McCanns/Amaral

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Keela wrote:Let's say that Sofia agreed to a separation of assets. Presumably she would keep her half of the h ouse and the other half would belong to the McCanns. How would this work practically. Would they then be able to demand that Sofia sell the house?

Naaa, they'd just move in with the Amarals!

They could actually learn something about how to care for children and what family life is about if they did, but who would want a bunch of people sharing their home who leave half tins of beans in the fridge and carry soiled nappies and rotting meat in their car? The Amarals might also find they were left to babysit while the McCanns were having their. 'me time.'

I noticed that also!

sans_souci wrote:where is there any suggestion that anyone is demanding that the Amarals get divorced?

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/09/mccann-couple-demand-goncalo-amaral.html

McCann Couple demand Gonçalo Amaral Divorce to be Rewarded

CASIO MADDIE
PAIS EXIGEM DIVORCIO DE GONCALO AMARAL
PARA SEREM INDEMNIZADOS

post 16:

Look at the images above- the video screencaps, it says in Portuguese: "Caso Maddie - Pais exigem divórcio de Gonçalo Amaral para serem indemnizados"

Literal Translation "Maddie Case - Parents demand Gonçalo Amaral's divorce to receive compensation"

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

docmac wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

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.

trying to whip up trouble doc? the issue is between me and judge dread.

Issue!... This is beginning to sound more like a vendetta...

don't be so sensitive. it's an issue. nothing more.

zodiac wrote:

sans_souci wrote:where is there any suggestion that anyone is demanding that the Amarals get divorced?

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/09/mccann-couple-demand-goncalo-amaral.html

McCann Couple demand Gonçalo Amaral Divorce to be Rewarded

CASIO MADDIE
PAIS EXIGEM DIVORCIO DE GONCALO AMARAL
PARA SEREM INDEMNIZADOS

post 16:

Look at the images above- the video screencaps, it says in Portuguese: "Caso Maddie - Pais exigem divórcio de Gonçalo Amaral para serem indemnizados"

Literal Translation "Maddie Case - Parents demand Gonçalo Amaral's divorce to receive compensation"

Typical media strap line to get people to watch or read the story. THey have the chance to divide up their community property or have their property in half, so that the half of it she owns cannot be subject to seizure as punishment - at least that is what I thought was the situation? McCanns are not demanding anyone divorce.

Claudia79 wrote:

Keela wrote:Let's say that Sofia agreed to a separation of assets. Presumably she would keep her half of the h ouse and the other half would belong to the McCanns. How would this work practically. Would they then be able to demand that Sofia sell the house?

Naaa, they'd just move in with the Amarals!

LOL! Isn't there already a show like that on TV where the husband and wife try, in each episode, to kill each other? Only this would be McCann vs Amaral, like the Pink Panther and Kato. I am not sure who would be pouncing out of cupboards onto whom but it gave me a funny visual (at my desk at work!)

zodiac wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Keela wrote:Let's say that Sofia agreed to a separation of assets. Presumably she would keep her half of the h ouse and the other half would belong to the McCanns. How would this work practically. Would they then be able to demand that Sofia sell the house?

Naaa, they'd just move in with the Amarals!

They could actually learn something about how to care for children and what family life is about if they did, but who would want a bunch of people sharing their home who leave half tins of beans in the fridge and carry soiled nappies and rotting meat in their car? The Amarals might also find they were left to babysit while the McCanns were having their. 'me time.'

I noticed that also!

A red line for 'who leave half tins of beans in the fridge' That's a touchy subject then!

zodiac wrote:

zodiac wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Keela wrote:Let's say that Sofia agreed to a separation of assets. Presumably she would keep her half of the h ouse and the other half would belong to the McCanns. How would this work practically. Would they then be able to demand that Sofia sell the house?

Naaa, they'd just move in with the Amarals!

They could actually learn something about how to care for children and what family life is about if they did, but who would want a bunch of people sharing their home who leave half tins of beans in the fridge and carry soiled nappies and rotting meat in their car? The Amarals might also find they were left to babysit while the McCanns were having their. 'me time.'

I noticed that also!

A red line for 'who leave half tins of beans in the fridge' That's a touchy subject then!

Well, I noticed that also! Who's getting touchy about tins of beans?

jimuck wrote:Will someone give marky a warning, because if nobody does, i will

only if you get resurrected as a mod small blonde handsome, only if you get resurrected as a mod.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Keela wrote:Let's say that Sofia agreed to a separation of assets. Presumably she would keep her half of the h ouse and the other half would belong to the McCanns. How would this work practically. Would they then be able to demand that Sofia sell the house?

