15 January 2010

Gonçalo Amaral: 'McCanns are getting desperate'




The former coordinator of the Judiciary Police, Gonçalo Amaral, responsible for investigating Maddie's disappearance said the "McCann are getting desperate". Amaral therefore responds to the accusations made by the couple who today [yesterday] guaranteed that they would bring a criminal action against the former coordinator of the PJ Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão for the alleged breach of confidentiality by reproducing facts pertaining to the investigation [process] in the book "Maddie - The Truth of Lie" before the decision to archive.

Isabel Duarte, the McCanns' lawyer, said Friday that the action of Kate and Gerry McCann will be made "next week" after extracting a certificate from the trial that banned the book by the former Inspector of Judiciary Police (PJ), taking place at Palácio of Justiça, in Lisbon.

"The McCann couple were badly advised by their lawyers, things are going the worst possible in court, even the very British press has begun to review its position on the Maddie case and now the tactic is one of despair, 'fuite-en-avant' [headlong rush] and make another complaint against Gonçalo Amaral to see if the little girl appears", said ironically the former coordinator surprised by the news of a new complaint.

The couple's lawyer remembered that it was established on Wednesday's hearing that the book, which defends the thesis of the McCanns of involvement in their daughter's disappearance on 3 May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Algarve, was concluded on 24 July 2008 at the publishers Guerra e Paz, also a target in this process as well as TVI.

in i, 14.01.2010




81 comments:

  1. Very ill advised,yes....Gonçalo,do you think they will fire their flamboyant lawyer "next week"? :))

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243596/Shes-terrifyingly-hes-boiling-rage-So-HAVE-McCanns-trial.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just read the article mentioned in post 2 and I genuinely want to vomit.
    I so look forward to the day these clowns that dare to call themselves journalists are confronted with what really happened on May 3rd 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No doubt Gerry will become even more enraged if the Gaspar statements are mentioned.

    What was it their lawyer said about a Pandora's Box.

    It's the truest thing she has said so far.

    The McCanns are being foolishly ill advised.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sadly, I think Mr Amaral has mis-judged the British Press. Even they could not camouflage the devestating evidence against the Mc Canns at the hearing. They had to report what was said by Mr Amaral's former collegues. The article in tomorrow's Daily Mail is a sickening,one-sided pro-McCann, anti-Amaral article that beats anything spewed out in the British gutter press since May 2007. The Daily Mail has lost a reader, as I now consider it to be a new member of the British gutter press.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Post 2: she's terrifying, all right!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cantinflas was a great Mexican actor who also used to play roles in Hollywood films, years 40,50.
    Once I watched one of his Mexican films, a commedy(as always), where he was accused of having stolen something of minor importance.
    His lawyer was defending him so badly, that Cantinflas suddenly stood up and demanded the judge to give him(lawyer) the death penalty.
    I thought of that film, when watching Skynews twitter about Lisbon, this week.

    Isabel Duarte was not prepared for what she heard.
    Very much probably she did not expect that.
    People say she is the best libel lawyer in Portugal but everything was so perfectly fundamentate by the witnesses that she had very little to reply.

    Very badly prepared.

    Who knows the Mccanns got an anonymous letter(from Murat's mother) indicating Isabel as the best lawyer.
    Isabel will age very fast and soon and she could even get sick of this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gerry is learning to become an indian.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What is this certificate that Duarte expects to get next week? I thought the injunction hearing resumes on 10 th Feb?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Daily Mail article describes Gerry as "pugnacious as always" and "boiling with rage". It's no wonder he left Lisbon early - he sounds ready to explode.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In defense of dogs...

    Over the last two weeks the English Channel ITV have been showing a programme about how they use dogs to fight crime, if you google Send In the Dogs Wk01-ITV Press Centre you can read about how these wonderful dogs and handlers help to fight crime.....

    I wonder if Mr McCann will be giving any interviews regarding their un-reliability!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Don't forget the McCanns have had all this time to do their brainwashing spin on the UK public, so that it is hard for them to overnight abandon the word 'abduction' when Madeleine is mentioned.

    The McSpinners have been allowed to get away with this, and put fear into those who say otherwise.

    We have seen how they have thrown their weight around, closing down sites and sending out their threats.

    The Court case in Portugal has been very important to free people from the menace that has become the McCanns, and to allow them to tell them where to get off.

    And we should tell them, and keep telling them.

    Your story sucks McCanns. It is not believable, so stop the threats.

    Get lost, and stop trying to brainwash us.

