Re: McCanns/Amaral

**T4two** Thu 9 Sep - 20:13

In addition to the Gaspar statements, there are several matters connected directly or indirectly with Dr. Payne which for an investigating police force should have been red flagged and thoroughly investigated in order to eliminate them and those involved, from the investigation. These may or may not have any connection with the Gaspar statements, but without knowledge of those statements, their significance might not have been instantly apparent to the investigators on the ground.

First off is the fact that Payne, as organiser of the trip, should really have known that there was no baby listening service at this particular MW location. Ostensibly Payne had thought that there was, and it was Payne in his organising role, who complained bitterly about there not being such a service, upon learning of this at their arrival. And yet the Paynes were the only ones to take a baby monitor with them.

Of course the Paynes may well have been in the habit of taking that monitor with them on every occasion where they spent nights away from home, however the first thing that a good investigator should have asked, is whether this was indeed the case. Was it simply a coincidence that none of the other parents thought to take a monitor with them, or was this in fact part of a manipulation of the others by Payne? Did Payne actually know beforehand that there was no baby listening service and did he therefore take the baby listening monitor in order to present the others with the perfect solution to their problem of what to do with the kids when they went out in the evening? If so, what might that solution have entailed?

Was the solution to put all the children into one apartment to sleep and use the baby monitor to monitor for them all? Perhaps it was. Certainly at one point, the Police on the ground were questioning whether the children had all slept together in the same room, so there must have been something which pointed them in that direction, or why else would they ask?

When one reads the witness statements of the tapas 7 and the McCanns, time and time again they refer to checking on Madeleine. One could be forgiven for gaining the impression that Madeleine was actually not part of any such solution, if indeed there was such a solution, but was in fact alone in apartment 5a. Of course, since Madeleine is the only child to have disappeared and therefore was naturally uppermost in everyone's mind at the time, it could explain why only she was the one singled out by name in connection with checking. On the other hand, could it not have been a Freudian slip perhaps? Whatever the reason might have been, for police investigating a crime, it is essential to examine every possibility in detail, if only to eliminate it.

Another red flag for an investigating officer must be the apparent isolation of Madeleine from some of the joint activities of the other parents and children in the group during the daytime. Was this simply a coincidence or how did this come about?

Indeed, when one stands back and takes a look at the whole picture, the question of whether Madeleine was more or less isolated from the rest of the group at certain times of the day and night and whether this isolation was coincidental or planned, cannot simply be discounted; it is a line of investigation which must be followed up by any competent investigator; again, if only to eliminate it as a possibility.

I find it therefore inexplicable that Leicestershire Constabulary should have withheld the Gaspar witness statements concerning Drs. Payne and McCann until a strategic point in time, particularly as that point in time coincided neatly with the removal of Dr. Amaral from the case. In doing so they took it upon themselves to make a judgement call on the relevance of that information to the ongoing investigation, which was not their call to make.

Indeed, holding back that information could well have concealed the relevance of certain apparent coincidences, some of which are mentioned above, and which should have been red flagged and investigated in detail. In doing so they unwittingly or intentionally influenced the course of the investigation by concealing the biggest red flag of all and thereby the importance of following certain lines of investigation. This could be construed as sheer incompetence or intentional sabotage.

The recent weasel worded explanation of the Acting Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary, rendered by the way with the kind of insolent smirk which can have no place whatsoever in the tragic case of a missing child, unfortunately only serve to impart the impression that having successfully or unwittingly deflected the course of the investigation, his first priority and that of the police force for which he is responsible is now to cover up what they have done.

However their actions or inactions may not only have contributed to the investigation hitting a brick wall, leaving the McCanns themselves under a cloud of suspicion, but also to the failure of the investigators on the ground to recognize the importance of thoroughly investigating allegations regarding Dr. Payne's sexual preferences and eliminating them and thus him as a possible factor, or otherwise. This leaves Dr. Payne subjected to those allegations indefinitely. So much for trying to influence the course of an investigation.

In view of such incompetence or intent, it would be a huge leap in faith for anyone to assume that Leicestershire Constabulary treated information rendered by the Gaspars or indeed Yvonne Martin with anything more than the disdain recently shown by their Acting Chief Constable.

