17 January 2010

McCanns' pain doesn't justify censorship effort

Ridiculous claims need to be rebutted, not suppressed. That's the real tragedy, says Eilis O'Hanlon



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as Kate and Gerry McCann have discovered to their cost.

It only takes five minutes on the internet to uncover a web of rumour, half truth and innuendo which would convince even the couple's most fervent supporters that they are hiding something about the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine in Portugal in May 2007, or, worse, that they actually killed her, either by accident or design, and then concocted the story of her abduction from a holiday complex in the Algarve to cover their tracks.

Which version one chooses to believe is a matter of personal taste. When it comes to outlandish conspiracy theories, there really is one for everyone in the internet's global audience of nutters, giving ever greater credence to the old line about a lie getting round the world before the truth gets out of bed. But if you're on the receiving end of it, like the McCanns and their friends, you certainly don't expect the police to add fuel to the fire.

Say what you like about the gardai, but it's impossible to imagine a senior Irish police officer behaving like Goncalo Amaral, the former investigating officer in Portimao, who was so stung by criticism he received for his handling of this case that he marked his own dismissal from the investigation by writing a book alleging that Madeleine died accidentally in the family apartment on the night of May 3, 2007; that Gerry then disposed of his daughter's body on the beach; and that the holiday party all colluded in a cover-up to prevent possible charges being laid against them for child neglect.

The controversy surrounding Amaral's book, Maddie: The Truth of the Lie, finally reached the courts last week, as the author sought to overturn a ban on its publication, previously won by the McCanns. This could well be the closest the McCanns' Portuguese tormentors ever get to their wish of putting the couple on trial.

"They are trying to judge in a civil court what they could not judge in a criminal court," the couple's lawyer points out.

The case has now been adjourned until next month, when two more witnesses, currently unavailable, will give evidence; but even if the former police officer loses this one, it won't stop there. He insists this is about the right of free speech under the Portuguese constitution, and has pledged to go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights to defend his freedom to publish his allegations.

And here's hoping he ultimately wins. Goncalo Amaral might be a disgrace to the name of detective, whose book, far from being the fearless expose which it boastfully purports to be, is a shoddy cut and paste job that is shamelessly selective in its use of evidence, cynically exaggerates the significance of DNA traces found in the McCanns' apartment and hire car, makes leaps of logic which would embarrass Inspector Clouseau, never mind a supposedly senior policeman, pads out its thesis with silly cod-historical digressions on the "turbulent" ancient history between England and the Algarve, and the proud noble independent spirit of the Portuguese people; and which ultimately resorts to ludicrously overblown paranoia about political interference in the case (though naturally Amaral struggles to explain why so many powerful people, up to and including the British prime minister, would go to such extraordinary lengths to protect a bunch of obscure doctors on holiday from being held to account for neglecting their children).

But even bad detectives and worse true crime writers should be free to speak about their experiences and conclusions in a case whose ongoing lack of resolution is clearly not in the public interest. Not least when all the material contained in The Truth of the Lie comes from the official police files, which, since the investigation was archived, have largely been in the public domain anyway. What contrary right are the McCanns asserting here, after all? The book has already sold 200,000 copies in Portugal, been translated into six other languages including Spanish, Italian, Swedish and German, and is freely available in English versions over the internet. Ten seconds on Google and it's yours to read, whatever the courts decide.

The documentary which Amaral helped make for Portuguese TV can also be seen, subtitled, on YouTube, while numerous websites continue to rake over the same small disputed scraps of evidence which he uses in his book to crudely smear the McCanns. Indeed, he will soon be visiting Britain to give a talk at the invitation of a virulently anti-Kate and Gerry group known as the Madeleine Foundation. All of which sounds like healthy free speech to me. The McCanns' pain shouldn't give them carte blanche to silence those who say things they don't want to hear.