    ReplyDelete
  13. it's simple legal bureaucracy, they have to 'extract' a certificate from the current hearing in order to be able to make a criminal complain against Mr. Amaral on the grounds they are alleging. I suppose, though I'm no expert on legal matters that the certificate will have some or partial statements of some witnesses that were questioned regarding the timings of when the book was concluded, published, etc. In any case Mr. Amaral was no longer obliged to secrecy of justice since he had already retired from the PJ, nor the book was launched previous to the archival of the process [thus disobeying the Public Ministry], so, in my opinion if this is the only way Team McCann has to try to 'get' Amaral it's a very desperate one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. start here at to make a real complain

    OFCOM

    Ofcom can consider complaints about programmes transmitted by all broadcasters licensed in the UK as well as the BBC and S4C.

    However, we cannot consider complaints about accuracy in BBC TV and radio news or complaints about impartiality in BBC TV and radio programmes. These complaints have to be dealt with by the BBC.

    Action Link: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480

    Complain to Ofcom

    Action Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/

    Complain to BBC about accuracy or impartiality

    Website http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

    Phone: 03700 100 222*
    Textphone: 03700 100 212*
    Write: BBC Complaints,
    PO Box 1922
    Glasgow
    G2 3WT

    Emma Agnew n
    Editor, TV News n BBC East Midlands Today n Broadcasting Centre
    London Road Nottingham n NG2 4UU
    T: 0115 902 1918
    M: 07703 505041
    EMAIL: emma.agnew@bbc.co.uk

    BBC east Midlands, coverage of the McCanns versus Gonçalo Amaral hearing on the 13 the January 2010, the f*** word was a serious mistake, leading to Mr. Gonçalo Amaral's character assassination and BBC East Midlands should present apologies and a retraction on its front page.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Clarence is back. Shaping the story.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Could someone explain to an American why the BBC is exempt from OFCOM?

    Is the BBC wholly or partially government controlled?

    If so, do British citizens believe they live in a country that supports the freedom of the press?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gerry obviously flew back into the arms of Mitchell.
    Or whoever it is that weilds the Big Stick with the press.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you Joana for explaining the latest complaint that the McCanns have made against Mr Amaral.

    I can't believe how much grief this pair of jail dodgers, are causing innocent people. They will happily drain Mr Amaral's bank account and see Mr Amaral's family suffer. It doesn't surprise me though, because they put their enjoyment before the health and safety of their children. Then after they caused Madeleine to disappear, they have used her situation to make money and told donors that they are using the money to find her.

    The McCanns haven't found Madeleine, because they haven't looked for her. They didn't look for her when she first disappeared, so they're hardly going to look for her now. Probably because they know there is no point in looking for her and there has never been any point in looking for her, because they know where she is and if she is dead or alive.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Great article in The Mail. The best in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Daily Mail article is pretty bad BUT the writer considers that it's worth reopening the case to see if clues were missed. I think it's the first time I've read an article in a UK publication were a journalist- biased or otherwise- calls for the case to be reopened in PORTUGAL.

    Every cloud has a silver lining and all that!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I could be completely wrong but I have a hunch that Duarte/Team McCann were banking on:-

    1. A request to the judge to have the appeal heard behind closed doors, in secret.

    When that failed.....

    2. A request for Gonçalo Amaral's witnesses to be refused in the proceedings.

    When that failed.....

    3. A request for the contents of the case files to not be allowed to enter the proceedings.

    When that failed.....

    The McCanns (in Gerryspeak) were fooked!


    I can't help thinking that they were never expecting the Pandora's Box to be opened in court.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon 16

    The BBC is only free and independent to a certain extent.

    It is funded by the State, by the imposition of a large tax in the form of a TV license fee which we have to pay, whether we want to watch the load of trash on BBC or not. We cannot watch other Channels unless we pay that.

    Penalty for not doing so is a large fine or imprisonment.

    It's the equivalent of saying you can't read the Express newspaper unless you buy the Mail also, even though you might not want to read the Mail.

    It relays whatever 'news' the Government thinks fit to put out, yet it will also go with whatever spin or political correctness it thinks fit at the time.

    It is better to go to the Internet for news, the BBC 'news' is limited to whatever those behind the scenes deem it to be.

    A load of tripe usually.

    It sounds like the BBC likes to deal with complaints about accuracy and impartiality themselves, though OFCOM controls the rest.

    If somebody can answer in a better way with more information please do so.

    Needless to say if I had a choice, I would not bother having BBC, and not pay the fee, and leave it to those who want to pay to watch it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. JillyCL at 21

    I think you are exactly right.