Guest Thu 9 Sep - 20:19

Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Okay, first point: Maybe he doesn’t. And that is his choice. The problem is mud sticks. And by doing absolutely nothing to clear his name, the speculation that he sexually abused children will continue ad infinitum. All I’m saying is that, in my opinion, an innocent man would not, in fact could not, remain silent.

Second point: If the LP did not give Dr Gaspar’s statement much credence then they are a disgrace to their profession and not fit for purpose. Child abuse accusations should always, without exception, be given credence and thoroughly investigated.

Third point: According to Dr Gaspars statement, the sexual gesture made by Dr Payne, in front of Dr McCann, referred to Madeleine Beth McCann, not to women.

first point: he has no name to clear.

second point: you don't know what was done.

third point: that's her opinion.

It doesn't matter. The statement should have been sent to the Portuguese Police ASAP.

has to be investigated first. that takes time. McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 25346

Judge Dread Thu 9 Sep - 20:22

Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Okay, first point: Maybe he doesn’t. And that is his choice. The problem is mud sticks. And by doing absolutely nothing to clear his name, the speculation that he sexually abused children will continue ad infinitum. All I’m saying is that, in my opinion, an innocent man would not, in fact could not, remain silent.

Second point: If the LP did not give Dr Gaspar’s statement much credence then they are a disgrace to their profession and not fit for purpose. Child abuse accusations should always, without exception, be given credence and thoroughly investigated.

Third point: According to Dr Gaspars statement, the sexual gesture made by Dr Payne, in front of Dr McCann, referred to Madeleine Beth McCann, not to women.

first point: he has no name to clear.

second point: you don't know what was done.

third point: that's her opinion.

First point: Yes he does.

Second point: I didn't say I did.

Third point: That's her official statement.

McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 25346

**Claudia79** Thu 9 Sep - 20:25

Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Okay, first point: Maybe he doesn’t. And that is his choice. The problem is mud sticks. And by doing absolutely nothing to clear his name, the speculation that he sexually abused children will continue ad infinitum. All I’m saying is that, in my opinion, an innocent man would not, in fact could not, remain silent.

Second point: If the LP did not give Dr Gaspar’s statement much credence then they are a disgrace to their profession and not fit for purpose. Child abuse accusations should always, without exception, be given credence and thoroughly investigated.

Third point: According to Dr Gaspars statement, the sexual gesture made by Dr Payne, in front of Dr McCann, referred to Madeleine Beth McCann, not to women.

first point: he has no name to clear.

second point: you don't know what was done.

third point: that's her opinion.

It doesn't matter. The statement should have been sent to the Portuguese Police ASAP.

has to be investigated first. that takes time.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Why? Because there was a missing child involved, it was a Portuguese investigation and the person mentioned in that statement was in Portugal. It should have been sent immediately to the Portuguese Police and any updates re the investigation in the UK (including the possible conclusion that the statement was irrelevant) communicated to their Portuguese counterparts. That's how it's done in normal cases. But we all know this was no normal case.

Guest Thu 9 Sep - 20:29

Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Okay, first point: Maybe he doesn’t. And that is his choice. The problem is mud sticks. And by doing absolutely nothing to clear his name, the speculation that he sexually abused children will continue ad infinitum. All I’m saying is that, in my opinion, an innocent man would not, in fact could not, remain silent.

Second point: If the LP did not give Dr Gaspar’s statement much credence then they are a disgrace to their profession and not fit for purpose. Child abuse accusations should always, without exception, be given credence and thoroughly investigated.

Third point: According to Dr Gaspars statement, the sexual gesture made by Dr Payne, in front of Dr McCann, referred to Madeleine Beth McCann, not to women.

first point: he has no name to clear.

second point: you don't know what was done.

third point: that's her opinion.

First point: Yes he does.

Second point: I didn't say I did.

Third point: That's her official statement.

first point: that's your opinion

second point: no, but you've given an opinion.

third point: it's still an opinion.

if your so sure payne has a case to answer why don't you go to his place of employment, or home, and confront him? let us know how you get on. please.

McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 25346

jimuck Thu 9 Sep - 20:35

Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Okay, first point: Maybe he doesn’t. And that is his choice. The problem is mud sticks. And by doing absolutely nothing to clear his name, the speculation that he sexually abused children will continue ad infinitum. All I’m saying is that, in my opinion, an innocent man would not, in fact could not, remain silent.

