McCanns v Amaral

kathybelle wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

kathybelle wrote:I don't wish to be picky Claudia, but when I said I didn't believe the news that regarding Goncalo Amaral requesting the case was postponed, you were sarcastic with me. you said you had spoken to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true. If you really spoke to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true, someone is telling lies. The Portuguese newspaper, states that it was the McCanns who requested the case was postponed for reasons I gave in my first post on this thread.

Claudia79 wrote:Will you pay for the extra expenses which arise from the distance?

Oh dear, just as I was going to offer to stump up the bus fare!

Palmeras I must be missing something here, I don't understand what you and Claudia are both getting at, although I detect sarcasm in your posts.

One thing I do understand is, I was "got at" for stating something that other posters had already stated.

Can we agree that Claudia did not say that the case had been postponed by GA?

Marinho Pinto does not like to be contradicted and I believe that if he were questioned by a very clever lawyer, he would probably lose it. He wouldn't be allowed to insult and yell at the judges or lawyers as he did when the journalist Manuela Moura Guedes asked him a question he didn't like in an interview on TVI.

Palmeras16 wrote:Am I the only one wondering what Marinho Pinto will testify to?

Maybe of interest,

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.com/2012/01/marinho-pinto-to-testify.html?spref=tw

AnnaEsse wrote:

kathybelle wrote:One thing I do understand is, I was "got at" for stating something that other posters had already stated.

Can we agree that Claudia did not say that the case had been postponed by GA?

Yes agreed, as long as we can also agree that Kathybelle`s posts were innocuous and that her initial feelings were right in the first place. If we`re not careful a situation similar to 3As will develop if posters aren`t polite to each other and/or ganging up against one poster occurs (trolls don`t count obviously!).

Oldartform wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kathybelle wrote:One thing I do understand is, I was "got at" for stating something that other posters had already stated.

Can we agree that Claudia did not say that the case had been postponed by GA?

Yes agreed, as long as we can also agree that Kathybelle`s posts were innocuous and that her initial feelings were right in the first place. If we`re not careful a situation similar to 3As will develop if posters aren`t polite to each other and/or ganging up against one poster occurs (trolls don`t count obviously!).

No intention to 'gang up,' here. I was just trying to correct a misunderstanding about what was said.

AnnaEsse wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

kathybelle wrote:I don't wish to be picky Claudia, but when I said I didn't believe the news that regarding Goncalo Amaral requesting the case was postponed, you were sarcastic with me. you said you had spoken to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true. If you really spoke to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true, someone is telling lies. The Portuguese newspaper, states that it was the McCanns who requested the case was postponed for reasons I gave in my first post on this thread.

Claudia79 wrote:Will you pay for the extra expenses which arise from the distance?

Oh dear, just as I was going to offer to stump up the bus fare!

Palmeras I must be missing something here, I don't understand what you and Claudia are both getting at, although I detect sarcasm in your posts.

One thing I do understand is, I was "got at" for stating something that other posters had already stated.

Can we agree that Claudia did not say that the case had been postponed by GA?

I presume you are addressing my post, but if you're not I will apologise in advance. If you take a look at my post I never said that Claudia said GA had postponed the case. This spat would never have happened if my post hadn't been singled out for a sarcastic remark, by Claudia and a couple of others hadn't joined in to take sides with Claudia. There was nothing in my post that warranted the kind of childish behaviour that occurred.

At the time of the spat, I also made a couple of more posts in my defence, there was nothing nasty in them, but both posts were not put on the board. I took a look to see who the moderators were and although I was upset, I wasn't surprised that my posts were not printed. This board is about expressing ones views in a reasonable manner without making any libelous comments. Posters should not make sarcastic remarks if they don't agree with a posters views.

kathybelle wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

kathybelle wrote:I don't wish to be picky Claudia, but when I said I didn't believe the news that regarding Goncalo Amaral requesting the case was postponed, you were sarcastic with me. you said you had spoken to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true. If you really spoke to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true, someone is telling lies. The Portuguese newspaper, states that it was the McCanns who requested the case was postponed for reasons I gave in my first post on this thread.

Claudia79 wrote:Will you pay for the extra expenses which arise from the distance?

Oh dear, just as I was going to offer to stump up the bus fare!

Palmeras I must be missing something here, I don't understand what you and Claudia are both getting at, although I detect sarcasm in your posts.

One thing I do understand is, I was "got at" for stating something that other posters had already stated.

Can we agree that Claudia did not say that the case had been postponed by GA?

I presume you are addressing my post, but if you're not I will apologise in advance. If you take a look at my post I never said that Claudia said GA had postponed the case. This spat would never have happened if my post hadn't been singled out for a sarcastic remark, by Claudia and a couple of others hadn't joined in to take sides with Claudia. There was nothing in my post that warranted the kind of childish behaviour that occurred.

At the time of the spat, I also made a couple of more posts in my defence, there was nothing nasty in them, but both posts were not put on the board. I took a look to see who the moderators were and although I was upset, I wasn't surprised that my posts were not printed. This board is about expressing ones views in a reasonable manner without making any libelous comments. Posters should not make sarcastic remarks if they don't agree with a posters views.