    It must have been a shock for those barking control nuts to realise they were losing control, and the truth was coming out.

    If they carry on, yet more will come out, but they don't know when to stop.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Seja o que for a decisao, parece-me que este processo vai arrebentar com este nojo casal. Talvez o processo ate e honesto. Quando a Sra. Duarte comeca a falar em outros processos contra o Sr. Amaral, mostra que eles querem que o Sr. Amaral passa anos no tribunal ao ponto que ele ja nao tem meios financeiros para defender se. E evidente que eles nao querem a todo custo que o livro e o documentario sao vistos pelo mundo ingles. Com certeza muita gente vao querer ler as opinioes do senhor que foi o primeiro a coordenar a investigacao deste caso.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think Amaral is right - they are desperate.

    We know they have a lot of influence and control via the fund, rich backers, lawyers, the media, and the judiciary.

    But looked at from their point of view they must feel v. vulnerable .The Daily Mail noted how painfully thin Kate McCann is now. This is all taking its toll.

    They are only pursuing this action in Portugal for ONE reason - fear of the alternative, which is publication in the UK followed by a media storm and a call for a proper UK police investigation.

    No one would have selected this course of action unless the alternative(s) was/were far worse.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi JillyCL and good post. I know when the files were released Clarence Mitchell said the McCanns were disappointed the media were also given access to them. He said they wanted to study them before the general public got to read them.

    After reading the contents of some of the files, I understand why the slimy pair didn't want the public to read them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mr Amaral never spoke a truer word,D E S P E R A T E and people are seeing it happen in front of there eyes with all this crap the mccanns are throwing at Mr Amaral. i bet they wish they could buy him off.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @18 you said --I can't believe how much grief this pair of jail dodgers, are causing innocent people--
    what i cant believe is that so many ADULTS would,could or have covered up the death of madeleine.a 3 year old innocent little girl.that sickens me the most.may they all rot in hell

    ReplyDelete
  29. @shubob,the more i read on here and elsewhere what the uk papers
    have said about the poor mccanns and how nasty Mr Amaral is the more i think there is definatly something
    more to this case than meets the eye, so in my mind the paper are not doing the mccanns any good what so ever only making people ask more questions or is that there intention????

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hello all,
    I read and read and read about this case. I tend to believe Maddie's parents may be guilty as many propose. But, everyone here seems to be so SURE that Maddie is really dead and that her parents are nothing but liars. How can anyone be so sure of anything? The criticism to everything they do and calling them names is already TOO REPETITIVE. How can you all be so sure? What is Amaral is wrong? These are real possibilities. So, why repeat the same phrases and accusations all the time? NOBODY KNOWS for sure anything. For God's sake, how can people believe they know just by reading?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I imagine that the faceless people behind the McCanns are having urgent damage control meetings and deciding what move to make next. If so I wonder who would attend these meetings?
    I can't imagine a room filled with a selection of government officials, Leicester police, CEOP reps, FFS reps, Carter Ruck, extradition lawyers, the tapas 7, McCann clansmen, the pink one and financial benefactors. But I bet a few of the people mentioned above are in contact and formulating a course of action that will hopefully keep them out of the public eye. They must be getting very perturbed the way it all seems to be going at the moment. It looks like heads will roll if the McCanns are finally put on trial.

    I expect Gerry was recalled from Portugal as it was decided he was a loose cannon and was not reacting well to the way the court proceedings were going. I think he should be more careful as a real abduction could be orchestrated by his friends.

    In Gerry's absence Kate was to be supported by Fiona Payne whose mere selection for that role indicates to me she is well involved and knows exactly what went down. Otherwise why not choose a close family member. I suppose it makes sense to keep it all in house as such. Fiona maybe would not have been suprised by some of the revelations stated in court whereas Kates mum would have had a blue fit.

    Now the British public has had a wake up call in regard to exposure to the McCanns, I wonder if more investigative journalism will be done /released to further enlighten the masses. I bet there are journos chaffing at the bit to publish articles, revenge could be so sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 30... because there has been no credibile sighting in nearly 3 years; because even the most scant perusal of the Tapas statements makes clear something is very wrong; because of the evidence of the dogs; because if Madeleine was alive/abducted they would never have gone against police advice and made her columba public, thus risking her life.... Need I go on?