Second point: If the LP did not give Dr Gaspar’s statement much credence then they are a disgrace to their profession and not fit for purpose. Child abuse accusations should always, without exception, be given credence and thoroughly investigated.

Third point: According to Dr Gaspars statement, the sexual gesture made by Dr Payne, in front of Dr McCann, referred to Madeleine Beth McCann, not to women.

first point: he has no name to clear.

second point: you don't know what was done.

third point: that's her opinion.

First point: Yes he does.

Second point: I didn't say I did.

Third point: That's her official statement.

first point: that's your opinion

second point: no, but you've given an opinion.

third point: it's still an opinion.

if your so sure payne has a case to answer why don't you go to his place of employment, or home, and confront him? let us know how you get on. please.

Bloody hell Marky, this bit of power you have been given, has gone to your head,, please dont ban me.

Guest Thu 9 Sep - 20:35

Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Okay, first point: Maybe he doesn’t. And that is his choice. The problem is mud sticks. And by doing absolutely nothing to clear his name, the speculation that he sexually abused children will continue ad infinitum. All I’m saying is that, in my opinion, an innocent man would not, in fact could not, remain silent.

Second point: If the LP did not give Dr Gaspar’s statement much credence then they are a disgrace to their profession and not fit for purpose. Child abuse accusations should always, without exception, be given credence and thoroughly investigated.

Third point: According to Dr Gaspars statement, the sexual gesture made by Dr Payne, in front of Dr McCann, referred to Madeleine Beth McCann, not to women.

first point: he has no name to clear.

second point: you don't know what was done.

third point: that's her opinion.

It doesn't matter. The statement should have been sent to the Portuguese Police ASAP.

has to be investigated first. that takes time.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Why? Because there was a missing child involved, it was a Portuguese investigation and the person mentioned in that statement was in Portugal. It should have been sent immediately to the Portuguese Police and any updates re the investigation in the UK (including the possible conclusion that the statement was irrelevant) communicated to their Portuguese counterparts. That's how it's done in normal cases. But we all know this was no normal case.

don't agree with what? that it has to be investigated? if what we're led to believe is true, it was sent. possibly including the conclusion. do we know? do we really know?

McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 25346

Guest Thu 9 Sep - 20:40

jimuck wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Okay, first point: Maybe he doesn’t. And that is his choice. The problem is mud sticks. And by doing absolutely nothing to clear his name, the speculation that he sexually abused children will continue ad infinitum. All I’m saying is that, in my opinion, an innocent man would not, in fact could not, remain silent.

Second point: If the LP did not give Dr Gaspar’s statement much credence then they are a disgrace to their profession and not fit for purpose. Child abuse accusations should always, without exception, be given credence and thoroughly investigated.

Third point: According to Dr Gaspars statement, the sexual gesture made by Dr Payne, in front of Dr McCann, referred to Madeleine Beth McCann, not to women.

first point: he has no name to clear.

second point: you don't know what was done.

third point: that's her opinion.

First point: Yes he does.

Second point: I didn't say I did.

Third point: That's her official statement.

first point: that's your opinion

second point: no, but you've given an opinion.

third point: it's still an opinion.

if your so sure payne has a case to answer why don't you go to his place of employment, or home, and confront him? let us know how you get on. please.

Bloody hell Marky, this bit of power you have been given, has gone to your head,, please dont ban me.

another opinion. christ, i'm up to my neck in them. McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 294124

Judge Dread Thu 9 Sep - 20:46

Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Okay, first point: Maybe he doesn’t. And that is his choice. The problem is mud sticks. And by doing absolutely nothing to clear his name, the speculation that he sexually abused children will continue ad infinitum. All I’m saying is that, in my opinion, an innocent man would not, in fact could not, remain silent.

Second point: If the LP did not give Dr Gaspar’s statement much credence then they are a disgrace to their profession and not fit for purpose. Child abuse accusations should always, without exception, be given credence and thoroughly investigated.

Third point: According to Dr Gaspars statement, the sexual gesture made by Dr Payne, in front of Dr McCann, referred to Madeleine Beth McCann, not to women.

first point: he has no name to clear.

second point: you don't know what was done.

third point: that's her opinion.

First point: Yes he does.

Second point: I didn't say I did.

Third point: That's her official statement.

first point: that's your opinion

second point: no, but you've given an opinion.

third point: it's still an opinion.

if your so sure payne has a case to answer why don't you go to his place of employment, or home, and confront him? let us know how you get on. please.

