McCanns vs Amaral verdict soon

Gerry?

The trail goes cold............   in the apartment

More likely to be Kate..

'Makes me think you are one of the many they have on forums doing similar.
You related or just a friend.'

Gotta love a conspiracy! Everyone's telling me I'm an idiot. There must be a plot!

Well that's not nice of them Clunge even if you are an 1diot.

Well, I'd love to fit in with the rest of you but none of you have any answers as to what did they do with the body. That's all that Amaral had to do...instead of writing about what supposedly happened, just show some evidence.

A couple of questions for you all: How long did the body remain in the apartment? How long does it take for 'cadaver odour' to develop?

Akabula. I'll agree with anything that is the truth, but I won't just accept wild theories which accuse two parents of killing their child. I can't how any of you can. You are doing yourself a disservice if you just glibly accept all of the rumours to be true.

So, I am not an apologist for anything or anybody. I just want people to form their opinions on what makes sense and not on misleading tittle-tattle.

Naydam deserves to be Knighted for his services to clear thinking, common sense and logic.

Awwwww, shucks.        

naydam.

it's a mistake to discount one account of events because when considered on its own it seems improbable. (this is called the Prosecutor's fallacy)

yes, it's extremely unlikely that any parent kills their child, be it accidentally or not.

but it's also extremely unlikely that a child is kidnapped is the manner the mccanns have claimed.

you have to consider the likelihood of the two version of events when compared to each other, not in isolation.

even before we start to consider some inconsistencies in their description of events, as well as some odd happenings, there is no way any rational person can conclusively rule out a version of events which involved the mccanns being responsible for their daughter's death.

akabula

  26 Mar 15 15:04 
Joined:   13 Mar 08      | Topic/replies: 11,054  | Blogger: akabula's blog   

BTW I don't subscribe to any particular theory and if forced would probably come down on the side of an abduction.
In saying that there is no concrete proof of one but neither is there any concrete proof of anything else.
But, as I've said, I can't fathom out why the McCanns won't do a 'warts n'all' tv interview.
They would be paid fortunes which they could add to the 'Find Madeleine Fund' so why won't they do it. Strange.


That's what I had already posted naydam yet you then post this:


naydam
Akabula. I'll agree with anything that is the truth, but I won't just accept wild theories which accuse two parents of killing their child. I can't how any of you can. You are doing yourself a disservice if you just glibly accept all of the rumours to be true.



You are blindly opposing everything that doesn't fit in with the McCanns version of events.
DStyle's post sums it up rather well. The McCann's version of events is riddled with contradicting statements from them and their friends, statements changed and a reluctance to face the press.
Again I repeat that I still think the abduction the more likely of all the theories but you can't fault people for thinking otherwise given their erratic behaviour and the conflicting statements.

I don't rule it out. But I see a total lack of proof AND a lack of opportunity on the part of the McCanns.

well said naydam,

but no harm in stating theories

pretty pointless defending or accusing people we dont know, indeed if we know them we
still may get it wrong



plenty of germans on tv this past week telling us this co pilot they knew isnt the type to murder 149 people

I don't disagree with you. I thought the theory about giving the kids sedatives to make them sleep was plausible.
If that was the case then it was plausible that Madeleine died as a result of this. Then I thought that if that had happened how could they have got rid of her body. Less plausible now. Then I thought the rest or at least some of their friends must be in on it. But the longer nobody said anything the less likely this was, I couldn't see a group of people keeping a secret as horrible as that.
But again I would ask why don't the McCanns go on air without conditions.
I think it is because they have something to hide and I think that it is that the checks got less frequent as the days passed.

its simple akbula they know they left their kid unattended and at risk, thats enough to hide

and makes it difficult for them to face any questioning

To me the McCanns themselves are responsible for all the conjecture that is appears online.
They could clear up most of this by facing the cameras.
Until they do this, and I doubt they ever will, the theories will gather pace and more speculation will become fact to some.

why is there 31 officers in the case £10,000,000 & rising

^ The McCanns have friends in high places.

akabula   
28 Mar 15 12:21 
I don't disagree with you. I thought the theory about giving the kids sedatives to make them sleep was plausible.

