of questioning her again or arresting her and using her silence( and legal entitlement) as circumstantial evidence against her. Perhaps you should mail them.
''Yet here we are 12 years on still speculating. I bet she wishes she had just answered them and moved on in her life.''
You think not answering questions has stalled her life ? Not her missing child ? What's actually wrong with you. Don't tell me, everyone on twitter finds her guilty so she hasn't moved on.
''Ever since my childhood, I have had an intense fear of people who think they are "normal". Those that would seek to judge others by their own experiences and morality."
I'm sorry to hear about your phobia.How are you judging the McCanns behaviour and actions by the way ?Where are your opinions of them coming from ?You're right about judging others by their own experiences. It makes no logical sense.Ros never stops doing it.I think what you were actually going for there was that I referred to non -haters as normal, implying haters aren't normal.Guess what. Hater's aren't. That's a logical opinion so many people would give you.They don't have to have an interest in the McCann case.It's an observation.
''Such people tend to turn very nasty when their version of reality is tested by others. I think the only thing that has gone "whoosh" here is your credibility.''
A mind game. How fascinating, if naive. You're above your weight, by the way. My credibility may well go 'whoosh'. Thankfully, only in the view of the haters who have an aversion to evidence, proof, logic or anyone spoiling their little party of anger.I get comfort from that.Sorry.
Thanks for the laughs.
DeleteLeast I could do, old sport, least I could do...
DeleteAre you sure about that 23:05, I got the impression you were pushing your abilities to the limit, in the circumstances.
DeleteFeel free to have the last word on this subject.
It isn't a subject is it.It's something yo're pretending to think.
DeleteLOL, you explaining how journalism works. So journalists just 'come up' with stories eh? Plucked from their imaginations or from thin air? Stories come from tip offs, insiders, press releases. The press releases are easy to spot, they have the same wording in every tabloid.
ReplyDeleteBlah blah GA disgraced blah blah blah. Enough! Do you think if you say it enough times it will become the truth. GA is not disgraced, he defeated the McCanns three times, ultimately in the highest Court in Portugal. In 12 years they have never disproved anything GA said in his book, and they have had ample air time and opportunity. If they have got nothing to hide why do they act as if they have?
Your questions have been answered hundreds of times and in hundreds of different ways. You have your fingers in your ears and you're shouting 'I'm not listening'. Why hasn't the dogs evidence been used? The case isn't over. Why haven't there been any arrests? The case isn't over. Let me shout that out THE CASE ISN'T OVER.
Your problem is that you are not getting the answers you want. You demand evidence, what kind of evidence do you think a blogger or readers of said blog might have? A bloody knife, a smoking gun? You cannot accept that a person can form an opinion based on the evidence they have read and their own observations. We must believe your truth not the truth we have discovered ourselves.
Still you insist all suspicion are based on hatred of the parents. So not true, if I were to ask readers what made them personally suspect the parents, I would get a thousand different answers. That they left the children alone, the non break in, the discrepancies in the tapas group statements, the barking dogs, etc, etc, etc. Yes I am sure some would point out the parents' arrogance and their non-co-operation but 'hate for the parents' would not be among the answers. That is a myth created by Team McCann and one I am happy to topple on a daily basis. Yes the parents are unlikeable, but whoa man, what about those dogs?
''Still you insist all suspicion are based on hatred of the parents. So not true, if I were to ask readers what made them personally suspect the parents, I would get a thousand different answers''
DeleteAnd not one would speak about the evidence that's against them.Because it doesn't exist and they are not suspects.All you'd get is a thousand replies of people in weird denial as though they were involved.All that would be left is the tiresome personal digs and observations nobody cares about but themselves.That's why all of you have such valuable opinions that others yearn for.
'' That they left the children alone, the non break in, the discrepancies in the tapas group statements,''
They never denied taking that gamble with their children. But if it's negligence it's negligence. It doesn't cause a death.Otherwise all the children on the holiday would be dead.What are the discrepancies you spotted that evaded the gaze of so many officers ? Share..
'' Yes the parents are unlikeable, but whoa man, what about those dogs?''
I wouldn't call the dogs unlikeable. But I'm not psychic so I'll go with you for now. I wonder what Grime and all the officers think of those dogs alerts.Is there any news yet. It's 12 years now. We can't blame the postman.
''The case isn't over. Let me shout that out THE CASE ISN'T OVER.''
Officially.Wait until May.Period.
''Your problem is that you are not getting the answers you want. You demand evidence, what kind of evidence do you think a blogger or readers of said blog might have''
None.I ask them to provide evidence that exists. In other words, explain how they 'know' what the claim to know.Otherwise just admit you're guessing but hoping to be taken seriously.
'' You cannot accept that a person can form an opinion based on the evidence they have read and their own observations. We must believe your truth not the truth we have discovered ourselves. ''
There it is. 'Opinion'. Finally. Now stop suggesting they're facts.That would be lying..
19:18 No, negligence doesn't cause a death, except when it does. You remind me of Steve Coogan's famous swimming pool attendant: "2000, nobody died; 2001, nobody died; 2002, nobody died; 2003, nobody died; 2004, nobody died; 2005, nobody died; 2006, nobody died; 2007, somebody died; 2008, nobody died...."
DeleteReally, it's not the best defence to say that because the other children didn't die as well, that there was no negligence.
''Blah blah GA disgraced blah blah blah. Enough! Do you think if you say it enough times it will become the truth''
DeleteIt's already the truth.Do you think if you keep childishly repeating 'blah blah'' it will stop being the truth ? It's the truth. Amaral has a criminal record that dates back to when he was still a copper, still working, and looking at the McCann case. That isn't a list of opinions.They're facts.
Ros your hatred as gotten the better of you. You have less rationality now than ever before on this blog.Your language and the things you say about the McCanns seem to be intended to antagonize. Why ? The case and those involved aren't anything to do with you. Why so much hatred ? It's worse than the other blogs now. It's even worse than the cesspit.You're spoiling it. It's like all you want is some reason to get angry and talk about the parents in as many bad ways as you can think. Nobody can ask you to explain yourself anymore.Its like you cant read what they say.
DeleteRosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 March 2019 at 17:42
Delete''if I were to ask readers what made them personally suspect the parents, I would get a thousand different answers.''
Good point. A better point is that you have just contradicted the old claim that this blog 'isn't like other blogs' and that it 'invites discussion about all sides'. You've just flagged it as a one sided and biased blog whose mission statement is 'get the parents'. Well done.
Err it doesn't negate anything. You are here, published, giving your alternate opinion as are the opinions of others (unless they are all you), who don't suspect the parents.
DeleteThe balance in this blog lies in the strength of the arguments that are put forward. Are you whining because you are on the losing side? You have the same philosophy as the parents you support, everything is someone else's fault. You do not have the persuasive powers to make this blog predominantly pro McCann, so you blame me.
Why don't you try to up your game, improve your posts and your writing style, your aggression and bad humour is off putting. And it is clear you have never so much as glanced at How To Win Friends and Influence people.