First point: Yes it is. Just as yours is your opinion.

Second Point: I still didn't say I did. And your second point is your opinion.

Third point: It's still an official statement. And your third point is your opinion. (Shall we now get off this merry-go-round).

Whoa... Where did that come from...

And finally, congrats on posting more than one line!

McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 25346

**Claudia79** Thu 9 Sep - 20:48

Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Marky wrote:

first point: he has no name to clear.

second point: you don't know what was done.

third point: that's her opinion.

It doesn't matter. The statement should have been sent to the Portuguese Police ASAP.

has to be investigated first. that takes time.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Why? Because there was a missing child involved, it was a Portuguese investigation and the person mentioned in that statement was in Portugal. It should have been sent immediately to the Portuguese Police and any updates re the investigation in the UK (including the possible conclusion that the statement was irrelevant) communicated to their Portuguese counterparts. That's how it's done in normal cases. But we all know this was no normal case.

don't agree with what? that it has to be investigated? if what we're led to believe is true, it was sent. possibly including the conclusion. do we know? do we really know?

Don't agree that it has to be investigated before it is sent. In fact, I know that is not how it's done. The statement was given in May and it was sent to the Portuguese Police by the end of October. It was taken in May and it should have been faxed or emailed on the same day because it could be essential to the case (at the time no one knew if it was or not and we still aren't sure today). The statement should have been investigated in the UK and any updates sent to the Portuguese Police. That way, the Portuguese Police could have confronted the person in question with that statement and assess if it was important or not. It's quite simple, really. Just common Police cooperation like in any of the hundreds or thousands of cases which happen every day in the world. But as I said, there is nothing common in this case.

Guest Thu 9 Sep - 20:52

Judge Dread wrote:Whoa... Where did that come from...

it's otherwise known as put up or shut up. if your that convinced, go for it. what you got to lose? McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 25346

Guest Thu 9 Sep - 20:58

Claudia79 wrote:Don't agree that it has to be investigated before it is sent.

disagree. it has to be investigated to determine it's significance, if any. to do otherwise we're close to the lynching mentality.

McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 25346

**Claudia79** Thu 9 Sep - 21:11

Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Don't agree that it has to be investigated before it is sent.

disagree. it has to be investigated to determine it's significance, if any. to do otherwise we're close to the lynching mentality.

You clearly have no idea of how Police cooperation works. In any other case apart from this, that statement would have been sent the same day it was given. That doesn't mean that the statement had to be taken as Gospel. It just meant that the Police Force responsible for the investigation of the disappearance of a child HAS TO be informed of all the details, especially of one that could have been essential. But I'm not surprised it was sent more than 5 months later. Not at all. We had other examples of this sort of behaviour: no medical records, pathetic financial information not to mention the time it took for the FSS to send results with 'final' results contradicting previous ones sent. All coincidences, of course.

**AnnaEsse** Thu 9 Sep - 21:14

Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Don't agree that it has to be investigated before it is sent.

disagree. it has to be investigated to determine it's significance, if any. to do otherwise we're close to the lynching mentality.

I'm disagreeing with you, Marky. If the UK police are presented with any information about someone involved in an investigation in another country, it is their responsibility to pass it on immediately. The same would be true between different police forces in the UK. It would be up to the police doing the investigation to decide if the information was significant or not and to request the informing police force to undertake any investigation they thought appropriate. Otherwise we get situations like the Soham case, where information was not passed on about Ian Huntley.

**Claudia79** Thu 9 Sep - 21:23

AnnaEsse wrote:
Marky wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:Don't agree that it has to be investigated before it is sent.

disagree. it has to be investigated to determine it's significance, if any. to do otherwise we're close to the lynching mentality.

I'm disagreeing with you, Marky. If the UK police are presented with any information about someone involved in an investigation in another country, it is their responsibility to pass it on immediately. The same would be true between different police forces in the UK. It would be up to the police doing the investigation to decide if the information was significant or not and to request the informing police force to undertake any investigation they thought appropriate. Otherwise we get situations like the Soham case, where information was not passed on about Ian Huntley.

It is that way that it is always done. Just not in this case...
That, of course, doesn't mean that the statement shouldn't have been investigated in the UK. Of course it should. It have have also been passed on right away and any updates sent to the PJ as well. But it wasn't. Sadly.