Unfortunately, this is what they have done from the start. These are people who issue solicitors' letters the way other couples send out wedding invitations. There's even a website now devoted to people who claim to have been "Gagged By (The) McCanns", with the tagline: "Has Team McCann tried to silence you?" Free speech isn't so free when you're working on a shoestring and your opponents have multi-million pound funds at their disposal.

The McCanns insist they act this way only because they don't want a sense of defeatism about Madeleine's fate to dilute the continuing effort to find their daughter. That's understandable, though Kate McCann's claim last week that the proceedings have "shown again there is no evidence that Madeleine came to any harm" are bewildering, to say the least. Sniffer dogs who had been trained to detect the presence of cadavers and blood both reacted strongly in the couple's holiday apartment. Something bad happened there, even if there is not a scrap of credible physical evidence that it had anything to do with them. It seems like another example of a couple who have never exactly come across as warm or likeable in the public imagination doing themselves no favours, especially when so many questions remain to be answered about that awful night and the following weeks.

They can't have it both ways, demanding that interest in the disappearance of Madeleine remains high while also continually asserting their right to control the tenor and nature of that interest.

Goncalo Amaral's claims need to be rebutted, not censored. That's the real tragedy. It's coming up to the third anniversary of this little girl's disappearance, and the effort to find out what happened to her has become swamped in an unseemly battle among people desperate to protect their own reputations. It could drag on for years.

The McCanns will soon be back in court seeking €1m in libel damages against Amaral. By the time all this is concluded, Madeleine McCann might as well be known as, "Madeleine Who?" for all the progress which will have been made to bring closure to the saga.

in Irish Sunday Independent

* This journalist makes several factual mistakes, however she arrived to the same conclusion that we all have: Will the censorship of a book, and of a documentary - indeed of all the investigation process where both works are fundamented, bring Madeleine back? Is it, by spending the Find Madeleine Fund money, in legal actions and on image consultant companies, that the McCanns are proactively searching for their daughter?


55 comments:

  1. The article may well argue for the case of free speech but it also does a subtle hatchet job on Goncalo Amaral in my opinion.
    And quite deliberately too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have written to Amanda Patell of the DM who hopes the duo are victorious in this case. I asked why a reporter would be happy to have freedom of speech silenced. I said I thought journalists would be for freedom of speech. If the reporters think Dr Amaral is a disgrace then they are surely disparaging the British dogs who were before this case considered to be the best in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Something bad happened there, even if there is not a scrap of credible physical evidence that it had anything to do with them"

    Wow! You'd never get that in UK newspaper. Something approaching the truth .

    McCanns beware - your Irish support is crumbling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the reporters should ask the McCanns why the PM helped them and why in an unprecedented move they were given someone from the MMU to act as their PR. How on earth would Dr Amaral know?

    ReplyDelete
  5. A rather fairly written article IMO! You don't need to like Amaral to loathe the actions of the McCanns!

    ReplyDelete
  6. i half like this article,this person should do a little more digging
    though and get the facts exactly right BEFORE its printed in the newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is Carter Fruck going to go after The Independant now?
    Even if this journalist has made some factual mistakes, over all,the truth has a bitter taste,isnt it? You cant have it both way.You simply cant and we wont let you.The only liars are yourselves and your INfamous T7 friends....You will find miserable selves in court for many,many years

    ReplyDelete
  8. to this journalist i would say.... yes we know all that dont we ...but as retired police chief john stalker said ages ago . "they are hiding something"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well at least this is better than contemptible bile from Parsons,Jones and co. The writer is correct when stating that whatever the judge decides, people will have access to Amaral's book and DVD. In fact, after the publicity given to the case this week, it is reasonable to guess that many people who had not even heard of Goncalo Amaral-let alone his book and film, will be very interested in them.
    However, when the writer refers to "the ludicrously overblown paronia about political interference"....I would like to ask her who had the two celebrity child-neglectors flown out of Portugal when they were made arguidos? Who provided them with a former government spin doctor? Who arranged for them to speak at the EU? etc.etc.etc. Also I would like to ask the writer does she consider all of Mr Amaral's former collegues to be "disgraces of detectives" as well? Even the British gutter-press could not conceal from the world that they all agree with Mr Amaral's thesis.
    And of course I would like the writer to provide proof of her "thesis" that Madeleine was abducted(this is obviously what she believes). That request needless to say, I make also to Parsons, Jones and all the other scribblers in the British gutter press.