Being so unpleasant yourself, you portray the McCanns as unpleasant, you are not winning anyone over to their point of view. Perhaps it is because you see myself and all those who don't believe the parents, as 'haters', a belief that is so firmly stuck in your head that you cannot hide your contempt. Perhaps you should sit back a while and have a rethink, try to imagine that I and my readers are just normal people intrigued by an incredible story. We don't sit around harbouring plots and sharpening our pitchforks.
In a nutshell, you sound very unstable. Chill.
''Why don't you try to up your game, improve your posts and your writing style, your aggression and bad humour is off putting''
DeleteAn ad hominem attack from the desperate. Haven't had one of those for almost 24 hours.You've put a lot of effort into the actual insult there but little in to it's accuracy.I don't even believe you meant it.You needed to insult.It's like a fix. It's an illness. You think I'm the only reader who recognizes that ? Don't create a poll....
''Being so unpleasant yourself, you portray the McCanns as unpleasant, you are not winning anyone over to their point of view.''
Brilliant logic. Have you received another degree online ? What is it this time - aromatherapy ? Tarot reading ? You'd be surprised how many people see things my way.That is, they question the theories they once thought were truth because everyone online was saying so. People require proof.You think them people are mad. Guess what...
'' Perhaps you should sit back a while and have a rethink, try to imagine that I and my readers are just normal people intrigued by an incredible story. We don't sit around harbouring plots and sharpening our pitchforks.''
How good do you think my imagination is ? You ask far too much.
''In a nutshell, you sound very unstable. Chill.''
Yes, OK. I'll go over your last three or four threads and examine the disgusting language and insults that flow so naturally from you to anyone who exposes the weakness in your arguments. You're the queen of chill...
You are right 13:52, I do wind you up, and it works every time. I'm hoping you will eventually blow a gasket, or get taken away in a straight jacket. To be fair though, you do make it was too easy.
DeleteIt's may have escaped your notice but the only one angry around here is you, and your friends, if you have any. And don't take the wind ups personally, I do it to everyone, in every walk of life, it is beyond my control. Whilst tis true on some occasions my smart gob has gotten me into deep trouble, there have been many blissful occasions when I have locked eyes with a stranger seen that they are holding the giggles back too.
As it is 'beyond my control', I cannot make any promises, though maybe if you didn't act like such a complete arsehole, I could pull back a bit.
Have I received another degree online? I didn't receive my first Degree online, I had 3 years of absolute joy studying at University (Greenwich), where I made friends that I will treasure forever. I have an absolutely legitimate BA(Hons)in Humanities. Overall I got a 2:1, but in my writing I got a First, 87%! I will not allow you to demean my education 13:32, graduating was the proudest day of my life, and my family's, how dare you. That was me being angry btw.
Finally, disgusting language and insults. Oh do behave your big wuss, I've barely even warmed up. I reply to my incoming posts like with like. Those who are civil and charming, receive a reply in a similar tone. Do you see how it works?
Finally, I couldn't give two hoots about anyone exposing the weakness in my arguments, in fact I wish they would it might liven things up 13:32. I have been waiting for nearly 12 years to hear an arguments that persuades me the parents were not involved. When I first became interested in this case I studied it from every angle, including that of the supporters. Believe me I would be greatly relieved to discover that my suspicions are wrong, it would take me back to that pre 2007 age when I still had faith in humanity.
Put forward all the arguments and defences you wish 13:32, as long as they not just angry rants against GA or myself, I will publish them. Here is your opportunity to persuade myself and my readers, that the parents had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance.
Right now the only defence you have is the fact that the investigation has gone on so long without any charges or arrests. That's not persuading anyone. When people are accused of something they didn't do, they usually have hundreds of reasons to demonstrate it wasn't and couldn't have been them. You spend much of your time trying to paint me as some embittered old biddy, demented with jealousy of Kate and Gerry and their big beautiful house with room for a pony.
My goals and values however are entirely different to those of the McCanns, probably entirely different to most peoples. Anthony Boudain would have understood me. On the marriage and relationship front I revert to the angry 5 year old girl who refused to be tied to a ginger haired boy for the 3 legged race. I threw an almighty tantrum, punched the ginger head boy and had to be carried away kicking and screaming in front of the entire school and parents who had come along to the sports day. I don't know what mortified me the most, the fact that he was a boy or the fact that he was ginger. And yes, I have since said penance for my prejudices against boys and ginger people. Now I smile at their beauty and describe the colour as strawberry blonde.
But, I have wandered. Clearly I am not angry anymore, in fact I have had a glass of wine, hic, and off to find the sexy latino man who sings 'yeah baby, I like it like that'. I have it on my wish list to dance a salsa in Coooba with a man wearing a white linen suit and a Havana and I have to get the practice in. Anyway, I'm waffling, toodle pip.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 March 2019 at 20:40
Delete''It's may have escaped your notice but the only one angry around here is you, and your friends, if you have any.''
I haven't heard an insult as clever as that since i was about ten years old.
'' I'm hoping you will eventually blow a gasket, or get taken away in a straight jacket.''
It's nice to have a hobby. I collected bird's eggs when i was a kid.
''don't take the wind ups personally, I do it to everyone, in every walk of life, it is beyond my control''
Keep an eye on that, shuggaplum. Remember , often the prayer falls on the preacher. You believe in karma sometimes don't you.Keep your gaskets oiled...
''As it is 'beyond my control', I cannot make any promises, though maybe if you didn't act like such a complete arsehole, I could pull back a bit.''
Chill.
My degree dig was obviously a joke. I know you didn't get one online. Not in aromatherapy anyway. Possibly Oragami. :)
''Finally, disgusting language and insults. Oh do behave your big wuss, I've barely even warmed up. I reply to my incoming posts like with like.''
What's good for the goose etc., it's a bad deal for you to dish it out and censor replies. That's not cricket...
''Finally, I couldn't give two hoots about anyone exposing the weakness in my arguments''
I'm charitable as well as amazing. I'm going to change 'the semantics' to make it (hopefully) clearer.In future I'll refer to your argument's 'limits' rather than 'weaknesses'.K ?
'' I have been waiting for nearly 12 years to hear an arguments that persuades me the parents were not involved.''
Why do you say you don't blame them for Madeleine's fate or that you 'don't know' ? There should be a persuasive argument in the files.Not on twitter.
I was drawn to this case about a year after it happened.I was in the area that KM's family live and noticed a lot of flowers and posters in windows.I wasn't sure what it was all about at the time.A friend i was with, who wasn't even from these parts, told me and then i remembered it.I talked about it that night to more friends.I heard the memes; 48 questions.Gaspar;Smith; and so on. So, why were they still free ?
The suspicion that has stayed in me longer than others is that Madeleine was procured for somebody somewhere. Somebody 'important'. Maybe for personal enjoyment; maybe as leverage for 'favours'. Maybe as blackmail. I have yet to hear a single explanation of substance that explains why so many politicians and PMs -as well as Military Intelligence- involved themselves and ruined a police inquiry.It would have been easier and cheaper to charge the parents even if they had to doctor evidence.The dogs alerts / blood /DNA etc could have been interpreted slightly differently and job done.But here we are.Stale mate. I need to know if all the antis evidence is evidence of their guilt, how come all of it hasn't been used as such. None of it has. These are doctors. They aren't former PMs or Royalty.If there is insufficient evidence to persuade the prosecution to act, what's sufficient enough to make the UK Government act and top the money up ? If it's the McCanns guilt they'd have had them.Even if it's just because of the money it's cost to investigate on their behalf.What politician is going to ask if they can justify the request for funding and say 'ok yep' if OG say they think it's the McCanns after all this time ? OG would be hung drawn and quartered..