Judge Dread Thu 9 Sep - 21:25

Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Whoa... Where did that come from...

it's otherwise known as put up or shut up. if your that convinced, go for it. what you got to lose?

So, what you're saying is that if I give an opinion on this forum that you don't agree with or like, then I should go and confront the person my opinion referred to. And is this just aimed at me or everyone who expresses a similar opinion that you don't like. In fact, has everybody got to put up or shut up from now on...

McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 25346

**POPPY1** Thu 9 Sep - 21:25

One word to describe the MCCANNS ( I haven't read through all the pages )

SCUM

**lea** Thu 9 Sep - 22:50

Hi havnt read all thread but the mccscum make me soooo mad!!!!!
hope they cant get away with ruining Amarals familys lives.

**zodiac** Thu 9 Sep - 23:04

Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Whoa... Where did that come from...

it's otherwise known as put up or shut up. if your that convinced, go for it. what you got to lose?

So, what you're saying is that if I give an opinion on this forum that you don't agree with or like, then I should go and confront the person my opinion referred to. And is this just aimed at me or everyone who expresses a similar opinion that you don't like. In fact, has everybody got to put up or shut up from now on...

This is shocking! Could the other Mods on the forum explain why a Mod can treat a member of the forum in such an arrogant manner?

docmac Thu 9 Sep - 23:04

Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Whoa... Where did that come from...

it's otherwise known as put up or shut up. if your that convinced, go for it. what you got to lose?

So, what you're saying is that if I give an opinion on this forum that you don't agree with or like, then I should go and confront the person my opinion referred to. And is this just aimed at me or everyone who expresses a similar opinion that you don't like. In fact, has everybody got to put up or shut up from now on...

No, it's not just you, Judge Dread.

Guest Fri 10 Sep - 0:31

T4two wrote:In addition to the Gaspar statements, there are several matters connected directly or indirectly with Dr. Payne which for an investigating police force should have been red flagged and thoroughly investigated in order to eliminate them and those involved, from the investigation. These may or may not have any connection with the Gaspar statements, but without knowledge of those statements, their significance might not have been instantly apparent to the investigators on the ground.

First off is the fact that Payne, as organiser of the trip, should really have known that there was no baby listening service at this particular MW location. Ostensibly Payne had thought that there was, and it was Payne in his organising role, who complained bitterly about there not being such a service, upon learning of this at their arrival. And yet the Paynes were the only ones to take a baby monitor with them.

Of course the Paynes may well have been in the habit of taking that monitor with them on every occasion where they spent nights away from home, however the first thing that a good investigator should have asked, is whether this was indeed the case. Was it simply a coincidence that none of the other parents thought to take a monitor with them, or was this in fact part of a manipulation of the others by Payne? Did Payne actually know beforehand that there was no baby listening service and did he therefore take the baby listening monitor in order to present the others with the perfect solution to their problem of what to do with the kids when they went out in the evening? If so, what might that solution have entailed?

Was the solution to put all the children into one apartment to sleep and use the baby monitor to monitor for them all? Perhaps it was. Certainly at one point, the Police on the ground were questioning whether the children had all slept together in the same room, so there must have been something which pointed them in that direction, or why else would they ask?

When one reads the witness statements of the tapas 7 and the McCanns, time and time again they refer to checking on Madeleine. One could be forgiven for gaining the impression that Madeleine was actually not part of any such solution, if indeed there was such a solution, but was in fact alone in apartment 5a. Of course, since Madeleine is the only child to have disappeared and therefore was naturally uppermost in everyone's mind at the time, it could explain why only she was the one singled out by name in connection with checking. On the other hand, could it not have been a Freudian slip perhaps? Whatever the reason might have been, for police investigating a crime, it is essential to examine every possibility in detail, if only to eliminate it.

Another red flag for an investigating officer must be the apparent isolation of Madeleine from some of the joint activities of the other parents and children in the group during the daytime. Was this simply a coincidence or how did this come about?

Indeed, when one stands back and takes a look at the whole picture, the question of whether Madeleine was more or less isolated from the rest of the group at certain times of the day and night and whether this isolation was coincidental or planned, cannot simply be discounted; it is a line of investigation which must be followed up by any competent investigator; again, if only to eliminate it as a possibility.