    ReplyDelete
  33. To poster 30

    People on here seem so to be so sure that Madeleine is dead for the same reason the hacks in the British gutter press are so sure that Amaral is bent, fat etc. and the McCanns are two saintly paragons. Do you see my point? The difference is the views of the people on here will not get two-page spreads such as the ant-Amaral tripe published in the Daily Mail this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 30 Dogs don't lie, for me that is the ultimate clincher in all this.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hello Anonymous (30) I think I can speak for most people on here when I say most will have an open mind as to whether Madeleine is dead. I have always and will always say the McCanns were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, because they were away from the apartment for long periods, leaving their children without adult supervision.

    The McCanns also said that the apartment was left unlocked, in case of fire. They admitted that fact because they had told the police the shutter to their apartment was jemmied open and it was found to be intact.

    I will say that, given the fact the McCanns never physically searched for Madeleine (Kate McCann admitted that fact to the media) they are more involved with Madeleine's disappearance than neglect. Especially as the McCanns lied about the shutter,the children's habits the distance between their apartment to the Tapas bar as well as their checks on the children.

    There are people who make excuses for the McCanns lies checks shutter lack of searches. In fact some blame the Portuguese police for not finding Madeleine and some complained because the police were seen in a diner having their lunch, laughing and joking. They should be looking for Madeleine, not sitting in a diner and laughing and joking.

    I assured them that having been married to a police officer, they do need to eat and they do laugh and joke. They cannot take peoples tragedies to heart, if they did, they would never do the job. I'm sure the Portuguese police officers work on similar lines.

    I think I can speak for most people who post on here, when I say that they have followed this case from day 1 and listened to what the McCanns have had to say in their media interviews and heard police, lawyers as well as other professional people. I know I certainly have. I would not trust anything that is put in a newspaper, except the date.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Angel @ 19

    You must be Satan's angel and have lost your wings....

    ReplyDelete
  37. I actually believe that the hierarchy is really scared of 'The English Gag' These powerful people are in trouble, they have big regrets as they never expected the McCann saga turn into such a nightmare for them. I also believe that the McCanns did not want this trial but have no choice because all of the protection they have received. Banning 'Truth of the Lie'is only a smoke screen for banning 'The English Gag' The McCanns have to return the favour and are put on trial by the British Government. Paybacks are hell, but at the end of the day they really are paying the price for leaving little babies on their own. Amaral is not afraid to name and shame and I have to admire his courage as he challenges the British Empire!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. @22

    Regarding paying your TV Licence. read this:

    http://www.tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees

    What better way to protest against the BBC.

    ReplyDelete
  39. And Gerry is saying, "Oh dear! I forgot to wake her up!"

    ReplyDelete
  40. anon #30 whoof, whoof. Did you hear Eddie and Keela barking?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hello Anon 30 - I understand that some people may believe there are other possibilities for her disappearance, but the dogs` findings convince me that she died in the apartment.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  42. Which Secrecy and about what? Everything was largely commented, in the Media, most by the Mccann's or teir team. Even several programmes in the TV where made to discuss what came out from the investigation. Everything was at the pages of the newspapers.

    When The book came out, public just have the curiosity to see if the book was according to what is already known from the investigation and if there is something new. I did not get anything new from the book, nothing which was not yet reported by the Media. I t was just a cronoligal organization of information piled by the media everyday. I can find much more situations at the Mccann's side to accuse them of breaking the judicial secrecy, then at Amaral. EVERY DAY MITCHELL OPEn HIS MOUTH WHEN AMARAL WAS VILIFIED AND ABLE TO STAY SILENT.

    ReplyDelete
  43. To poster @30:
    Read some files, as much as is possible,
    Watch the dogs.
    Step 'out the box' find and use your OWN intelligence,

    Then to paraphrase Mary Poppins;Listen with your eyes!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon 30

    It is the dog that convince me. They are the clincher to this.

    Contrary to what the McCanns try to say they have NEVER been wrong.

    Blood and cadaver scent behind the settee, and in their hire car.

    Even with a load of cars lined up, it was THEIR hire car the cadaver dog picked out.

    Those dogs are the best in the world. It is the McCanns who lie.

    For example, when asked if they had credit cards they said they didn't have any, yet were found to later have used a credit card of theirs to hire a car.

    So they were quite prepared to lie to cops if they needed to.

    And don't forget it was the UK police who came to the same conclusion as the Portuguese investigators, that the little girl died in the apartment.

    All the abduction fairy tale put out by the McCanns has been a 'good marketing ploy' to deflect the attention from what really happened, and of course it keeps the money rolling in to their Fund.

    Money from which they can spend as they so choose.