Kathybelle, the forum is not pre-moderated and I don't know what could have happened to your posts. I didn't delete them and when Claudia is here, I'm sure she'll say the same. I'm sure I can speak for all the moderators here in saying that if we delete a post, we say so and say why it was deleted. If a comment has been posted while you were typing, you are offered the option to click on "Save," to post your comment. Maybe you missed that. Otherwise, it's a bit worrying if a couple of your posts went missing.

I was posting on another forum earlier tonight (not a McCann related one) and some of my posts went missing there! And a couple of others said the same thing. The other forum is also a Forumotion one, so maybe it is a bug or something on their side.

AnnaEsse wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:



Oh dear, just as I was going to offer to stump up the bus fare!

Palmeras I must be missing something here, I don't understand what you and Claudia are both getting at, although I detect sarcasm in your posts.

One thing I do understand is, I was "got at" for stating something that other posters had already stated.

Can we agree that Claudia did not say that the case had been postponed by GA?

I presume you are addressing my post, but if you're not I will apologise in advance. If you take a look at my post I never said that Claudia said GA had postponed the case. This spat would never have happened if my post hadn't been singled out for a sarcastic remark, by Claudia and a couple of others hadn't joined in to take sides with Claudia. There was nothing in my post that warranted the kind of childish behaviour that occurred.

At the time of the spat, I also made a couple of more posts in my defence, there was nothing nasty in them, but both posts were not put on the board. I took a look to see who the moderators were and although I was upset, I wasn't surprised that my posts were not printed. This board is about expressing ones views in a reasonable manner without making any libelous comments. Posters should not make sarcastic remarks if they don't agree with a posters views.

Kathybelle, the forum is not pre-moderated and I don't know what could have happened to your posts. I didn't delete them and when Claudia is here, I'm sure she'll say the same. I'm sure I can speak for all the moderators here in saying that if we delete a post, we say so and say why it was deleted. If a comment has been posted while you were typing, you are offered the option to click on "Save," to post your comment. Maybe you missed that. Otherwise, it's a bit worrying if a couple of your posts went missing.

The posts didn't get printed and if they weren't deleted you should be able to find them, because they were posted within minutes of the spat. In the past I have received a message saying a poster is commenting at the same time, but in the situation I am speaking about, there was no message. I pressed send after I had finished writing and the posts were not printed. If it was only one post that wasn't printed, I wouldn't have thought anything of it, but because it was two posts, I looked who the moderators were and that is why, although I was upset, I wasn't surprised.

kathybelle wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

Palmeras I must be missing something here, I don't understand what you and Claudia are both getting at, although I detect sarcasm in your posts.

One thing I do understand is, I was "got at" for stating something that other posters had already stated.

Can we agree that Claudia did not say that the case had been postponed by GA?

I presume you are addressing my post, but if you're not I will apologise in advance. If you take a look at my post I never said that Claudia said GA had postponed the case. This spat would never have happened if my post hadn't been singled out for a sarcastic remark, by Claudia and a couple of others hadn't joined in to take sides with Claudia. There was nothing in my post that warranted the kind of childish behaviour that occurred.

At the time of the spat, I also made a couple of more posts in my defence, there was nothing nasty in them, but both posts were not put on the board. I took a look to see who the moderators were and although I was upset, I wasn't surprised that my posts were not printed. This board is about expressing ones views in a reasonable manner without making any libelous comments. Posters should not make sarcastic remarks if they don't agree with a posters views.

Kathybelle, the forum is not pre-moderated and I don't know what could have happened to your posts. I didn't delete them and when Claudia is here, I'm sure she'll say the same. I'm sure I can speak for all the moderators here in saying that if we delete a post, we say so and say why it was deleted. If a comment has been posted while you were typing, you are offered the option to click on "Save," to post your comment. Maybe you missed that. Otherwise, it's a bit worrying if a couple of your posts went missing.

The posts didn't get printed and if they weren't deleted you should be able to find them, because they were posted within minutes of the spat. In the past I have received a message saying a poster is commenting at the same time, but in the situation I am speaking about, there was no message. I pressed send after I had finished writing and the posts were not printed. If it was only one post that wasn't printed, I wouldn't have thought anything of it, but because it was two posts, I looked who the moderators were and that is why, although I was upset, I wasn't surprised.

Who were the moderators and who do you think did something with your posts?

Kathy, that is exactly what happened to me on the herp forum. And two other people said the same thing. I spent ages composing a reply to somebody and I lost it all. I really do think it might be a Forumotion thing as that forum is run by them as well.

In fact I might just write everything in notepad then c&p it into a post, so if it vanishes I still have it.

Just a few days back I read that someone at JH's had had the same problem.
Other posters had missing posts too on occasion, and explained that it was a Forumotion glitch which happened from time to time..

almostgothic wrote:Just a few days back I read that someone at JH's had had the same problem.
Other posters had missing posts too on occasion, and explained that it was a Forumotion glitch which happened from time to time..