Naaa, they'd just move in with the Amarals!

They could actually learn something about how to care for children and what family life is about if they did, but who would want a bunch of people sharing their home who leave half tins of beans in the fridge and carry soiled nappies and rotting meat in their car? The Amarals might also find they were left to babysit while the McCanns were having their. 'me time.'

No need for the Amaral's to babysit, the twins have been old enough to look after themselves and any younger children for over a year now.

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:

docmac wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

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.

trying to whip up trouble doc? the issue is between me and judge dread.

Issue!... This is beginning to sound more like a vendetta...

don't be so sensitive. it's an issue. nothing more.

What are you, Marky, a trainee WUM.

If there is an issue, (and personally, I don't see what it is), then it's an issue of your own making.

But fear not, I am here to help. You can resolve everything by following these 3 easy steps:

1. Let it go.
2. Stop behaving like a jerk.
3. Move on.

Simples…

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.

No, I do not think so. The Leicester police would have no grounds for attempting to corroborate a statement that, at that time, was connected to an existing case run by the PJ. A statement is a statement. She was not pressing charges against Payne, that required police action. It should have been passed to the PJ straight away.

Therefore, I doubt any delay would have been due to it being investigated.

DavidA 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.

No, I do not think so. The Leicester police would have no grounds for attempting to corroborate a statement that, at that time, was connected to an existing case run by the PJ. A statement is a statement. She was not pressing charges against Payne, that required police action. It should have been passed to the PJ straight away.

Therefore, I doubt any delay would have been due to it being investigated.

It should have been investigated on the UK, of course. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been passed on immediately. It should and it is. Just not in this case. Maybe 'Dear Stu' didn't find it relevant.

Claudia79 wrote:

DavidA 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.

No, I do not think so. The Leicester police would have no grounds for attempting to corroborate a statement that, at that time, was connected to an existing case run by the PJ. A statement is a statement. She was not pressing charges against Payne, that required police action. It should have been passed to the PJ straight away.

Therefore, I doubt any delay would have been due to it being investigated.

It should have been investigated on the UK, of course. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been passed on immediately. It should and it is. Just not in this case. Maybe 'Dear Stu' didn't find it relevant.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I do not think it would have been investigated in the UK based on that statement. The statement was clearly a description of perceived actions, with the purpose of being a character profile with regard to the Madeleine case.

The police need to follow a process to investigate, they are not private detectives. There were no charges brought, and it would appear no case was started against DP. The only way the police could start an investigation would have been to take another statement from her (that was not made in reference to the Madeleine case, which the UK police were not investigating directly) and would also have needed to take one from DP, at the very least. Or other allegations would have needed to be made to start the process.

Still, my opinion is that it should have been the basis for an investigation, with a follow up made taking a new statement from Dr Gasper and interviewing the parties. But I do not think hat happened.

DavidA wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

DavidA wrote:

Marky wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

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

has to be investigated first. that takes time.

No, I do not think so. The Leicester police would have no grounds for attempting to corroborate a statement that, at that time, was connected to an existing case run by the PJ. A statement is a statement. She was not pressing charges against Payne, that required police action. It should have been passed to the PJ straight away.

Therefore, I doubt any delay would have been due to it being investigated.

It should have been investigated on the UK, of course. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been passed on immediately. It should and it is. Just not in this case. Maybe 'Dear Stu' didn't find it relevant.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I do not think it would have been investigated in the UK based on that statement. The statement was clearly a description of perceived actions, with the purpose of being a character profile with regard to the Madeleine case.

The police need to follow a process to investigate, they are not private detectives. There were no charges brought, and it would appear no case was started against DP. The only way the police could start an investigation would have been to take another statement from her (that was not made in reference to the Madeleine case, which the UK police were not investigating directly) and would also have needed to take one from DP, at the very least. Or other allegations would have needed to be made to start the process.

Still, my opinion is that it should have been the basis for an investigation, with a follow up made taking a new statement from Dr Gasper and interviewing the parties. But I do not think hat happened.

Hi, David.
What I meant was that there could have been a few enquiries in the UK to see if there had been any similar incidents reported about him, any other suspicions, etc. But what I'm sure about is that the statement should have been passed on to the Portuguese Police right away. The fact that it took more than 5 months is unbelievable!