    ReplyDelete
  10. :)] Eilis O'Hanlon not only makes some factual mistakes and assumptions, she is also prone to the same ethnical prejudices that drives the McCanns forwards, backwards and sideways.

    Take a few "DNA" bytes of her discourse, put them in an envelope and send them (for text and discourse analysis) to Prof. Teun Adrianus van Dijk "laboratory".

    Samples: "Goncalo Amaral might be a disgrace to the name of detective" she feints, or: "makes leaps of logic which would embarrass Inspector Clouseau, never mind a supposedly senior policeman". She spits the venom. What would Prof. van Dijk report say? Anyone for a guess?

    OK, overall it is an improvement on the tabloidal rethoric of the gut press. Eilis article does show an IQ of a kind.

    As for the efficiency and methods of the Irish police? "It's impossible to imagine a senior Irish police officer behaving like Goncalo Amaral". =)) That really had me on the ropes laughing.

    Anyone for "a penny for your thoughts" on the Irish "gardai"? I am really starting to enjoy this. =))

    Al in London

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is, in its overall conclusion, excellent!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Which version one chooses to believe is a matter of personal taste".
    I don't think it's a question of taste at all ! Nor one has to choose as if it were just a story ! Logic and rationalism must reign here, as the only way to fight propaganda and manipulation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Among other things I don't like the "internet nutter" reference but, overall, it should get readers thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree with Anonymous 1 and 6 : for the sake of her just common sense argumentation as expressed in the title, Mrs O'Hanlon didn't need to despise GA (obviously she hasn't read his book). This is quite a weak point imo.
    I wrote to her about the comparison with the gardai. Let's see if she has guts (I was very moderate, just asked if she knew an Irish police officer as badly treated by the media as GA).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not only do the internet nutters not believe them but the police didn't believe them either. Did the UK police believe them. It seems we will never know because of secrecy. No wonder they are trying to promote their abduction theory. Which doesn't seem very believable to many people including the police. It is quite obvious that they want only one theory to exist and that is their very only theory about the abduction. Everyone else's theories must be silenced. Can this be right or fair.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I posted on the other thread about this report...

    This reporter believes the dogs findings...Therefore she is saying that the FUND IS FRAUDULANT....very good point to remember.

    ReplyDelete
  17. SUPPORT CRUMBLING FROM WITHIN

    The power of this article is precisely that which may upset commenters here: the author is generally sympathetic to the McCanns and weak on the facts. And yet...

    "Something bad happened there"

    Indeed.

    And the more xenophobics who publicly admit this, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I really do get annoyed at the 'internet nutter' type references that we are subjected to by this and other writers. They need to ask themselves this: what kind of people are internet posters really?

    The answer is simple: they are the ordinary folk who gave up on the pusillanimous British media long ago. And there are more of them every day. So wake up, Ellis O'Hanlon and others, you may one day find yourselves out of work while the internet nutters carry on their research and writing their opinions free of charge whilst holding down proper jobs.

    Angela

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with poster no 1 when he or she states that the article is a subtle hatchet on Amaral. However, if free speech prevails then more amd more people will be doing "hatchet jobs"on the McCanns as knowledge of his "thesis" drips into the public domain. The "thesis" of the celebrity child-neglectors- is not a thesis but "a fable, a fairy-tale" to quote Mr Flores this week. When Stalin was murdering millions of fellow country-men in the 1930s, it is reputed he laughed privately at Western intellectuals who supported him. He refered to them as as "clever fools" They could not see Stalin for what he really was. I also think the McCanns privately laugh at "clever fools" like Jones, Parsons, Platell etc. and all those gullible enough to believe that Maddie was abducted.