Only plausible?

The McCanns say she wasn't a good sleeper.

The McCanns say she didn't like strangers.

How did the 'alleged abductor' quietly carry off a child who wasn't sedated and, never made a sound of distress? 

How was the 'alleged abductor' spotted by a Tapas friend in her statement, where Gerry McCann and a sports coach stated they were in the same street at the same time, but saw nobody.

Well I can't prove it but I found it plausible ie a reasonable assumption.

Given the reports, I'd say sedated is a 2/5 chance
unsedated 2/1

Naydam holds all the aces on this thread because no matter what anyone says (apart from the child neglect aspect) against the McCanns he will say you can't prove it.

Put either McCann in a room with me and a copy of yellow pages, and I'll get a confession.

PERHAPS

they're not guilty of child neglect, after all, they haven't been charged with it.

Perhaps she wasn't 'carried off' by a stranger. Perhaps it was somebody she knew. Perhaps it was somebody that she knew from the crèche who also knew that the group always dined at THAT bar, at THAT table, at THAT time. Somebody who knew that the McCann's apartment could not be properly observed from that point. Somebody who could have noted the time lapse between parental checks. Somebody who would know that they didn't lock the apartment door. Somebody who, in case they HAD bumped into the parents, could just have said "I was passing and heard her crying. I knocked but there was no answer. The door was open so I picked her up and was comforting her until you came back."
Nothing suspicious at all. The parents wouldn't even have complained. Why would they? You would never imagine that somebody was in the act of stealing your child.

This was not a botched burglary. The apartment and the child were targeted. Probably by some body with a lot of information regarding routine and opportunity.

It is also probably fair to add that many people who work with children, do it for evil purposes.

Probably by some body with a lot of information regarding routine and opportunity.

Parents?

No body.

The child was removed (ie abducted).

For the umpteenth time naydam, the apologist-in-chief, this case is a disappearance and not an abduction.

Where is the evidence that proves beyond doubt that the child was abducted?

If Naydam's theory is correct it would give us a very limited number of very obvious suspects.
ie people that the child and the parents knew and who also worked at the resort with children.

It is not possible to prove beyond doubt that it was an abduction or that it wasn't an abduction.

Therefore you cannot declare it to be definitively 'not an abduction'.

Wesdaq. You wanna wait till I explain the only, desperate piece of 'evidence'(!) that lends any credence to Amaral's theory.

It would still be very useful if somebody/anybody could put a figure on the length of time that the body (assuming Amaral's theory to be correct) would have spent in the apartment. So far I have received no help on this matter. It would be really helpful. It could be important.

That's why I say disappearance Ozy, duh!

you don't follow, wesdaq.  Let me try putting it another way for you.

You are forever saying 'it wasn't an abduction' despite the fact you cannot prove this.

Making a definitive statement about it being or not being an abduction is foolish.

Okay then, she was murdered.

I at no stage have said that it wasn't an abduction.

My point is, is that the McCanns version that there was an abduction has been accepted without any evidence to support it.

That being the case, we can not say definitively one way or the another.

Therefore, the matter should be regarded as a disappearance.

Accepted by who? I would say that the majority of people are in the Spellingandgrammarchecker camp.
That's the value of rumours.

^ The mainstream media and plod.

That being the case, we can not say definitively one way or the another.

Therefore, the matter should be regarded as a disappearance.

That implies we can definitively say it was a disappearance; we can't.

so what do we call it

Wesdaq. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that mainstream media (I assume you mean the Press) have accepted the McCanns' story. How can people say that the parents have been 'given an easy time' by the press?
The McCanns had to sue the 'papers for printing scandalous headlines which were totally unfounded and based upon 'an undisclosed source'. They settled out-of-court but the damage had been done. Huge swathes of people like have a totally distorted view of these proceedings.
You also mention 'plod'. Why do you believe that the police have not treated the parents as they would in any other case. They were p[potential suspects. I have no doubt that they believe their version of events NOW. But that would only be after ruling them out by way of their own investigations.

'like yourself'

BBC, ITV, SKY and most newspapers buy the abduction story.

What do you think the Crimewatch reconstruction a couple of years ago was about?