    ReplyDelete
  45. To No. 30

    I understand what you mean but McCann's lied from the moment they opened their mouths - "Its only like eating in the back garden". No it isn't, nor was the restaurant only 50 yards away. They have continued to lie from that moment on - the window, the door, the checks on the children. The examples are too numerous to mention. There are many shocks in this case, you can read them in the case files and in Goncalo Amaral's book. But the biggest shock of all must be why have 2 whole countries let a little girl down.

    In the end, it is a mistake to get bogged down in the issue of whether Madeleine is dead or alive. The point is that she has suffered and if there is a slim chance that she is still with us, then she continues to suffer. The parents have never acknowledged that have they?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous at 30: Every now and then, I play a scenario through my head where I assume that Madeleine WAS abducted, that the sniffer dogs made a mistake, that the parents are not involved in any cover up and are being completely honest when they say they are innocent.

    The problem I have is that it then seems incredible that a kidnapper (or kidnappers) could have carried out an abduction within the timeframe as suggested by the McCanns and their friends. Not totally impossible but bordering on the lines of a plot from a Hollywood movie where probability and reality are stretched to the limit.

    People marching backwards and forwards to check on their children, listening at windows, looking through doors... an abduction within a tiny window of opportunity without anyone hearing or seeing anything odd. As I say, not totally impossible but it reminds me so much of Soham and the disappearance of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. I remember at the time thinking that it was strange that two children could vanish off the face of the earth without anyone seeing or hearing anything out of the ordinary. The timeframe for the abduction of the two girls at Soham was not too dissimilar to the timeframe at Praia da Luz. The circumstances around Madeleine's disappearance are of course totally different but I have that same gut feeling that something is wrong somewhere.

    IF Madeleine was abducted and IF the McCanns can put their hands on their hearts and swear they are innocent then what can you conclude? If I were a lawyer, questioning the McCanns in a court of law, I might suggest that they weren't checking the children as often as they claimed because, at the end of the day, I can't see how an abduction works in such a tiny window of opportunity. I suspect that it was more like a gaping barn door of opportunity. From the very beginning, the repeated claims of acting "within the bounds of responsible parenting" and stressing at how careful they had been in their checks and how often the checks were happening have, in my opinion just been a case of the McCanns and their friends trying to cover their sorry asses. Once they discovered that Madeleine had "gone" they knew that they could and would be criticised for leaving their children in the way they did, hence the damage limitation exercise.

    Regardless of what you believe happened to Madeleine (abduction vs accidental death), it's clear that the arrangements for leaving their children and checking on their welfare was inadequate. Also, regardless of what you believe happened, it seems that in either scenario, the truth has been stretched beyond reasonable boundaries. Calling them liars might seem strong but truth has taken a bit of a battering in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous 30

    1. The McCanns are to blame for Maddie's disappearance whether or not she is dead. They went out night after night on the pi** with their friends and left her and the two other babies on their own.
    2. They say they knew Maddie hadn't wandered off. Why could they be so sure when she was prone to sleepwalking and also had alledgedly run off and hidden from them a few nights earlier?
    3. There was evidence of a death in apartment 5a but no evidence of an abduction.
    4. They (and their friends) have consistently changed their stories to suit the occasion. Why if the stories are genuine? The truth would never change.
    5. I suggest you look at the photos under the heading *Kate McCann's Blog Entry*. These were taken a very short time after the child went missing. Do these look like grieving parents to you!!!!

    I could go on and on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 30 - It's not impossible that Madeleine is alive. Her body has not yet been found.

    What is impossible is that Team McCann's (ever changing) narrative is credible.

    I don't think anything is served by name calling although I understand why people get angry when they see the outrageous bias in the media and the failure of the media to do its basic job.

    For me one v. strong reason why I cannot believe the McCann narrative is because it obliges me to credit that:

    Although the Tapas group were made aware of the Jane Tanner sighting one or two minutes after 10 pm and everyone of the Tapas group say they fully believe her sighting was accurate at no point was a determined and concerted effort made to search along the route indicated by her sighting.

    Is THAT credible in those circumstances? What if you had been there? What would you have done? Stayed in the apartment composing timelines - or undertaken a desperate search along that route banging on van doors, searching in ditches and construction sites shouting out her name. And wouldn't you have pleaded with the Police to search along that route?

    ReplyDelete
  49. i have also followed this with interest from day one, with an open mind and have now reached the conclusion that the McCanns had to be responsible, after reading the book and the disgusting, innuendoes made by Dvid Payne, i was repulsed to my stomach. But one thing still puzzles me. If Gerry was involved in disposing of his daughter why wasnt there any cadaver on him only Kate???