    ReplyDelete
  20. JOANA BOA TARDE . É MUITO IMPORTANTE SABER QUAL É O SITE DE "AMORDAÇADOS PELOS MCCCANN" E CRIAR UM LINK DIRECTO PARA ESSE SITE. PODE SER QUE SE DESCUBRAM ALGUMAS VERDADES. PODE ATÉ HAVER PISTAS SOBRE O QUE ACONTECEU À MENINA MADDIE.
    ERA IMPORTANTE DAR CONHECIMENTO AO DR. GONÇALO AMARAL DA EXISTENCIA DESSE SITE PORQUE ELE CONHECE BEM O PROCESSO E PODE DESCOBRIR LÁ COISAS IMPORTANTES QUE NOS ESCAPAM A TODOS. OBRIGADA POR TUDO.
    MARIAMANUELA

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have already heard a few "Madeleine Who?s", here in Ireland.

    ReplyDelete
  22. January 27 ???

    =>District Judge Caroline Tubbs remanded Halligen in custody and adjourned the case until January 27.

    =>McCanns will mark the 1,000th day since their daughter disappeared with a celebrity packed £150-a-head fundraising dinner and auction at a top London venue on January 27

    Just a coincicence.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Let us be clear about something; this is simply a bad article.

    As the title suggests it is based on two assumptions.

    The first: that the McCanns feel pain.

    The second: that an effort on their part to enforce censorship could under certain circumstances be justified.

    Both assumptions are wrong.
    The only pain the McCanns conceivably feel is when their version of events surrounding the disappearance of their daughter is questioned. I suggest that in their case anger is a more appropriate word than pain.

    Be that as it may, as far as an effort to enforce censorship is concerned, such an effort is totally unacceptable in a free society. There are absolutely no circumstances whatsoever under which an effort by the McCanns to enforce censorship could ever be justified.
    Government? To protect the national interest, perhaps.
    The McCanns or any of us for that matter? Never.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @15 "Did the UK police believe them."

    Under oath, several witnesses testified last week that the UK police -- in partnership with the Portuguese police -- supported the official report which said: Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A on 3 May 2007.

    Other witnesses, again under oath, put it this way: This is not "Amaral's theory," it was the conclusion of a combined Portuguese/British police force.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think this writer is actually being very brave. All the anti-PJ stuff is to keep Carter Ruck off her back. She believes the dogs and she doubts the McCann's. I don't think she will buy the garbage about dirty nappies and Seabass either.

    ReplyDelete
  26. When Halligen appears in court on the 27th, please God let him say something that will put a damper on their party that evening.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I note this person mentions the cadaver scent in the apartment and suggests something bad happened there, but says this does not mean the McCanns were involved.

    Then she completely ignores that the cadaver scent was also alerted to in their hire car.

    Eh!

    Not much of a one for connecting the dots then!

    She should stop reading newspapers, and go do some serious research instead.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon at 19

    Yes, I am sure you are right.

    The ones who support the McCanns are the fools who are being laughed at.

    Idiots, for taking the McCanns at face value and not checking out the facts of the case.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anon 25

    Then she should tell Carter Ruck to chuff off, because it is the Official Investigators she believes.

    The McCanns have been allowed to be the thought police for too long.

    Who the hell do these control maniacs think they are?

    Go take your spin of an abduction fairy story and take a jump McCanns, and leave people to make their own minds up.

    Stop your brainwashing, money making antics.

    THERE IS NO PROOF OF AN ABDUCTION, QUITE THE REVERSE.

    If you want us to believe there was, then PROVE IT FIRST, and don't come back until you can.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The odds of every single person who has access to the non-internet media in the English speaking world blindly supporting the McCanns must be enough to prove that there is some non-random influence at work behind the scenes.