I'm sorry you were traumatised by a ginger 5 year old. It must have been difficult.It sounds bad enough.But it would go some way in explaining certain aspects of your character.I think i had a good feel of your private logic a long time ago :) Good luck with the Latino bar fly..keep the noise down..toodle P..
22:59, I'd wager the majority of people detained under mental health acts think they are the only sane people in the asylum.
DeleteYes, you're probably right, Oscar. Which is why they aren't allowed to undertake psychological assessments of anyone.
DeleteOscar Slater26 March 2019 at 20:43
ReplyDelete''Really, it's not the best defence to say that because the other children didn't die as well, that there was no negligence.''
Is that supposed to be an argument ? Negligence is negligence. Death is death. The McCans left their children. That didn't kill them. It left them alone. Which part aren't you getting ...I would say it's negligence, yes. I always have. But, not being unbalanced, I don't say negligence=alone=dead=manslaughter=parents burying her after the accident or killing her deliberately. I call it negligence. I have no evidence to say any more than that and nobody else has it either.If any is found it will be different. But wacky onliners coming out with the kind of deductive reasoning a drunken monkey could match does nothing for me. It does nothing for the court of public opinion and it's kangaroos either..it's beyond reasonable doubt that they drag this case to the gutter at every opportunity rather than discuss the absence of evidence or reliable testimony or question why so many detectives miss what they see and so many politicians wanted to take over it all along with MI5..
23:13 "Is that supposed to be an argument ? Negligence is negligence. Death is death. The McCans left their children. That didn't kill them. It left them alone. Which part aren't you getting ...I would say it's negligence, yes. I always have. But, not being unbalanced, I don't say negligence=alone=dead=manslaughter=parents burying her after the accident or killing her deliberately. I call it negligence. I have no evidence to say any more than that and nobody else has it either.If any is found it will be different. But wacky onliners coming out with the kind of deductive reasoning a drunken monkey could match does nothing for me. It does nothing for the court of public opinion and it's kangaroos either..it's beyond reasonable doubt that they drag this case to the gutter at every opportunity rather than discuss the absence of evidence or reliable testimony or question why so many detectives miss what they see and so many politicians wanted to take over it all along with MI5.."
DeleteEven drunken monkeys will eventually type the entire works of Shakespeare given enough time.
Once again you choose an argument with yourself, based on what you want me to have thought. I believe we have the same view of what constitutes negligence, I expanded on that by stating that just because the negligence didn't cause widespread damage it was still negligence.
IMO if you leave your children in a precarious position, and then the child dies it is getting close to manslaughter, culpable homicide, or whatever it is called in Portugal.
However, it hasn't been proved that anybody died in that room, nor has it been proved that anybody was abducted. In fact the information collected at the time suggests there was no abduction.
You really do the McCanns a disservice by questioning the integrity of people who don't believe their version of events. I am sure they are intelligent enough to work out that there are alternative explanations for everything, and have the good grace to accept that whilst these have not been effectively dealt with, then questions will also be asked.
Cut out the insults, accept other people's right to be wrong, and you'll gain a lot more respect. As it is, people like you just raise more suspicion that anybody who questions the McCann story is nothing more than a heretic.
Disgraceful, to be honest.
It's fairly obvious why it is so necessary for Amaral to be constantly referred to as a "disgrace". By rubbishing his integrity some people seem to think they rubbish the information he gathered.
DeleteIt is very similar to the way whistleblowers are treated in the NHS. There will be a concerted effort by the establishment to destroy the person who has raised the concern.
The establishment is basically all those who are having their own lies covered up by others, or those who seek to curry favour by covering up lies on their behalf.
Once you cover up for a lie, you are part of the lie, and you have no option but to perpetuate it at every opportunity, by every possible means.
''Even drunken monkeys will eventually type the entire works of Shakespeare given enough time.''
DeleteAccording to the theoretical cliche, yes.They've been around for thousands of years now. This investigation's been around for 12. Not a good omen.
'' negligence didn't cause widespread damage it was still negligence.''
I didn't say negligence was right, i just said it isn't murder.One carries a warning, the other a life sentence.Antis don't go on and on about negligence. They go on and on about the parents setting up an illegal fund with the blessing of the police and burying their daughter with the blessing of the police.When confronted with the silliness of the allegations they bring up negligence as though it was a trump card to settle the game they play.
''IMO if you leave your children in a precarious position, and then the child dies it is getting close to manslaughter, culpable homicide, or whatever it is called in Portugal.''
It doesn't matter what it's called if there's no body.Until there is one, it's called a hunt for a missing child.
' In fact the information collected at the time suggests there was no abduction.'
According to the internet and distant observers yes. According to the police who were actually at the scene and had the evidence at hand, its an abduction. Can it be proved that it wasn't ? If so, why can't the police do it ?
''You really do the McCanns a disservice by questioning the integrity of people who don't believe their version of events.''
I'm not really interested to be honest.It doesn't matter to me if it's a McCann, Amaral, or the boy Murat. They're a nice enough distance from my mind for me to be objective about the event-my real interest.If anyone ever proves the parents guilty and they go to prison, fine.They'll deserve no less.I'll join the chorus then.But now ? No. I wan't to know why it's taking so long to do anything about anything.
''Cut out the insults, accept other people's right to be wrong, and you'll gain a lot more respect''
I don't regard myself as insulting and i don't tell people how to talk and what to say.I leave that to the egotistic loners online.I don't need respect or disrespect from strangers who type on a board I type on.
''As it is, people like you just raise more suspicion that anybody who questions the McCann story is nothing more than a heretic.
Disgraceful, to be honest.''
Tell me the bit about cutting out the insults again, Sir Galahad. You call it disgraceful. Means nothing. You're frustrated because i ask for evidence, facts or reasoned arguments to justify all the irrational hatred of the parents who lost a child.You can't. Nobody can as it doesn't exist.All it leaves is ranters. The lose their tempers and type white-knuckled and try to take a virtual dig.Don't waste your time or mine with that kind of BS. Take the arguments apart with your logic or evidence. That'll teach me something.The swagger's wasted.
Get over yourself, I'm not lowering myself to your level.
DeleteOscar Slater27 March 2019 at 12:32''
Delete''It's fairly obvious why it is so necessary for Amaral to be constantly referred to as a "disgrace". By rubbishing his integrity some people seem to think they rubbish the information he gathered.''
Obvious if you don't think about it properly. Amaral is a man asking to be taken seriously when he makes wild allegations that haven't been supported in 12 years by a shred of evidence.He wants us to ignore the fact that he has a criminal record, gained when still a trusted detective.He broke the law during the investigation into a missing child who had been murdered but never found.All of that is down to him. It isn't down to anyone else. That's what damaged what integrity he had.His bad choices.