My post was about not feeding turtles on the wrong sorts of lettuce, I don't see how that would offend anybody but it did disappear, and now somebody is saying that their posts are appearing two and three times when they only pressed the button once.

Iris wrote:Kathy, that is exactly what happened to me on the herp forum. And two other people said the same thing. I spent ages composing a reply to somebody and I lost it all. I really do think it might be a Forumotion thing as that forum is run by them as well.

In fact I might just write everything in notepad then c&p it into a post, so if it vanishes I still have it.

Thanks for telling me what happened to your post Iris, I just presumed my posts had been deleted, it just shows how wrong it is to presume. I'm sorry if I have offended the moderators, for presuming they deleted my two posts.

kathybelle wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:I posted this recently:

But why is their reaction important? What they think (or what they want us to think is what they think) has no bearing in the truth. And they certainly aren't as well informed as they would wish or they would be discussing details it seems they have no idea about.
I can understand the disappointment because of the anticipation especially for someone who isn't used to the way things happen here. But I think people should get used to it. It's more likely than not to happen again. In this trials, with other trials related to this case or simply with trial sessions.

When I used they, I meant the pros who were saying Mr Amaral had asked for a postponement because he was so terrified of losing the court case. As always they know jack shit. Now they know. Or they think they do.

I don't wish to be picky Claudia, but when I said I didn't believe the news that regarding Goncalo Amaral requesting the case was postponed, you were sarcastic with me. you said you had spoken to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true. If you really spoke to Goncalo Amaral and he confirmed it was true, someone is telling lies. The Portuguese newspaper, states that it was the McCanns who requested the case was postponed for reasons I gave in my first post on this thread.

The only thing I confirmed here was that the trial had been postponed. Whatever else I was told I kept to myself. At the time, I thought you were saying you did not believe the case had been postponed and I replied accordingly. If you meant differently, I apologise. And if you didn't mean differently but still felt offended, then I still apologise.

Let's be very clear here, I DID NOT delete any of your posts, Kathybelle. Whenever I delete a post (or edit one for that matter) I say so and I state the reasons why within the post itself so it doesn't disappear into thin air. Posts are only deleted if they are offensive, disrupting or clearly libellous which none of yours I ever read were.

What I find odd is that nobody (even those who claim to have spoken to Goncalo Amaral) can say why he has chosen this particular crucial moment to change his lawyer. What kind of reason can he have that has to be kept so secret? I know we won't be told because it is probably something vital in the case but you have to admit its a great subject for speculation.

If I had a court case coming up, I wouldn't put my business all over the internet for any Troll, Dick or Harry to discuss. Goncalo Amaral is not obliged to tell anybody anything.

Iris wrote:If I had a court case coming up, I wouldn't put my business all over the internet for any Troll, Dick or Harry to discuss. Goncalo Amaral is not obliged to tell anybody anything.

I know that and I said that in my post. But it is a great topic for speculation isn't it?

And clearly Goncalo Amaral has a very different outlook to Tony Bennett over this because he seems to be telling us everything on the internet so that people can discuss it.

Well, Goncal Amaral hasn't put anything on the internet, so there's nothing to discuss. Unless you're only interested in making up stories for gullible people to tittle-tattle about.

Navigator wrote:What I find odd is that nobody (even those who claim to have spoken to Goncalo Amaral) can say why he has chosen this particular crucial moment to change his lawyer. What kind of reason can he have that has to be kept so secret? I know we won't be told because it is probably something vital in the case but you have to admit its a great subject for speculation.

why's it odd? Please expand.

Loopdaloop wrote:

Navigator wrote:What I find odd is that nobody (even those who claim to have spoken to Goncalo Amaral) can say why he has chosen this particular crucial moment to change his lawyer. What kind of reason can he have that has to be kept so secret? I know we won't be told because it is probably something vital in the case but you have to admit its a great subject for speculation.

why's it odd? Please expand.

Simple really. They say they are informing people and don't.

Goncalo obviously prefers to keep his cards close to his chest, in contrast to Tony who is broadcasting nearly every bit of info about his case, giving the enemy everything they need to know. I admire Tony for his devotion to justice, but think he should play things cooler.

Navigator wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

Navigator wrote:What I find odd is that nobody (even those who claim to have spoken to Goncalo Amaral) can say why he has chosen this particular crucial moment to change his lawyer. What kind of reason can he have that has to be kept so secret? I know we won't be told because it is probably something vital in the case but you have to admit its a great subject for speculation.

why's it odd? Please expand.

Simple really. They say they are informing people and don't.

Who's they?

Oldartform wrote:Goncalo obviously prefers to keep his cards close to his chest, in contrast to Tony who is broadcasting nearly every bit of info about his case, giving the enemy everything they need to know. I admire Tony for his devotion to justice, but think he should play things cooler.

Yes I can see that but does nobody else here wonder what happened to make him change lawyers at such a crucial point in the case? To me its a very odd thing for anyone to do. Thats all and I wonder why he did it.