    One would expect at least one journalist to notice that all non-internet media outlets beleive the McCanns are innocent victims and that the vast majority of 'internet nutters' believe the McCanns are fraudsters or worse.

    Surely this is not simply the effect of power wielded by lawyers - surely there are some media outlets with their own clever lawyers?

    Unless of course there is a supreme power at work...the usual 'get out' clause which ultimately always seems to overrule the rule of law in the UK, the prerogative powers of the Crown and the last refuge of scoundrels and traitors...'the public interest'?

    Does this all boil down to the fact that there were 9 people - which is 4 couples and a spare - a middle aged lady who remained seated whilst the others rushed off to corrupt the crime scene?

    Was she really alone that night?

    ReplyDelete
  31. All the papers are going through a strange turn of the tide.They feel uneasy, not knowing quite how to angle their articles. This example from the Irish Independent is a very good example.

    It is a mixture of reasonably exact reporting of information from the Lisbon hearing with a rehash of the old accepted cliches.

    It is like reading two conflicting reports, by two different people.

    ReplyDelete
  32. you're very right Anonymous 30, I've heard of UK journalists that tried to give a fair view of the McCann case, for the past 3 years, and how their editors-in-chief would change their articles to have a more pro-mccann parents stance.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Didn't Clarence say he got together with the media and directed how the McCann story should be presented.

    So much for freedom of the press.

    Shackled by the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Watch Gerry's reaction to Kate's words at 0.04secs in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kaoVqWaOQI&feature=player_embedded

    The signs were there from very early on!

    ReplyDelete
  35. ShuBob

    Would be interesting to have a take on that from a body language specialist ShuBob.

    On this occasion Kate would have done better to have left Gerry at home.

    I can remember the one early on where the interviewer mentioned a sighting by somebody, and Gerry looked quickly at Kate as if he was trying to surpress a laugh.

    Like they had a little private joke between them.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There IS a certain amount of wild speculation on this site as others, it's perhaps a pity that some commentators allow their indignation to overcome their grammar, and surely it was a misjudgment on Sr Amaral's part to sport a 'diamond' earring in public view. Insofar as modern life has become a matter of PR presentation, then to be convincing we have to do better than the McCann side with their dubious 'professionals' and their own considerable histrionic skills. Let's stick to the facts as they presently exist, there can be no rational argument there. The 'truth', whatever it is and possibly stranger than fiction or surpassing any speculations, will then accordingly emerge. In the meantime it's to no-one's advantage to be appear to be more of a 'nutter' than the chief protagonists.

    Brod

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anon 30 - interesting perspective.

    Searching the linkage - Editor in Chief > Rupert Murdoch, then through his daughter Elizabeth Freud > Matthew Freud > Clarence Mitchell and in amongst this lot their close associates are Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and Howell James.

    http://www.thesargeants.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=170

    ReplyDelete
  38. Why did K. change present for past : is with or has been with ?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gerry's eyes at 1.06 into the video are even more revealing!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Eilis O'Hanlon, in her 30s, lives in Northern Ireland and has just sold her first crime novel internationally. O'Hanlon, using the pseudonym Ingrid Black and collaborating with her husband Ian, has just sold the serial rights to The Dead to BBC for dramatisation.
    ...
    O'Hanlon, who comes from a Belfast republican family but is one of Sinn Fein's sharpest critics, stressed that while Saxon's hunt for a serial killer is located in Dublin, her story could also be set in any major city around the world.

    The Dead has already sold 60,000 copies in Britain and Ireland and is about to be published in Holland, German and Italy. A deal for the United States is also on the cards."

    May be some dogs enter in the plot, that's why she couldn't write dogs are unreliable. She feels "something bad had happened" but might suggest that false indices were planted or that a drama occurred before the Tapas arrival.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Nothing will ever surprise me in this case. I often wonder how Gerry can concentrate on his job at the hospital.....

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anon 2,i also emailed Amanda Platell,pointing out a few things to her,and saying that not everyone believes the McCanns fairy story,and many believed Madeleine died that night in the apartment,she emailed back saying "in answer to Madeleine being dead we may never know",i emailed her again saying we will know if journalists did their jobs properly and probed into the lives of the McCanns and the tapas pals,i also mentioned the statement by Katherine Gaspar,i said i believed if the statement was true i believe the answer to Madeleines disappearance lies within it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Sniffer dogs who had been trained to detect the presence of cadavers and blood both reacted strongly in the couple's holiday apartment. Something bad happened there, even if there is not a scrap of credible physical evidence that it had anything to do with them."
    FROM THAT CAME A SAMPLE WHICH SHOWS 15 MATCHING ALLELES IN 19 OF MADDIE DNA- Is this not a scrap of credible physical evidence?--- Give Us a Break).

    This journalist at least made a huge step on the British Media- For the First Time he shows his readers THAT HE DID NOT BUY MCCANN'S THEORY FOR FREE AND HIGHLIGHT HOW THE MCCANN'S RESUME THEIR SEARCH FOR MADELEINE- A FIGHT FOR CLEANING THEIR IMAGE AVOIDING REAL TRIALS AND AVOIDING DISCUSSING IMPORTANT FACTS FROM THE INVESTIGATION. Lawyers, solicitors, image builders don't look for Maddie, don't search Madeleine and they cost a money with a lot of obscene zeros. People who can look for Maddie and rescue her, like polices, are available for free, but the Mccann's don't want them surrounding their lives.

    It is a disgrace the way the journalist criticise G. Amaral. Since he shows that he surf a lot in the Internet to grab information, he should be more accurate with what he writes. The investigation had mistakes ( all of them have, this is why an investigation is not a straight line. Sometimes, many times, they need to go back, rebuild the route according with what they find). They made a mistake... they believe too much in the Mccann's at the beginning because they are inundated by the Media campaign started by the Mccann's which bring the tears of millions of anonymous people into TV screens. G. Brown made the same mistakes when he quickly decide to let a FUND to be set Up and a spoke-person to be send. All this happen 2, 3 days after the Little girl disappeared. At the end of that week, Brown and the polices realise that the story could be another, the situation could be different, but it was already too late, at least for Brown. He received a letter from the British ambassador ( maybe you Joana can do a favour to all of us, recover it an post it here for discussion, which highlight some points of vue very interesting). At this time it was already too late because in few days the Fund reach thousands of Euros and the Mccann's quickly announce it at the Media, like an award, a record. For me, that is the point which connect the Mccann's to the political power. The easy way they foolish G. brown with support of the twins godfather, which I believe help them all the way to G. Brown without knowing exactly the true game. This political which appear to be very clever when they try to solve economical country issues, can be very naive in private and believe in fairy tales without a properly checking. And Brown did not know how perverted this parents are and how far they can go. A Fund created with proposal of supporting the search for the little girl, which should last only for a couple of months, same when we help a Fund for a child with cancer, was set forever and is now a business. HOW CAN NOW BROWN TELL BRITAIN THAT HE GAVE A PERMISSION FOR THAT WITHOUT CHECKING OR WAITING A LITLE MORE TIME TO SEE WHAT COME OUT FROM THE INVESTIGATION? The more convenient situation for Brown is the more conveniently for the Mccann's now, for different reasons. Since the evidences all point at a dead girl probably with her parents behind, shelving the case, gagging papers and people, avoiding British police to testify in trials and not supporting effectively the Portuguese police but pretending to, is the only choice for Brown to save his face at the world eyes. THIS IS WHY MADDIE BECAME A STATE CASE DEAL WITH SECRECY. (cont)

    ReplyDelete
  44. CONT: BUT GOD DID NOT SLEEP, and cynical god, at the same time highlight another case involving a Portuguese citizen and UK police and justice- NICOLAS BENTO: His book " GUILT INNOCENT(?)" is out now and all the way to be a best seller largely discussed in several TV programmes. In this book he accuse the British police and the British judicial system of making so many mistakes on his case ( at least not investigating nothing) with the only purpose- condemning somebody quickly and solve the case. This is why he was keep in prison for some time and got a life sentence accused of murdering his girlfriend without evidences.
    Maybe because British police and British judicial system have this vicissitudes and nobody questioned them( they like to be above suspects), British journalists and some of the Mccann's supporters believe that Portuguese police use the same method with Mccann's. HUGE MISTAKE MR & MRS JOURNALISTS. PORTUGUESE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FACE A LOT OF STEPS AND A LOT OF DIFICULTIES TO SEND SOMEBODY TO PRISON. MANY THINGS HAVE TO BE INVESTIGATED AND PROVED BEFORE. This is why the Mccann's had all the time to set a properly business which don't even pay for advertisements, they use world TV channels for free and when became the time to charge them, they already foolish powerful people. If the case happen in Britain, maybe they will be caught in prison since day one, like karen Mathews. And Gerry have to work very hard to get a second of Media attention and made a statement in front of a court after a trial. And Kate have to learn a lot of dog skills to convince the British police how unreliable dogs are, how little they achieve in an investigation, how DNA is a very poor tool specially if for any reason connects her and her child to something bad.
    PORTUGUESE POLICE MADE CIRCUNSTANCIAL MISTAKES BUT ARE VERY PROFESSIONAL AND COMPETENTE. AND G. AMARAL IS ONE OF THE TOP AT THE TOP- This is why he was sent to solve A DELICATE CASE WHICH INVOLVE A FOREIGN CHILD- WHEN ARE THE BRITISH JOURNALIST GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND OPEN THEIR EYES?
    G. Amaral did not solve the case because he had no enough time to solve it, but what he achieve was far from what Paulo Rebelo achieve, and most important, bringing a new Top inspector into the case, did not change the way of the investigation which mean Amaral was on the right track but what he find is very inconvenient. Since the beginning he refused to be manipulated and gagged. He was out of the case not for being incompetent but because he accuse the Leicester police to work on the behalf of the Mccann's at the JN interview ( The time proof he was right).
    I believe he will fight all the way to the top of the world to get his voice heard, even after what he says now, he is not alone anymore and what he defends is what all the inspectors defend and criminologists from several country's agree with them.
    Gagging is not a solution of anything. Polemical issues must be discussed and PORTUGAL IS NOT USED WITH GAGGING METHODES. IF THAT METHODE WORK IN UK, IN PORTUGAL WILL FAIL.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Professor Barclay's conclusions about the setting of the crime scene would be a good one to rebut,along with the Gaspar statements.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Thank you so much, Brod 37, for your wise advises !
    Please let's keep a cool head and resist insulting Peter or Paul (this is one of the advantages of writing : we can read before posting). Let's try to reflect without judging ! Influence depends on that.
    For the sake of freedom of speech, we must be both rational and humanists !

    ReplyDelete
  47. Brod 37

    No idea what you are talking about.

    This is one of the most rational sites on the internet discussing this case, and always has been.

    Probably because it is monitored before comments allowed.

    Perhaps Rosiepops could use some advice.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anon 42, well done, and you managed to get a reply.

    I bet that was food for thought if she had never heard of the Gaspars before.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Please don't try to stifle free speech on here.

    I think it is good that the McCanns know what people think of them, and can show their emotion about this, because they sure have stirred up a lot of hatred and anger towards them by what they are trying to do.

    And even the emotional comments have logic behind them.

    What were the speeches of people like Winston Churchill if not filled with emotion against the enemy, yet also filled with logic.

    There is a little girl missing, and that is an emotional subject in itself.

    ReplyDelete
  50. To anon 43: ''This journalist at least made a huge step on the British Media..'' The Irish Independent is not part of the British Media.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anon 48. It's 'monitoring' that allows other outlets to publish the sort of thing that we're protesting about! It's just that we have here a splendid 'monitor' with a fairer and more scrupulous outlook. If I weren't convinced of the 'rationality' I wouldn't be such an avid follower. But (anon 50)although it's cheering for us to know that there are so many other people thinking the same, I very much doubt that the McCanns could care less, or at least so long as they can go on as they are. They're pathological cases, and the pathology consists in their being completely impervious to any opinions contrary to their own ideas of themselves. We can have no hopes of changing them, but we may have hopes of convincing more people that they are being hoodwinked if we sound as consistently reasonable and objective as possible.

    Brod

    ReplyDelete
  52. Until the Mccanns ask for the case to be reopened, I cannot believe in an abduction...no evidence. Why would they not want the case reopened, it would save them a lot of money?
    AS for teir intention for a big party night with the stars, sorry...this is about ego not Maddie, shes long forgotten.
    Celebrity parties NO reopening the case YES

    ReplyDelete
  53. The fact is, that the McCann's are not the legal parents of Madeleine Beth McCann the child, they gave away their parental rights by application to the Court on 17th May 2007 to make Madeleine Beth McCann the child a Ward of Court, which was finalised by Justice Hogg on 8th July 2008, therfore any attempt by the McCann's to seek, reporesent or speak for Madeleine Beth McCann the child is wholey ilegal, the only legal status the McCann's have for Madeleine Beth McCann is for their company of the same name and not the child. Carter-Ruck should be disbarred from acting legally in any manner for the McCann's as regarding the child Madeleine Beth McCann, as their representation on behalf of the McCann's in their libel suit of Dr Ameral was also ilegal given that Carter-Rusk experessed in Court in Lisben that the libel suit concerned Dr Ameral's book 'The Truth of a Lie' which claimed that Madeleine Beth McCann the child was dead, andthe possibly that the parents comitted Homocide and concealed the body of the child, therfore, according to the Ward of Court Hague ruling Carter-Ruck was acting ilegally for the McCann's being that they were no longer the legal parents of Madeleine Beth McCann the child, and had no legal rights under the Ward of Court Hague ruling to seek, represent, or speak for Madeleine Beth McCann the child. Likewise, the McCann's have no legal right in any European country including the UK to sue, or threaten to sue via Carter-Ruck or any other firm of lawyers, anyone for claiming publically that Madeleine Beth McCann the child is dead, or that the parents were involved in her disappearence and or concealed the body of Madeleine Beth McCann the child.
    This is the where the McCann scam is breakable in the distinguishing between Madeleine Beth McCann the child and Madeleine Beth McCann the company in any libel claim, as the McCann's have no legal paretal right to seek, represent or speak for Madeleine Beth McCann the child whatsoever under the Ward of Court Hague ruling, and neither does Carter-Ruck have any legal right undeer the Ward of Court Hague ruling to represent the McCann's regarding the representaion of Madeleine Beth McCann the child, and therefore the McCann's can only sue or seek libel damages on behalf of Madeleine Beth McCann the company. The pubic can print, publish and scream in the streets that the McCann's killed their daughter and concealed the body of Madeleine Beth McCann the child as much as they like and the McCann's have no legal rights to prevent this or threaten to sue anyone for it, it is only their company of the same name that they can legally sue for libel, which must be distinguished in any court of law before a case can be taken to court. Basically, the McCann's 'No Stone Unturned Fund' is also acting ilegally as a company that has publically published that they are seeking, representing and speaking for Madeleine Beth McCann the child, which is a breach of the Ward of Court Hague ruling, and a prisonable offence!

    ReplyDelete
  54. anon 54 - Interesting stuff. So are you saying that it can only be Justice Hogg that initiates legal proceedings in regard to Maddie? So this means they cannot sue GA? It has to be Justice Hogg that sues him?
    Louise

    ReplyDelete