I find it therefore inexplicable that Leicestershire Constabulary should have withheld the Gaspar witness statements concerning Drs. Payne and McCann until a strategic point in time, particularly as that point in time coincided neatly with the removal of Dr. Amaral from the case. In doing so they took it upon themselves to make a judgement call on the relevance of that information to the ongoing investigation, which was not their call to make.

Indeed, holding back that information could well have concealed the relevance of certain apparent coincidences, some of which are mentioned above, and which should have been red flagged and investigated in detail. In doing so they unwittingly or intentionally influenced the course of the investigation by concealing the biggest red flag of all and thereby the importance of following certain lines of investigation. This could be construed as sheer incompetence or intentional sabotage.

The recent weasel worded explanation of the Acting Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary, rendered by the way with the kind of insolent smirk which can have no place whatsoever in the tragic case of a missing child, unfortunately only serve to impart the impression that having successfully or unwittingly deflected the course of the investigation, his first priority and that of the police force for which he is responsible is now to cover up what they have done.

However their actions or inactions may not only have contributed to the investigation hitting a brick wall, leaving the McCanns themselves under a cloud of suspicion, but also to the failure of the investigators on the ground to recognize the importance of thoroughly investigating allegations regarding Dr. Payne's sexual preferences and eliminating them and thus him as a possible factor, or otherwise. This leaves Dr. Payne subjected to those allegations indefinitely. So much for trying to influence the course of an investigation.

In view of such incompetence or intent, it would be a huge leap in faith for anyone to assume that Leicestershire Constabulary treated information rendered by the Gaspars or indeed Yvonne Martin with anything more than the disdain recently shown by their Acting Chief Constable.

Stunningly accurate assesment of the failings of LEICESTER POLICE hierachy,quite possibly the best analysis of the multiple derelictions of duty. Has the author thought of sending the observations to the new Home Secretary,it would make an excellant reference document for the drains -up select commitee enquiry which will definately happen one day-especially if it is ignored and no action is taken.

sans_souci Fri 10 Sep - 7:15

There has been much frothing at the mouth over the idea that the McCanns are going to make Amaral's wife and children homeless.

Over a house that Amaral 'forgot' he owned when it came to the legal aid application? And that it would appear they dont actually live in. Some here are, it seems, very easily led.

Guest Fri 10 Sep - 7:20

zodiac wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:
Marky wrote:
Judge Dread wrote:Whoa... Where did that come from...

it's otherwise known as put up or shut up. if your that convinced, go for it. what you got to lose?

So, what you're saying is that if I give an opinion on this forum that you don't agree with or like, then I should go and confront the person my opinion referred to. And is this just aimed at me or everyone who expresses a similar opinion that you don't like. In fact, has everybody got to put up or shut up from now on...

This is shocking! Could the other Mods on the forum explain why a Mod can treat a member of the forum in such an arrogant manner?

compared to one or two others i'm a pussycat baby. McCanns/Amaral - Page 8 25346

Guest Fri 10 Sep - 7:41

sans_souci wrote:There has been much frothing at the mouth over the idea that the McCanns are going to make Amaral's wife and children homeless.

Over a house that Amaral 'forgot' he owned when it came to the legal aid application? And that it would appear they dont actually live in. Some here are, it seems, very easily led.

Oh well, that makes it OK, then.

jinvta Fri 10 Sep - 8:00

The Famous Grouse wrote:
sans_souci wrote:There has been much frothing at the mouth over the idea that the McCanns are going to make Amaral's wife and children homeless.

Over a house that Amaral 'forgot' he owned when it came to the legal aid application? And that it would appear they dont actually live in. Some here are, it seems, very easily led.

Oh well, that makes it OK, then.

The complaints aren't about the idea that the McCanns are going to make Amaral's wife and children homeless, it is that they would even consider trying in the first place. Most here can't believe the gall of these serial child neglectors, who on one such neglectful night manage to lose one of their children. The local police force and the public spend millions and countless hours in the search for Madeleine, yet the McCanns spend the majority of "their" fund on expensive lawyers and not a second of their time on physically searching for the daughter that they are responsible for losing. I can't even begin to explain how sickening this lawsuit is and how I pray to God that the McCanns lose and are countersued in the process. IMO, it is doubtful that the McCanns will win, but they hold out in hope that Amaral will negotiate in order to avoid having to face the gamut of expensive lawyers. Give it up McCanns, it is not going to happen!

Sponsored content