On the one hand, the McCanns are hygeinic enough to sanitize an entire apartment, wash tea stains from pyjamas and wash poor cuddle cat several times just because he had a bit of sun tan lotion on him. But then they go leaving soiled nappies and rotting chicken in the boot, and half-eaten tins of baked beans in the fridge. None of their behaviours are consistent and so the baked beans happen to be very relevant indeed! Red stripe me all you want, but it is those little details that paint the whole picture.

The Famous Grouse wrote:On the one hand, the McCanns are hygeinic enough to sanitize an entire apartment, wash tea stains from pyjamas and wash poor cuddle cat several times just because he had a bit of sun tan lotion on him. But then they go leaving soiled nappies and rotting chicken in the boot, and half-eaten tins of baked beans in the fridge. None of their behaviours are consistent and so the baked beans happen to be very relevant indeed! Red stripe me all you want, but it is those little details that paint the whole picture.

yes they do. just the one red stripe grouse. it's still morning.

Good point. Of course all the inconsistencies are relevant - together with the back filling they form the basis of quite a strong case in themselves.

From: The Truth of the Lie:

What more does Stuart need?

- I don't know what he needs. In any case, it was him who told us he had arrested people in England for a lot less.

Claudia79 wrote:............ But what I'm sure about is that the statement should have been passed on to the Portuguese Police right away. The fact that it took more than 5 months is unbelievable!

Yes, absolutely. It is curious what the reason for that might have been. Surely not bad organization.

DavidA wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:............ But what I'm sure about is that the statement should have been passed on to the Portuguese Police right away. The fact that it took more than 5 months is unbelievable!

Yes, absolutely. It is curious what the reason for that might have been. Surely not bad organization.

Surely not...

The Famous Grouse wrote:On the one hand, the McCanns are hygeinic enough to sanitize an entire apartment, wash tea stains from pyjamas and wash poor cuddle cat several times just because he had a bit of sun tan lotion on him. But then they go leaving soiled nappies and rotting chicken in the boot, and half-eaten tins of baked beans in the fridge. None of their behaviours are consistent and so the baked beans happen to be very relevant indeed! Red stripe me all you want, but it is those little details that paint the whole picture.

No, not consistent at all. Add to the the fact that has been mentioned many times before, who would want to wash the toy that was possibly one of the last things their 'missing' child touched.

To add to the oddness, is the amazing coincidence that they just happened to clean where the dogs suggested there could have been a body and blood, and they just happened to have these things in the boot where the samples were found.

I also remember reading, I think in 2007, that some people suggested that an abductor would be more likely to take the toy with the child, to keep the child calmer.

DavidA wrote:I also remember reading, I think in 2007, that some people suggested that an abductor would be more likely to take the toy with the child, to keep the child calmer. .

The toy would be the one thing the abductor would take, as to prise it from her would surely have woken her. If he took the blanket he would take the toy. i.m.o.


http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post544.html#p544
Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, completely uncovered, i.e. lying on top of the covers, with the soft toy and blanket, both pink, next to her head; he does not know if they were in the position that can be seen in the photograph attached to the files

The Famous Grouse wrote:On the one hand, the McCanns are hygeinic enough to sanitize an entire apartment, wash tea stains from pyjamas and wash poor cuddle cat several times just because he had a bit of sun tan lotion on him. But then they go leaving soiled nappies and rotting chicken in the boot, and half-eaten tins of baked beans in the fridge. None of their behaviours are consistent and so the baked beans happen to be very relevant indeed! Red stripe me all you want, but it is those little details that paint the whole picture.

TFG,


Rep point from me! Thank you to whoever ( ) gave me a rep point or points it has cancelled out half my red stripe!

zodiac wrote:

The Famous Grouse wrote:On the one hand, the McCanns are hygeinic enough to sanitize an entire apartment, wash tea stains from pyjamas and wash poor cuddle cat several times just because he had a bit of sun tan lotion on him. But then they go leaving soiled nappies and rotting chicken in the boot, and half-eaten tins of baked beans in the fridge. None of their behaviours are consistent and so the baked beans happen to be very relevant indeed! Red stripe me all you want, but it is those little details that paint the whole picture.

TFG,


Rep point from me! Thank you to whoever ( ) gave me a rep point or points it has cancelled out half my red stripe!

It was me! I hate unfairness! And that, imo, was unfair! I'll cancel out the other half now!

AnnaEsse wrote:I'll cancel out the other half now!

you can do that?

Marky wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:I'll cancel out the other half now!

you can do that?

Kind of, by giving some positive points to compensate.