''It is very similar to the way whistleblowers are treated in the NHS. There will be a concerted effort by the establishment to destroy the person who has raised the concern.''
How is that analogy accurate ? Or are you suggesting Amaral was pushed out of his job because he-to quote the antis and armchair detectives- 'got too close'' (lol).Well, he has a book out there on the loose now.And the PJ are still on the case.They can blow the whistle on his behalf can't they ?
''Once you cover up for a lie, you are part of the lie, and you have no option but to perpetuate it at every opportunity, by every possible means.''
Until you get caught and done for perjury.In the meantime, his 'theories' are still walking about the place after 12 years yielding nothing. Why ?
anon @ 19:18
ReplyDelete"Until you get caught and done for perjury.In the meantime, his 'theories' are still walking about the place after 12 years yielding nothing. Why" ?
Strangely with its abundance of riches (£12 million and counting)SY and its officers haven't found any thing which put's paid to his theory as a complete nonsense.
Not arresting the parents comes pretty close to that though doesn't it..
Delete22:50 not finding the child is in pretty much the same league. Why won't those suspicions go away?
DeleteIf the thousands accepted logic and dropped their suspicions they'd have nothing to do online.They'd have to go back to posting poster quotes and kittens.
DeleteWhat logic 13:23? Nothing logical about saying someone is innocent because they haven't been arrested.
Delete''Oscar Slater28 March 2019 at 15:42
Delete''What logic 13:23? Nothing logical about saying someone is innocent because they haven't been arrested.''
Thanks for the heads up, Bertrand Russell. So what is logic ? Is it to discuss the way an absence of evidence against somebody makes them a suspect in a crime ? Or why the lack of evidence of a body proves someone died ?Or how an official police statement that declares that somebody is not a suspect makes them suspects ?
'Clarence Mitchell said the chances that Maddie was abducted by a stranger with a "sexual motive" was an "obvious" possibility.
ReplyDeleteThe ex BBC journalist has been handling Kate and Gerry McCanns' media dealings since their three-year-old daughter vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007.
In an interview with the Telegraph he said of Maddie's disappearance: "I asked the British authorities what they think happened and if there was any family involvement, and they assured me it was just a rare case of stranger abduction.
“It’s very rare, but it can happen. A sexual motive is an obvious possibility."
He added: "A child was taken to order from that room."'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8722882/madeleine-mccann-snatched-apartment-paedo-gang-clarence-mitchell/
"Kate and Gerry are anxiously waiting to find out if the Home Office will approve a fresh request by Scotland Yard for more money - a reported £150,000 - to continue the search for the next 12 months.
Current funding for the Maddie investigation Operation Grange, which has so far cost the British taxpayer £11.75 million, runs out in just seven days at the end of the month."
Anonymous @08:01
ReplyDelete"A child was taken to order from that room."
Of course it was. Most likely in a body bag, and under someone's orders.
Anonymous at 09:26
DeleteYes, it leaves room for ambiguity.
Kate McCann (madeleine):
"We gave another statement to the media outside the apartment that Monday and on this occasion answered a few questions. Then, early in the evening, we heard that Robert Murat, our erstwhile translator, had been taken in by the police for questioning. We had no prior warning of this from the police. The first we knew of it was when we happened to catch the ‘breaking news’ on television, the same as everybody else. We stood there, paralysed, watching live pictures of the police going in and out of Murat’s home, removing computer equipment and boxloads of other stuff. We were terrified that the next thing we were going to see was an officer carrying out a little body bag."
Most likely is a guess. Morbid one. But still a guess. Weird.
Delete''He added: "A child was taken to order from that room."'
DeleteSaid Mitchell , ex, BBC journalist. He wasn't working for the BBC when the McCanns lost their child. He was in politics.Then he was called to take control of the media output of the case. Now the former politician who had the ear of Prime Ministers from both sides of the house has stated categorically that Madeleine was procured for somebody.It's there in that statement.Considering he boasts an intimate relationship with the family, it has to be taken as read that he would have told the parents the same thing first. Which suggests that they know now that their child had been ordered by somebody important. That in turn would explain the presence of MI5. Mitchell said sexual reasons were a possibility. But he didn't say taken to order was- he said that happened. That's from a man who has been a politician under the PM who involved himself in the case.If Madeleine was ever found now, alive or otherwise, and it turns out he lied, he would be in major trouble as would the politicians he was employed by. So you can take it as fact now that she will never be found. They wouldn't dare risk it.Over to you, OG. Tell us what you're really doing and not pretending to do..
Anonymous28 March 2019 at 09:26
Delete''Of course it was. Most likely in a body bag, and under someone's orders.''
While your imagination is in charge, could you give us a possible scenario in which that would take place ? Somebody found a dead child and made a call for a clean up guy like in pulp fiction maybe ? While everyone from the tapas group sat around updating their facebook status ? Do tell .
Anonymous28 March 2019 at 12:06
Delete''Anonymous at 09:26
Yes, it leaves room for ambiguity.
Kate McCann (madeleine):''
You then go on to detail a quote from KM's book telling how she viewed Murat's house being searched.How does that follow on from a body in the apartment being removed in a bag ? The bag was left for Murat to come and collect to dispose of ? Or Murat took a bag with him to kill a child on the spot, bag her up and run ? I'd suggest it doesn't leave room for ambiguity. It leaves room for imagination.
Anonymous28 March 2019 at 12:06
Delete''Anonymous at 09:26
Yes, it leaves room for ambiguity.
Kate McCann (madeleine):''
How does watching a televised search of Murat's house relate to a body being removed from 5 a ? Are you saying Murat popped round to bin bag the child and hide her or just turned up, killed her, bagged her up and took her away ? That's not ambiguity , it's fantasy.
Many thanks for that 8:01 I've just taken a look at the latest Madeleine news. I'd like to know which British Authorities assured Clarence there was no family involvement and it was just a rare case of stranger abduction. Were these British authorities police or politicians? Or were they the mysterious British secret services?
ReplyDeleteClarence, like the parents, has nothing to offer by way of explanation except the stock answers taken to order, or for a sexual motive. Both are unbelievable. Madeleine was in a room with two babies, boy and girl, if it was for a family who wanted a child, why walk past the babies to take the older child? Sexually motivated? Yes it's very very rare and a sexual predator would have dumped her as quickly as possible, that is she would have been found. As for her being kept in a dungeon for 12 years, I can't bear to think of it, so I don't how the parents can.
The other latest news is that the McCanns are being bombarded with hate mail following the Netflix documentary. Via their facebook page it would seem, where their unnamed friend who hosts the site is busily deleting vile abuse. For a moment there I did think 'oh gawd 'ere we go again', more demands for non believers to be silenced and jailed.
continues
To be honest I don't understand the parents' hostility to well, everything. Overall the documentary presented their case favourably, it was the William Barr summary of the Mueller Report, move along now please, nothing to see here. Why not extract the good from it and use it for their benefit? For one thing, it could get people looking for Madeleine again.
DeleteRegarding trolls. I am mystified as to why people are bothered by them. They are terrified of their own shadows - and names, there is nothing frightening about them. They can only hurt you if you allow them to.