    ReplyDelete
  50. I would say that most people who come on here believe Madeleine is dead, and no longer have that so called 'open mind' on this.

    The McCanns would love for everybody to have an 'open mind', because then they can spin to us.

    And you know what happens with spin.

    You go round, and round, and round, and round, and you get nowhere.

    Sr Amaral, and the Investigators, both Portuguese and UK, and the dogs and the rest of the evidences are saying Madeleine is dead.

    What do the McCanns say?

    They say keep an open mind because everybody is lying, except them of course.

    They say we have been framed, the dogs are stupid animals, the investigators don't have a clue because they are munching sardines all day, Portugal is a backward country after all, and anyway, nobody is as clever as us, and we need to be in complete control of the case.

    Oh, and by the way keep sending the money, so er, we can search for Madeleine.

    After all, we have to leave no stone unturned and all that, and we work, oh so hard searching for her. And for the search for that wicked paedophile abductor, of course. But never mind, no doubt Madeleine will be giving him her two penny worth. (Sick, or what!)

    Kate's just popping out to get her streaks redone now, and she might have a jog later.

    Anyone for tennis?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Any time I see an anti Dr Amaral article in the British press I am writing to the editor to say I can see through the spin. I am not letting these articles get to me. Mr Amaral and his family have gone through quite enough, but we must all remain strong and show these reporters we can see through their spin even if they do not print our comments.
    My thanks to everyone involved with this site because it allows our voice on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The disgusting Daily Mail article today, Jan 16, is obviously the product of angry McCann and mad bad Clarence but what editor in his right mind would publish such rubbish, given the harm such nonsense will do his newspaper's reputation. There we have it, it is the product of narcissistic minds, but not the editor too surely?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Maybe there will be fraud charges brought against the McCanns before them being charged for what happened to Madeleine?

    Perhaps that is the investigation that has been going on in the UK.

    So will Halligen be able to shed any light on that?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Post 30. Are you new here as part of the McCann desperation strategy to sow doubt? Why aren't you sure that the McCanns are guilty of leaving babies alone night after night, that there is evidence of a cadaver in the apartment and on Kate's clothes etc etc? The reason that people repeat claims is to reinforce their impact against the pro McCann propaganda. There is NO independent evidence of an abduction, NONE!!!

    And remember, this is not a pro McCann blog.

    ReplyDelete
  55. GA was wrong about the UK press - they turned overnight. He needs to get the bbc to release an unbleeped version of the comment.Its very damaging.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anon @ 49

    If Gerry was involved in disposing of his daughter why wasnt there any cadaver on him only Kate???

    Maybe Gerry’s bedside reading in PdL was typical of his interests and he knew about cadaverine and Professor Edmond Locard’s work. Knowing this all he would do would be to dispose of the clothes that the Smith’s thought they saw him wearing.

    Mr B

    ReplyDelete
  57. AnnaEsse - 39 - ha ha you really made me giggle. They have become cartoon characters for many. They ask for it though.

    What about "Whoops, must have given her too much Calpol"

    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  58. :)] Why have the McCann's brought up this trial? Pride and prejudice" on the one hand and a million bucks on the other. Teun Adrianus van Dijk could explain it further(...)

    Why on Earth should the McCann's view prevail? Because it is contradicted by circumstantial and DNA evidence? Other theories are possible. Dr. Amaral's is that of an experienced professional and his views were based on what the data was telling him. It is not a creative work of fiction. Are they saying now the book must be burned because as a Portguese he is not entitled to his own opinion? Oh my!

    The fallacy that Dr. Amaral's book hinders the search for Madeleine is pathetic. In fact, if anything else, it keeps Madeleine's face alive. If you read in a book that a certain "celebrity" is likely to be dead and then you happen to bump into her on the street, what do you do? Go into OBE? Of course not. I think the McCann's believe people leave home in the morning and roam the streets looking for Madeleine. This is not how it works. Information and coincidence play a major role.

    b-( I suspect their Big Mac's ego would not get away with it with an experienced judge. The fact that a young judge was appointed to the case, already indicates political pressure and/or subservience of the Portuguese Justice system to the prevailing ideology. The judge's inexperience (if not her "motherly instincts") could influence the decision. Fingers crossed.

    It would be a travesty of Justice if the McCann's were allowed to get away with the "heist".