The news channels only report the news. They don't create it. The press, on the other hand, tend to make their own stories in order to sell newspapers. Yes, I know they are called 'news' papers, but they frequently step way beyond that description.

I don't know what the 'Crimewatch' thingy was about as I didn't watch it. You could tell me.

Ozymandius

That being the case, we can not say definitively one way or the another.
Therefore, the matter should be regarded as a disappearance.
That implies we can definitively say it was a disappearance; we can't.


That is the only fact in this case that is undisputed.
A child has disappeared and the conjecture is then split on why she disappeared.

Thanks aka for stating that succinctly.

I'm staggered that some mugs even dispute the child has disappeared!

, fair enough, we may have been at cross purposes.

I felt you were using the terms 'disappearance' and 'abduction' as disparate rather than concentric terms.

Awarded £357,000 damages...could set up a baby sitting agency with that kind of money.

Further to my post of 8th Feb @ 17:35...my bet is that Amaral faces charges (eventually).

leazes67
     28 Apr 15 15:56   

Awarded £357,000 damages...could set up a baby sitting agency with that kind of money.

Lets lock that incmpetent b@stard Amaral up!

oh dear conspiracy loons and associated haters in disarray.

What about incompetent parents Ozy? Should we lock them up as well?

No, the loss of a child is more than enough punishment.

Ozymandius   
28 Apr 15 19:06 
No, the loss of a child is more than enough punishment.

Not if you didn't care enough to look after it properly it isn't.

Righto.

I think Mr Amaral is responsible for things far more serious than incompetence.    FAR more serious.

Write a book Naydam.. could make a fortune :)

naydam     28 Apr 15 20:05 
I think Mr Amaral is responsible for things far more serious than incompetence.    FAR more serious.



There is an argument that says for Mr Armaral, substitute the McCanns in your statement.

Pity the mccanns haven't had to answer to child neglect charges in court.

How do you put a price on the 'damage' you received because of Amaral's book?

The McCanns did, according to the BBC they asked for almost twice what they eventually received.

I think they simply wanted to make sure that he didn't profit from his evil, unfounded accusations.

The damage done by Amaral is huge. His claims, and some very naughty 'inside information' released from 'an unidentified source close to the investigation' Have managed to convince many people around the world that this child was killed by her parents...with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Please, somebody, answer me one question: If the kid was killed. Where was she killed?

naydam you don't know whether the kid was killed in the flat or abducted so why try to act as if you do know?

I don't act as if I know, but I do try to apply a little bit of logic. We can discuss possible abduction later. At the present we (I) are considering the case for Mr Amaral's opinion.

So, where was she killed and when, time-wise, would (or could) this have occurred?

Time wise nothing adds up. I'm on the side of an abduction although, like everyone else, not really sure what happened.
The mccanns constantly complain about this conjecture and the lies* passed as fact. (*their word not mine)
But they've added to this by their behaviour when interviewed.
Who know's? Maybe there is more truth in Amarals book than the judge says.

Their behaviour when interviewed? Do you mean they looked at the floor or seemed uncomfortable? Maybe the seemed to be too.......too what? Or maybe not enough......not enough what?
What have they added?

To be honest, my original questions were directed toward those who maintain that the McCanns are guilty of that which Amaral accuses them. But every time I try to ask one of the "Why-was-he-playing-tennis?" brigade, they seem to disappear. Them and the "What-about-the 48-questions?" mob.

Anyway, I give up. Hopefully the book will be banned and he'll make no more from it.

In one interview in particular (fact as I saw and heard it with my own eyes and ears) the interviewer asked Gerry a question about the dogs to which he replied (maybe not verbatim but along these lines) I don't know, why don't you ask the dogs.
He's arrogant in the extreme and is never slow to use journalists to help get financial help from the general public but treats them with contempt otherwise.

akabula, I think it's time to let this drop, nothing left to be said is there?

I was responding to naydam. If you think like that why visit the thread?

cos it's boring seeing yet another mccann thread tbh, done to death and you're all going round in the same circles

Like I said, why visit the thread?

naydam   
29 Apr 15 14:50 
I don't act as if I know, but I do try to apply a little bit of logic. We can discuss possible abduction later.

Nothing the McCanns said, or what the Tapas bar witness said, or what the man in the street said that Mr McCann stopped and spoke to, ties in with any witness report of a man carrying a child.

In the words of a certain chap named Arthur Conan Doyle, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth.

Portuguese police, British police out there on a 'jolly-up', and private investigators, have no proof of abduction.

In which case, I say there was no abduction.

Now we can get the CCDA back in to solve whether she wandered off on her own after waking up crying, trying to find her 'parents', and was never seen again, or she was murdered some time before she was reported missing.

There is a lot more to this case than meets the eye.

Akabula. To be honest, Gerry McCann might have been very close to the truth with that statement...I've said it myself before that Eddie (the cadaver dog) would tell you what he found if he could speak.
Unfortunately, he was only trained to detect cadaver odour. ANY cadaver odour.

There was never 'a man carrying a child'. That is the product of barely-recalled memory of somebody trying to help. I would bet that Amaral actively encouraged her when constructing the artist's impression. The more ridicule and scorn he could pour on any 'evidence' that disagreed with his theory, the better his story looked.

@naydam I wasn't making any point about the cadaver only GMcCs response to the journalist. Arrogant cant of a man.

Spelling. What proof of an abduction would you expect to find? Particularly in the case of a planned abduction, for this was surely no opportunistic burglary with a twist.

Amaral is a good friend of my family. He's a good man and this case has destroyed his career and his life.

You know he has many supporters in the many fora... drawn into circumstances beyond his control imo.

TheFifthEmpire. Obviously you know Mr Amaral much better than I do. Perhaps you could throw a little light on a couple of interesting questions.
Was he close to the 'unnamed source' who supplied the snippets of information that were leaked to the press?
Are you, or your family, members of the Portuguese police?

I realise that it is wrong of me to ask such detailed, personal questions, and I do not really expect you to answer. It just seemed like an opportunity that I would regret if I didn't ask while I had the opportunity.
As I said...I shouldn't ask and you shouldn't reply. The old T&C regulations frowned upon gathering data on other forumites. I don't know if it still applies or not.

Naydam

Similarly do you or anyone you know have any connection with the McCanns or the people involved in this case?

On another subject. Are the records of the "Madeleine McCann Fund" (not the award from the libel case)in the public domain for all to see how the money has been appopriated?

Bix. No.

You can't get a proper opinion on these forums. 

No matter what question you ask, and state at the start -

'yes or no, no long posts'

it isn't long before they descend into argument again.

Nobody ever changes their mind.

Nobody ever admits they were wrong.

But just a 'yes' or a 'no' is beyond most.

If nobody believes it, try starting a thread on anything and ask for a 'yes' or 'no' answer, and nothing else.

Should we have Trident?

Will The Tories get back into power?

Were the McCanns involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

Are Chelsea the best footie team in London?

Is the Special One a moron? (it may work with this one)

I'd have to think about the first 4 but the last is unquestionably yes

Is the Special One a moron? (it may work with this one)

YES!

I think it is called debate. 'Yes' or 'no' answers only apply when there is no ambiguity in the question.

Like an earlier post of mine. Bix asked me a straight question and I was able to give a simple, one-word reply.

Okay naydam. Yes or No.
Are the mccanns horrible parents for leaving their 3 young children alone in a strange flat in a strange country whilst they went out wining and dining with friends?

Yes. Although you really should try to keep the questions in a less complicated form.

YOU LOT ARE OBSESSED WITH THE MCCANS

GET A LIFE

GET OUT MORE

PATHETIC

What do YOU think we should discuss?

naydam   
01 May 15 00:04 
I think it is called debate. 'Yes' or 'no' answers only apply when there is no ambiguity in the question.

Like an earlier post of mine. Bix asked me a straight question and I was able to give a simple, one-word reply

You will get asked a straightforward question next week.

You will have no debate, no argument, you will simply  make your mark in the box you fancy.

It's your opinion. 

I started a thread on here a few weeks ago 'Are you going to change allegiance, vote for the same party you voted for last time, or you don't care.'

Nobody was asked for their long-winded opinion, nobody was asked what party they had voted for, or what party they are going to vote for.

All it required was 'same' - 'different' or 'don't care'

I wasn't long before the long posts started to appear.

All the debate was dealt with on other threads, like any one of the subjects I mentioned on the previous page.

You don't to have a debate in a polling booth, and that was what I was asking.

Not that hard to understand, or to do, but some find it so.

I will have no debate?? I would suggest that voting in this election is going to involve more debating than any other.
You will have to weigh up pros and cons based upon misleading and incomplete information whilst also trying to factor in the possible, or probable, reaction of the parties involved to events which may, or may not, occur in future years.
These reactions are likely to be the bastardised outcome of decisions being made with the influence of parties that you don't app[rove of and didn't vote for.

And you reckon that the question of who to vote for is unambiguous?

To the other posters: Sorry for responding to a totally off-topic post.

naydam   
01 May 15 21:13 
I will have no debate??

You've had 5 years for debate.

If and when you get to the polling station in less than a week, you will have to make your mark. 

If you don't know who you're going to vote for by now, you may as well give up.

Reflections on current affairs in Portugal by journalist and author Len Port


Amaral to appeal McCanns' libel action


The McCanns partially won their libel action against the author and former lead detective Gonçalo Amaral, but the matter is far from over.

Amaral intends to appeal. In his first comment on the verdict he said: “I find that the court’s decision is unfair and questions my right and every Portuguese citizen's right to freedom of expression and of opinion. For that reason, I do not resign myself to the decision and I will appeal it until the very last judicial instance.”

Apart from Amaral’s assertion on the “unfairness” of the court’s decision, there were two remarkable features about the verdict and the way in which it was announced that got little or no mention in the mainstream media coverage.

The first unusual aspect was the huge sum awarded. It may be normal in the UK, but not here. Amaral was ordered to pay the parents of Madeleine McCann half a million euros in damages, plus interest, currently calculated at €106,000 and rising.

Kate and Gerry McCann had sought a total of €1.2 million. In addition to €250,000 each, they claimed €500,000 for Madeleine and €100,000 for each of their twins. The judge ruled against the claims on behalf of the children.

The McCanns successfully claimed that Amaral’s book, Maddie, the Truth of the Lie,  caused them great personal distress. The judge did not agree, however, that the book had hindered the search for Madeleine or had caused damages to the twins.

Should Amaral on appeal get the verdict overturned, or the compensation figure greatly reduced, the McCanns may lodge a counter appeal. The deadline for appeals is 40 days. The legal battle that has been going on for more than five years looks like continuing for some time yet.

A defiant Amaral supporter noted that, “a decision from a Portuguese court can only be enforced after all appeals are exhausted. No money will change hands until a final decision is reached by the very last appeals court.” With this in mind, other well-wishers are being urged to make donations to a Gonçalo Amaral defence fund.

The second oddity was the way in which the announcement of the verdict was handled. The judge’s ruling was not read out in court. It was contained in a 52-page report, which was received by the McCann’s Lisbon lawyer Isabel Duarte who swiftly passed it on to media organisations in Portugal and abroad.

Soon after the news appeared on media websites on Tuesday, Kate and Gerry McCann said they were “delighted” with the outcome.

In a statement issued by their spokesman Clarence Mitchell, they said the case had never been about money. “It was entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine.”

When contacted by journalists the same day, Gonçalo Amaral chose not to comment because neither he nor his lawyer, Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, had received a copy of the ruling. They only received it the following day, by which time to many in the mainstream media it was old news.
       
Madeleine went missing on 3rd May 2007.

Kate and Gerry McCann had sought a total of €1.2 million. In addition to €250,000 each, they claimed €500,000 for Madeleine and €100,000 for each of their twins. The judge ruled against the claims on behalf of the children.

Claiming for a child they lost by neglect!!

WAPOC.

No shame this pair.

Someone has some questions about Mr. Amaral.

I'm sorry but I can not answer those questions here.

This is a very, very complex case.

I fully understand. It was probably wrong of me to ask in the first place. I suppose it was a bit like asking somebody questions about his friend (or, in this case, a family's friend).