The only control and power we have is over ourselves, we cannot stop the trolls from trolling, but we can control how we react to them and our perspective of them. They can be a big thing in our lives, or they can be totally forgettable. The choice is ours. Personally I don't give them headspace, I have millions of other things that take precedence and I'm sure the McCanns do too.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2019 at 10:31
Delete''To be honest I don't understand the parents' hostility to well, everything
Unlike yours Ros eh..
Long live the trolls and the freedom to troll. Without them there would be no such thing as blogs.
DeleteYou don't know me at all 13:42, I'm actually a very agreeable person, as confirmed by two psychiatrists, lol. Having spent a lifetime navel gazing, I very rarely feel angry. Not much point because primarily I will blame myself, I accept full responsibility for everything that happens to me. That philosophy brings an amazing sense of calm, you should try it.
DeleteReading your many brainstorms here all I can say is you hide your serenity really well
DeleteExcellency
ReplyDeleteBriefly and respectfully.
Anonymous 26 March 2019 at 00:46
“They brought it to court for what reason ?”
Ostensibly, to receive a monetary compensation for damages allegedly suffered. They lost.
“To finally have him eat his words as they were backed by no proof.”
They had to eat their own backed-by-no-proof words. They lost.
“In the civilized world that would equate to libel.”
The sovereign state of Portugal is part of the civilized world. It has libel laws in place. On the face of it, the McCanns were in a position to sue for libel. They decided not to. I don’t think the likely litigation costs would do as a probable answer, particularly since the libel was, according to you, painfully obvious.
“Amaral had the opportunity to withdraw his allegations and avoid the trial or gamble that the judge would say it's fine to accuse parents of killing their child or just burying their body.It was a long shot.”
Any court case is a ‘gamble’ for both sides. No risk - no champagne. You know that. No judge in the case has said “it's fine to accuse parents of killing their child or just burying their body”. The truth of Amaral’s own opinions/conjectures has not been examined in a court of law. He has not been charged with, arrested and convicted for libel. Nor has he been made a formal suspect.. Presumed innocent until proven guilty!
“But it was up there with OJ and his long shot.”
That’s sophistry, comrade.
Anonymous 27 March 2019 at 19:52
“There is no onus on me.”
THOSE REFUSING TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR ASSERTIONS, TAKE NOTE! ;)
“It was a general discussion and a general point.”
That has no bearing on the onus to substantiate if your argument comprises your assertions.
“If we want to analyse everything like scholars and bring citations to the table that's fine. I'll do it my end.”
I trust the choice is entirely yours, dear comrade.
“But I'm fucked if i'm googling for people who can't be arsed clicking a mouse.”
When I put forward facts in a discussion, I consider myself obliged, when asked, to substantiate, if my credibility is to remain intact that is. Over a period of time on Rosalinda’s blog, you have been giving the impression that you require substantiation of what the blog’s bloggers assert, comrade.
Namaste.
Yours affectionately
The Earl of Monte Poo
PS Comrade, don’t tell me you drunk the bear beer I‘d offered you to only smell… Appalling thought… You did?
David Bailey makes love daily.
The McCanns believed that Amaral was guilty of illicit profiteering as he was making money from his book which wrongfully accused them of lying about the events in PDL in May 2007. They also believed he was wrongfully asserting what Madeleine's ultimate fate was, along with the ultimate destination of her body, despite her not being declared, or considered by the investigation, dead.You can dress it all as you like. that was the nub of their argument and pain. If anyone believes that his accusations / allegations/ cast aspersions or whatever you choose to call them, as anything but damaging to their reputation they need to wake up.Those who have chosen to hate the parents for killing their child or burying her refuse to see what Amaral chose to do, and still do now, as wrong , immoral or illegal. They have their eyes closed to it by choice and their ears too . The result delivered by the supreme court was greeted with cheers by the empty headed vigilantes and, to this day, they cite it as implied proof of the McCanns guilt. They refuse to accept that if the lack of a criminal trial can't be brought up in the case of libel, that it works the other way too.They need that.What they don't need is the morality of Amarl questioned, along with his criminal record. Nor do they talk to much about the judges' commenting that Amaral's printed assertions were not a source that the investigation had used and his assertions had no effect on the investigation.
Delete''I consider myself obliged, when asked, to substantiate, if my credibility is to remain intact that is. ''
Very noble. You seemingly feel obliged to request citations from everyone and anyone but reluctant to comment when asked about your take on the case.You jump fast to defend those who accuse the McCanns of whatever they feel like at the time, and to demand citations from anyone pointing out the flaws that have left the door open for 12 years. All that suggests is what camp you're keeping watch for.But you won't be moved if asked about a hypothesis of your own or of somebody else you support.You are selective in your aim.
Amaral got lucky in the final hearing.Fair enough. The fiscal side of things is annoying in my books anyway. I don't like the idea of the McCanns or Amaral making money in any way out of the case. Any verdict should just be about guilty or not guilty.Any punitive damages should be in the form of a sentence. But, for Amaral to cite the media endorsing his opinions( opinions) and still be told it wasn't defamation and he was allowed to make wild allegations was truly bizarre.The McCanns and an unidentified third adult carried a bag into a church where a woman( ex pat) was awaiting cremation the following day so they cremated Madeleine.( then buried her?)That's not slanderous ? Not defamatory ? No, it isn't if you hate those on the receiving end of the silly guesses.
Goncalo Amaral is just as entitled to tell his side of the story as Kate and Gerry McCann. And he had to tell his side of the story because his name was being smeared throughout the British press.
DeleteKate and Gerry have had 12 years and ample opportunity to prove their innocence. through their deeds, actions and words. Yet they have never made any attempt to rebut GA's theories, instead they have focused on destroying his character.
Finally I'm bemused by your 'punitive damages should be in the form of a sentence'. Are you saying GA should have gone to prison? I'm guessing you are because there is nothing Kate and Gerry would like better lol.
But returning to why Kate and Gerry are not winning friends and influencing people, it has much to do with their entitled attitude and demeanour. Being top in the assertive class does not come cross well when you are looking for help and sympathy, which is why Gerry came across as a bumbling fool when he was interviewed by Paxman.
Both the Mr and the Mrs lack humility and remorse and that is not endearing. Every interview they give is woe is me, the suffering they endure. They don't use their celebrity for the good of others. They have never used any of the vast Fund they built up to help another child.
Then there is their vendetta against the former detective who searched for their daughter. If his book is rubbish then why didn't they ignore it? Have they or their lawyers never heard of the 'Streisand Effect'?
With their legal actions the McCanns publicised GA's book, maybe even doubled its' sales, and I think they wanted to. Why did they wait a year before bringing an action? Maybe their intention was to seize all the royalties, so it needed to sell. Snidey tactics, let someone write a best seller then sue for all the money it earned. Would they have sued him if he hadn't had a best seller?
I have no doubt Kate and Gerry each have at least £250k worth of anger within them, but they are never going to be compensated by GA or Portugal. The case they are bringing has been totally overtaken by events these past years. How can they establish what their reputations were pre GA's book, and what they are now? Is it solely GA's fault that no-one likes them?
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2019 at 20:50
Delete''Goncalo Amaral is just as entitled to tell his side of the story as Kate and Gerry McCann. And he had to tell his side of the story because his name was being smeared throughout the British press.''
By smear I gather you mean his reputation was being slurred. But you forget, the part of that so called 'smear' down to the McCanns was their opinion. They passed it based on Amarl's failure in the case.They didn't invent anything they couldn't stand up. The rest is down to the media. Not the parents.
''Kate and Gerry have had 12 years and ample opportunity to prove their innocence. through their deeds, actions and words. ''
The police haven't said they're guilty of anything and haven't charged them with anything.The police, it would seem, don't think they harmed or buried their child.
''Yet they have never made any attempt to rebut GA's theories, instead they have focused on destroying his character.''
As each day passes throughout the 12 years, the failure of anything to come of his many theories is it's own rebuttal.
''Finally I'm bemused by your 'punitive damages should be in the form of a sentence'. Are you saying GA should have gone to prison? I'm guessing you are because there is nothing Kate and Gerry would like better lol.''
A sentence can be a fine or a suspended sentence or a slapped wrist.Amaral knows that.
''But returning to why Kate and Gerry are not winning friends and influencing people, it has much to do with their entitled attitude and demeanour''
Thousands of strangers on the internet form the kind of in- depth character analysis of them without never having met them.Are they magic or just bored ? Who cares if they're nice or vile ? It's if they're guilty or innocent that matters.The rest isn't our business.
''Then there is their vendetta against the former detective who searched for their daughter.''
And failed. So he decided they'd hidden her in a coffin so the child would be secretly cremated. Then they froze her. Then they put her in car boot and buried her. All after Gerry had walked her around PDL dead in his arms.Not a single theory has a spec of evidence in its favour. But the anger and response of the parents makes it a vendetta. Very objective that...
'' How can they establish what their reputations were pre GA's book, and what they are now? Is it solely GA's fault that no-one likes them?''
Not solely, no.A lot of it's down to idle minds and short attention spans.Those stir crazy on social networks love a good gossip and exchange of anger. It takes them away from their own regrettable life for a while.They exchange their stories about famous cases from the news and documentaries where the 'respectable' parents were faking it all along and were guilty. What twist etc...They quote stats that relate to something vague and talk about body language they saw on youtube.Things like evidence and proof bore them.No 'juice'. Amaral has become their Pied Piper.He bumbles along blowing on his pipe while three thousand blind mice follow behind.He can't even get his nursery rhymes and fairy tales straight...
Bravo My Lord Monty, it is good to remember that the parents want financial compensation from Goncalo Amaral, that's the bottom line.
DeletePlease do give my kind regards to Uncle Dynamite;)
Again with the arrogant 'they don't have to prove their innocence', the police have said they are not guilty etc. Fair enough. But that hasn't worked has it? Going by the comments sent to the tabloids, most of the public do not believe them.
DeleteNow that is not a happy way to be. You say we don't know them, and I agree we don't. In the hundreds of interviews they have given, they have performed like Mr and Mrs Stepford, very rarely showing glimpses of their true selves. And that's the problem. Because they are not open and honest, the audience cannot connect with them.
You can consume yourself all you wish with your dark imaginings of low life, chavvy reasons for why people are interested in this case, it bothers me not. The paranoia is so firmly ingrained in your brain, it would take a lobotomy to remove it. Saying all the nasty things that go on in your head out loud won't make discussion of this case go away. You have a closed mind there is nothing more I can do.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2019 at 22:00
Delete''Again with the arrogant 'they don't have to prove their innocence', the police have said they are not guilty etc. Fair enough.''
If it's 'fair enough' how is it arrogant ? It's a statement of fact.Facts are rare in this case. You shouldn't attack them when they turn up just because they expose the limits of your theories.
''But that hasn't worked has it? Going by the comments sent to the tabloids, most of the public do not believe them.''
As far as enjoying liberty rather than languishing in prison, I'd say it's worked.You can quote tabloids all you like.And most of the public.What do most of the police say ?
''Now that is not a happy way to be. You say we don't know them, and I agree we don't. In the hundreds of interviews they have given, they have performed like Mr and Mrs Stepford, very rarely showing glimpses of their true selves. ''
A McCann only has to speak a phrase on camera and out come the wannabe 'experts' telling us all what the look in the eye 'really' meant and how their 'subtext' was an 'embedded confession'.It's a pretty dire state of affairs.It says a lot about the mental state of the starving viewers really.Given that silly state of affairs, I think keeping it as simple as possible and as expressionless as possible is both a wise choice and a dig at the lunatics.Besides, it isn't against the law to be dull, boring, or stoic.None of those traits equate to murderer.But the antis will find a way given a bit more time..
''Because they are not open and honest, the audience cannot connect with them. ''
They're an audience. All they're supposed to do is watch, listen, or change the channel.
''You can consume yourself all you wish with your dark imaginings of low life, chavvy reasons for why people are interested in this case, it bothers me not. ''
You just felt the need to bring it up then....
'chavvy' and 'low life' are both your expressions. I never used either.You tried to put them into my mouth for your own selfish and strange reasons...
''The paranoia is so firmly ingrained in your brain, it would take a lobotomy to remove it. ''
Yes, I imagine everyone online is a McCann or in their 'team'. That they have 'inside information' and 'work for them'.Oh, no. That's you isn't it. You've just pulled a hamstring trying to disguise a 'you're mad' comment.Give an example. You've had the fun. Now do the work...
'' Saying all the nasty things that go on in your head out loud won't make discussion of this case go away. You have a closed mind there is nothing more I can do.''
I say facts 'out loud'. I point at unsupported theory 'out loud'. That spoils the party for the antis and you hate it.So, you call it nasty by saying I'm saying nasty things 'out loud'.An honest reading says differently. You should welcome when I point out flaws and untruths if you- as you say- genuinely enjoy open and honest discussion of all sides. Key word- genuinely.
22:35 you're the only little boy marching in step. More aptly though, no one can discuss anything with you because you make all the rules.
DeleteYou are now dictating how people should watch TV. You are really making quite an arse of yourself.
Your 'facts' do not come across as fact 22:35. You say the police have cleared the parents, we the public see no evidence of that.
DeleteFor Gerry and Kate it is important for them to win over the audience, pretending it doesn't matter might protect their feelings, but of course it matters. They have appealed for public support since Madeleine disappeared, arguably it was the public support that got them the political support. Kate once said there would rioting if they were arrested. It is never a good idea for a performer, speaker or interviewee to attack their audience. It is even stupider for their supporters to do it on their behalf.
I point out, quite politely I thought, that the parents could act like nicer people while being interviewed, and your response is why should they? How about for their own wellbeing. Their very difficult situation would be much improved if they had the goodwill and support of the public. Especially, should this case ever get to a point where extraditions are requested. You say they are enjoying liberty, their faces say they aren't enjoying anything.
I don't imagine everyone online is a McCann or part of their team. I imagine they have less than a handful of online supporters left, yourself being perhaps the most devoted and industrial. I pity them for the lack of support the McCanns have online, and that the support they do have does them so much damage.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 March 2019 at 11:29
Delete''Your 'facts' do not come across as fact 22:35. You say the police have cleared the parents, we the public see no evidence of that. ''
I'll try this one last time and hope you grasp it...
You don't have to be cleared of anything if you haven't been charged with anything. OK ? They haven't been charged-that's an actual fact. I didn't invent it to promote some bullshit.
''For Gerry and Kate it is important for them to win over the audience, pretending it doesn't matter might protect their feelings, but of course it matters.''
Does it matter as much as finding their daughter ? Or finding out who took her ? Or what exactly the police / OG are doing ? Do the wacky ideas and rants of a bored public really matter as much as you want them to ?
''I point out, quite politely I thought, that the parents could act like nicer people while being interviewed, and your response is why should they? How about for their own wellbeing.''
I answered you. They know the nutters are sat with the freeze frame technology ( pausing a youtube vid) trying to invent hidden meanings they can 'share'after watching the none-smiling faces ( evil / cold etc etc)
''You say they are enjoying liberty, their faces say they aren't enjoying anything.''
Their faces may be saying they miss their little girl. Yes, I know, weirdoes...
It doesn't matter if they don't have a single supporter or the antis have an army of lunatics bowing before St Amaral. It has no bearing on the investigation or the outcome of the case.You elevate it's importance because of how important it is to you online.So far, they are at liberty to carry on with their lives after 12 years. That's twelve years of forums, blogs, youtube and social networks. That's how important the internet kangaroo court id in the big picture.
Oscar Slater29 March 2019 at 07:56
Delete''22:35 you're the only little boy marching in step. More aptly though, no one can discuss anything with you because you make all the rules.''
Your insight knows no beginnings does it Oscar. Preaching that people stop being insulting then throwing the toys all over your creche.No self control..I fear the day opinions like yours ever mean anything to me.
''You are now dictating how people should watch TV. You are really making quite an arse of yourself.''
See, that kind of thing.But it's someone else making an arse of their self . You know what dictate actually means, Mr palter merchant....
Your attempts at insulting are wasted.If you or your opinions mattered, it would be different. But that's not the case. So it isn't.You're now wasting your own time as well as mine.
Anonymous 28 March 2019 at 17:57
DeleteYour Exuberance
“The McCanns believed…”
They might’ve done,
“Very noble.”
Yes, it is. You know what I’m like.
“You jump fast to defend those who accuse the McCanns of whatever they feel like at the time…”
It takes all kinds… My fastest jumps have always been to speak in your favour, comrade. One of the side effects of drinking bear beer is memory impairment. I understand.
“…and to demand citations from anyone pointing out the flaws that have left the door open for 12 years.”
Demand? I neva demand. Neva. I occasionally ask other bloggers questions. No one is obliged to answer, but to those who do, I’m grateful. My intuition and logic guide me as to who and when to ask. That’s all.
“You are selective in your aim.”
Indeed. I want to be your fantasy… We could have a good time and your honey, honey. Plenty of honey.
“Amaral got lucky in the final hearing.”
Luck plays its part as far as I can tell.
“The fiscal side of things is annoying in my books anyway.”
I see your point.
Namaste.
Peace.
Pooh
What are we to do with our Dave?
I get your 'they don't have to be cleared because they haven't been charged argument'. Perhaps I should have worded my thoughts differently. The McCanns have a great big cloud of suspicion hanging over them. That is a fact. Neither Operation Grange nor the PJ have done anything to lift that suspicion from them. You can argue until you are blue in the face (and you probably do) that Gerry and Kate are not suspected of anything, but we see two live police investigations that are ongoing.
DeleteAs for the nutters who freeze frame videos etc, why are the McCanns bothered by them? Why do they bring their dark imaginings to every interview they do? I have never seen two people more bothered by the actions and opinions of others. Their need to find their child should override everything. I never allow other people's opinions to dictate how I behave, the idea is absurd. Essentially you are giving your power to people who don't like you. I've said before but I'll keep saying it, for Gerry and Kate especially. The only power you have is over yourself, you can't stop the nasty comments, but you can control how you react to them.
Weirdos, not really, in the summer of 2007 their faces were saying something entirely different. Fortunately or unfortunately for them, their entire journey has been recorded and catalogued.
In your final paragraph you go to great efforts to demean myself, Goncalo Amaral and well, everyone who talks about this case. ending with none of it matters.
OK, if nothing said on here matters, why do you spend so much time nitpicking and writing 5000 word essays? If this is you not caring, you are convincing no-one.
Unlike other blogs, forums etc, I have not inserted myself into this case as Judge, Juror or investigative journalist. I muse. Just like it says on the tin, and why I am able to discuss this case unbound. I don't know if you are among the legal internet guard of Team McCann, or just an over zealous enthusiast, but my blog contains nothing libellous nor does it incite hatred.
People want to discuss this case with other reasonable and objective people in a civil and polite manner. Here they can, the only one getting all worked up into a frenzy is you 22:58. Do you always behave like this when you can't get your own way?
''The McCanns have a great big cloud of suspicion hanging over them. That is a fact. Neither Operation Grange nor the PJ have done anything to lift that suspicion from them. ''
DeleteYes, the much-quoted ' court of public opinion' who use tabloids and youtube to get a qualification in Psychology and a diploma in Criminal Investigation. The internet's clogged up with their unfounded allegations and angrily articulated suspicion. They should sort their heads out really. The PJ and OG have done little to prove the antis right either. That's an important point.
''Gerry and Kate are not suspected of anything, but we see two live police investigations that are ongoing.''
You have better sight than i have. What's it look like ? Who's doing what or whose done what ? Even if they investigations are 'live' there's more chance that they're looking everywhere but the parents. Everything the parents have said, their friends have said and the rest of the failed evidence is still there right where it's been for twelve years.You imagine they're keeping it live to look at the McCanns. If they haven't found anything in twelve years they won't now. How could they.
''As for the nutters who freeze frame videos etc, why are the McCanns bothered by them? Why do they bring their dark imaginings to every interview they do''
No, the dark imaginings were created as a new wacky genre by Hall, Hyatt, Bennet's faithful and Hi de hi or whatever its called.They then use the cringeworthy 'findings' to foment more ill feeling and lies about the parents which they can never prove.They do it to enjoy themselves half of the time.
''The only power you have is over yourself, you can't stop the nasty comments, but you can control how you react to them. ''
That was my point.And their reaction is to give a stoic interview and let the wolves go hungry.
''Weirdos, not really, in the summer of 2007 their faces were saying something entirely different. ''
You see distraught faces of strangers you've never met but know that they've lost a 3 year old child 12 years ago.That expression on their faces needs no explanation.But you have feelings beyond the facts and they involve ill will toward the parents so choose to call it fear because of the guilt you want to imagine they feel.Confirmation bias again..
''OK, if nothing said on here matters, why do you spend so much time nitpicking and writing 5000 word essays? If this is you not caring, you are convincing no-one.''
None of it matters to the case. I made that clear.
'' Here they can, the only one getting all worked up into a frenzy is you 22:58. Do you always behave like this when you can't get your own way?''
I wish you wouldn't do that. The attempt at belittling me in order that readers will dismiss my questions are not as subtle as you hope. They miss the spot every time here and those who you fool here don't matter to me or others who think with some rationality.Anyone reading the posts on this thread and your last 4 or 5 threads will see by language, tone and temperament who suffers from the occasional frenzy when they aren't selling enough tickets.
Anonymous 25 March 15.26
ReplyDeleteAs you were too lazy to do any research for yourself, I've posted a link where it states that £750,000 was ring fenced by the McCanns:
https://www.theweek.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/53972/what-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-timeline-of-events/page/0/4
Please don't tell me they've spent that £750,000 on private detectives, because the Portuguese law wouldn't allow them to run a separate search whilst a criminal investigation was taking place so what have they done with the £750,000? As their accounts aren't transparent and above board as they promised many, many years ago we only have the basics shown each year. Have they spent all that money on court cases. you tell me because I would love to know where all that money went and whilst I'm here who or what paid for that huge extension on their house?? Weren't they broke when they went on holiday as they couldn't even pay their mortgage payments whilst they were in PDL.
Too lazy to scour the internet to see if I could find anything 'dirty' on the parents dodgy dealings ? I'm not too lazy, I'm just not stupid or desperate for 'the goss'. It's worse than a Launderette in here..( ''a-haaa he mentioned launderettes when i brought up McCann's millions...now we know !'' ). The discussion was about a libel case and whether or not Amaral should have been able to get away with publishing his allegations regarding what happened to Madeleine ( remeber her ?) and how they supposedly disposed of her body. Do keep up. That's the trouble when hate consumes you, you lose concentration....
Delete''As their accounts aren't transparent and above board as they promised many, many years ago we only have the basics shown each year. Have they spent all that money on court cases. ''
Yes, they should remember the internet's waiting. They should reveal their tax returns and wage slips to them.Even though they have yet to be arrested or charged with a thing.Why don't you report them to the right authorities ? I don't mean a facebook group by the way, I mean the fraud squad.
'' would love to know where all that money went and whilst I'm here who or what paid for that huge extension on their house?? Weren't they broke when they went on holiday as they couldn't even pay their mortgage payments whilst they were in PDL.''
Stalkers are supposed to move with a little more stealth you know...
addendum to earlier...
Delete“The exercise of [the freedoms of expression, to hold opinions, to receive and impart information], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, ... for the protection of the reputation or rights of others …” (Article 10 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights). ''
''The right to protection of reputation is a right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life … In order for Article 8 to come into play, however, an attack on a person’s reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life … The Court has held, moreover, that Article 8 cannot be relied on in order to complain of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence … ''
The commission of a criminal offence ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the McCanns hadn't committed a crime. So any loss of reputation, or harm to it, can't be put down to the consequences of their own actions.If it was, they wouldn't have wanted to go to court would they. Their legal team wold have advised that any way. So, I think if this was to go to the ECHR that article 8 will, and should, come into play.
The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are distinct. But between the two is the grey area where a judge, or judges, reside with their discretion. While the letter of the law takes priority, the spirit must be examined too. What people regard as fairness is important.Unfortunately, in my opinion. the parents have stood trial and been found guilty svreal times in virtual kangaroo courts and in tabloids.It's clear what the public consider fair in the case. But their opinions have no evidence either.It's the blind leading the blind.
of use
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26
https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/orgstudies-assets/orgstudiesdocuments/oshonors/oshonorsthesis/Matt%20Gordon_Honors%20Thesis.pdf
Gary Soredust...You,you,you TROLL !!!
DeleteNever condemn truth or common sense as a troll. And stop calling me Gary.
DeleteOk Mark
DeleteAnonymous 28 March 20.48
ReplyDeleteYou can pontificate all you want until the cows come home with your diatribe but never forget that the Portuguese Supreme Court have not ruled the McCanns innocent in the disappearance of Madeleine.
Pontificate and diatribe are very big words for you aren't they.But the fact remains that the supreme court didn't rule the McCanns guilty of anything as it wasn't a criminal trial. they haven't been charged with anything. Live with it o ask a grown up to explain this post to you.
DeleteNo, the Supreme Court didn’t find them guilty, or not guilty, of anything. It simply ruled that they have not been cleared. The McCanns have on several occasions falsely claimed that they were cleared, the Supreme Court clarified the situation for all those in doubt.
DeleteThe Genius of the McCanns.
ReplyDeleteA marketing ploy like no other.
The "Crime of the century" was definitely not anything the McCann's would ever be capable of. Why? - the duo are British, and a cut above murdering their own daughter. As friend and spokesperson Justine McGuiness said of her friends on a TV snippet.
"The accusations are ridiculous"
There were no findings of battered bodies in apartment 5A, - think OJ Simpson's wife and her lover. Or even the mangled remains of John and Patsy Ramsey's daughter Jonbenet
The police in these jurisdictions had something to go on, they had a trio of very dead bodies staring them in the face.
Regardless, the trial outcome was, OJ was found not guilty of murder and the Ramseys never prosecuted. Conveniently Patsy Ramsey died of cancer before any kind of prosecution could take place.
No such luck for the Portuguese police. The McCanns were a different kettle of fish in a different situation, there was no sign of a body. The couple somehow knew the very instant their daughter disappeared from their holiday apartment that she had been kidnapped - Why do we know with absolute certainty that this is true? Because Mrs McCann said so. On the night of the disappearance Mrs McCann ran out into the streets of Praia da Luz shouting, "She's been taken".
Since then anyone who challenged this utterance in a public format: newspapers et al, found themselves paying up to 500 thousand pound damages to the sainted couple via Carter Ruck their noble law firm.
This is the message: "You will challenge us at your peril. Our daughter is still out there and very much alive. We had nothing to do with her disappearance. We love her and we love the funds you keep sending to the Find Madeleine Fund - "Leave no stone unturned". The money will go to funding the "fund" and to two of the six directors Gerry and myself.
Thanks a million(pounds).
jc
Give it a rest Sawdust,you sound like a broken record.
ReplyDeleteIf it hurts, don't read. And it's Mister Sawdust to you. Punk. :)
DeleteIf facts remain facts, and opinions remain just opinions, are they 'broken records' too ?
DeleteAnonymous 29 March 2019 at 12:42, 12:43
DeleteDelightful comments, Your Exuberance, delightful! :)
Good God!
ReplyDeleteIt's the second cumming, Zesus is back!
The case against Goncalo Amaral finished at the Portuguese Supreme Court and, as we know, he won. If the McCanns have gone to the ECHR their case is against Portugal and has nothing to do with Amaral.
ReplyDeleteRuth banging on about the McCanns and Amaral and anything at all other than the disappearance of the child.Only mentioning her if she needs to spit a bit of hate out.never changes and never learns
Deletewow 07:16 that's funny
DeleteI see The Sun is now describing those who read Amaral book as ghouls but if that is the case then surely those who read Kate McCans book, or Summers & Swans book, or any other book on the disappearance for that matter, are equally ghoulish. The media nowadays really is a farce.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing more pointless than a tabloid's reporting is the critique of a tabloid reader.
Delete