    Al in London

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anon 54 - I thought this blog was open to all intelligent queries and it doesn`t hurt to have a few devil`s advocates otherwise this blog would turn into a lynch mob mentality and it must remain credible IMO.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  60. :0] The readership of the "Daily Mail" is known in journalistic circles as "Little England". The fact that the "Daily Mail" has a very high circulation here should give you some clues about the mind-set of its readership and/or how ideology works. The views of David Jones are in fact those of Little England. He knows better but that is what he is paid to write. Pulp. b-(

    Al in London

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anon 58 - I had wondered whether the age of the judge mattered but I suppose everyone, even judge`s, have their prejudices and conditioning, but surely they are supposed to be less biased than most. Her father was a judge and I hope she learnt fairness from him. My main concern with any judge in this case is that they are not vulnerable to corruption.

    Does anyone have any information on her?
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hi Al,

    The view of Little England is changing going by readers comments when they are allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  63. And, anon #2, #3, the Daily Mail does not allow comments on that vile and disgusting article! No wonder...in the previous articles the comments were 99% against the "distraught parents" and their "responsible parenting"!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Louise 59

    Although there are genuine people who will have doubts, never underestimate the cleverness of the McCanns to sow doubt Louise by taking a stance as devil's advocates.

    Once they get a foothold with their 'doubts', they will then bring their friends along to reinforce it. That is how they operate.

    They are slick operators, and roaming the internet for a long time now.

    I trust Joana recognises them before they can do damage to this site that is really supportive of Sr Amaral.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anon 33 said:
    "To poster 30

    People on here seem so to be so sure that Madeleine is dead for the same reason the hacks in the British gutter press are so sure that Amaral is bent, fat etc. and the McCanns are two saintly paragons. Do you see my point? The difference is the views of the people on here will not get two-page spreads such as the ant-Amaral tripe published in the Daily this morning."

    I beg to differ.
    I believe Maddie is dead but not "for the same reason the hacks in the British gutter press are so sure that Amaral is bent, fat etc." For them simple things like having a diamond stud in your ear, or not being thin is a sign of inferiority of mind and character!

    For 2 years I also thought doctors couldn't possibly be involved in something like this and I didn't pay much attention to the media stories about this case.
    For professional reasons (teaching) I began reading on-line papers and it was precisely the piles of biased articles in the British press against the Portuguese police and their periodic predictibility that made me stop and look deeper. One particular anonymous comment caught my eye. It went something like "No sightings for a month so it must be about time for a new one". And lo and behold, the next weekend the Mail had a new lead. Hewlett, Beckham lookalike, Donal Mcintyre theory, and so on. Soon, I could see a pattern...

    I believe Maddie is most likely dead because I have read crime statistics, profilers' opinions, the case files, articles in the media, Amaral's book, Moisiu's book, etc.

    After watching the dogs' video and reading "30 reason's why M was not abducted", I won't be changing my mind anytime soon.

    There is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted.
    There is no evidence that Amaral is wrong.
    There is no evidence that Madeleine is alive, which is very sad.

    The fact that my views will not be front page headlines is neither here nor there because I am not looking for the limelight.

    algarveisfedup
    (I have posted as anon before, but I agree with aacg. With so many anons it's confusing)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Maybe the Mail is misjudging their readership if the amount of green ticks (thousands) a few days ago is anything to go by.

    All in support of the comments which were anti McCann.

    It is the journalists who are so in the spin of Clarrie and his chums that is the problem.

    Have they been threatened by the Ruck?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anon 64 - I see where you`re coming from and of course will remain aware of `the doubts` - but surely no case is completely cut and dried and hopefully most of us here can discriminate and think things out for ourselves, after all, most of the McCanns waffle is childishly transparent.

    What I`m saying really is that life is rarely that simple that we can know the exact answers. Thanks for your thoughts.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  68. Gonçalo Amaral: 'McCanns are getting desperate'

    My thoughts also. The McHysteria is flowing out of the orafice of the UK McGutter press!

    btw not a spelling mistake. Orafice as in the Urban Dictionary meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @61 Here is a brief bio of Judge Maria Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues' father, who is now President of the Second Chamber for the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg:

    www.pgr.pt/english/grupo_pgr/cunha_rodrigues.htm

    (I still have not found any online information about the judge herself, other than the photo I posted a few days ago.)

    debk

    ReplyDelete
  70. For posters 49 and 56, I do remember mention on the old 3arguido's site (R.I.P.) of a blue sports bag. This bag was found discarded on the route to Faro airport. It had a fleece jacket, jeans and a shower curtain. There were stains on the jacket and jeans.
    There are times when I doubt these background possibilities just as much as I believe in them. I think everyone on this site has tested their opinions daily over the past couple of years. We weigh each new discrepancy. We go over each possible deception.

    It is obvious that the new round of strong anti-Portugal propaganda was being designed the minute Gerry got back on the plane. The lid came back down - but too late. It was his very own lawyer who mentioned Pandora's box, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  71. No 23. I beleive that they would love to stop after the way things went this week. But it has been reported over the world that they are suing for libel- they cannot back done without making it look as though they are running scared. It is like a game of chicken. They cannot be seen to blink first. They have no choice but to brave it out to the bitter end- and I really mean a bitter end.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I am confused about the book trial it has been adjourned to February 10th is that correct. Do we wait for a decision after that date is this the date the Maccanns call their so called witnesses, is Mr Amarals defence now finished.

    Mr Amaral needs a good libel lawyer in the UK the media here cannot be allowed to get away with all the rubbish they are still writing about him. he need to sue he should have done it long ago. The BBC had a news blackout about the trial but have plastered the swearing episode all over the news.

    ReplyDelete
  73. 61, Louise, speaking about information about people, I learned in this life that is very difficult to find out who people are.
    Long ago, I was convinced that the innocents in this case were the Paynes, they had a monitor and they never let hear from them.
    I thought that Gamble was wonderful but people in this blog here told me he is not.

    But somehow I believe judge maria gabriela is honest. Uptill now she did not let herself be manipulated by the McCanns, she allowed the DVD in the room and accepted the witnesses.
    Her father has a high position(Brussels?) not because of nothing.
    She has a good name to be kept and she will be honest, I believe.

    I believe she has been chosen as judge in this case because she is competent and reliable.
    And charming, beautiful young lady, I heard.

    ReplyDelete
  74. After just reading the McCann files- These child neglecting people are not desperate. These evil, twisted people. Am too stunned to continue but no doubt Joana ( bless her and her team for their hard work)will have all the latest up on this site.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I am interested to know why there was no mention of the DNA evidence in this case. I understand that there was a reasonable mtch to both the blood in
    the apartment & the fluids in the boot of the hire car.

    ReplyDelete
  76. The McCannfiles carries the news that the McCanns are to hold a charity ball to raise money for them, sorry, the fund, and two missing persons charity (they must be on the charm offensive if they are going to part with money for other charities!!!)They say Richard Branston -Pickles is attending, as is Brian Kennedy (Could he not just write them a cheque, rather than dance on Madeleines memory?)JK Rowling(mega rich) & Nicky Campbell(z-list?) have been invited , but it has not confirmed if they have accepted or not. Meanwhile the press is now full of more 'poor Kate' stories, although a few are commenting on whether all this legal stuff will actually help find Madeleine. The PJ stated at the trial that the fund is a fraud and donors were being conned. Is this their way of conteracting that, or are they just arrogantly snearing at the PJ? Either way someone needs to step in and stop this. Do you have to have donated to make a complaint of fraud to the UK police? Would they be obliged to investigate??

    ReplyDelete
  77. Debk 69 and Anon 73 - thanks for the info on Judge.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  78. Nigel - I think because this Hearing is just to determine whether Goncalo Amaral`s book is consistent with the police files and opinions - thats all. The Judge needs to find out whether Goncalo has made up things in his book that weren`t in the police files.

    There are lots of bits of circumstantial evidence that weren`t brought up last week, but it didn`t have to be because the McCanns weren`t `on trial`. It was just GA defending the fact that his book was not an attack on the McCanns, but merely facts from the police files.

    It would be good if the McCanns were brought to trial one day, but I believe that could only happen if charges were brought against them by the Portuguese Prosecution service and that may happen if there is new evidence. It seems to me that there are hundreds of bits of circumstantial evidence, but I don`t know if you can get a conviction on that. Anyway, I`m waffling.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  79. Louise,
    But it was my understanding that the DNA evidence *was* in the PJ files. As such, it seems strange that this was not mentioned, especially sice the McCann's overriding claim/rebuttal seems to have been that there was "no evidence". Somehow DNA (even if only 15/19 matches) is more "objective" than the dog's behaviour.
    And in answer to 76 comment re donating to the fund, I recently donated 1p so that I could be in a position to claim being an interested party in a fraud prosecution. Its OK, I had saved up.
    Nigel

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anon 76

    Yes, if you have donated to the Fund you can make a complaint to the police.

    You have grounds to because of what has been said by the PJ.

    It would also be interesting to know what their answer will be.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hello Nigel 79 - Apparently it cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence under Portuguese law - but I think it could be in UK. There seems to be masses of circumstantial, but not conclusive evidence.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete