Is this part of the alluding to "lots of things we havn't said"

http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/uk/2011/03/05/duke_to_cut_ties_with_paedophile

Did they got to know from whispers on the grapevine about this or rumours of it and threw it into the court when it started to go wrong. I could imagine that it would require a lot of high level sources to be involved with keeping it quiet i.e. Gordon Brown MI5 etc.

Andrew it seems has been forced to cut ties with his paedophile friend because
it has been exposed, what kind of person I ask myself would want to be friends
with a paedophile!

I can understand that someone might be friends with someone not knowing their background, but to then continue the friendship knowing he was a convicted paedophile, i would find a bit odd. jimo

If what they were holding back was info about high profile figures like Prince Andrew, then the sooner it all comes out, the sooner they've lost what they may be thinking are trump cards.

bill516 wrote:http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/uk/2011/03/05/duke_to_cut_ties_with_paedophile

Did they got to know from whispers on the grapevine about this or rumours of it and threw it into the court when it started to go wrong. I could imagine that it would require a lot of high level sources to be involved with keeping it quiet i.e. Gordon Brown MI5 etc.

and what has this to do with the maddie case, absolutely nothing whatsoever, so why are you linking it to amaral saying there are things i havent said yet?

hiya Cherryblossom, i could be quite wrong but i dont think Bill is linking this to anything Dr Amaral said, he is linking it to what G McC said about there being things they hadnt said yet. Anything to do with a paedophile is automatically linked to the Madeleine McCann case because it is alleged her father said that she had been taken by paedophiles, so for me however tenuous the link is there. jimo

tanszi wrote:hiya Cherryblossom, i could be quite wrong but i dont think Bill is linking this to anything Dr Amaral said, he is linking it to what G McC said about there being things they hadnt said yet. Anything to do with a paedophile is automatically linked to the Madeleine McCann case because it is alleged her father said that she had been taken by paedophiles, so for me however tenuous the link is there. jimo

Maybe it's me getting it wrong but I was sure it was always mr amaral saying there are things he hasn't said, i've never seen a reference to the mccanns saying that

cherryblossom wrote:

tanszi wrote:hiya Cherryblossom, i could be quite wrong but i dont think Bill is linking this to anything Dr Amaral said, he is linking it to what G McC said about there being things they hadnt said yet. Anything to do with a paedophile is automatically linked to the Madeleine McCann case because it is alleged her father said that she had been taken by paedophiles, so for me however tenuous the link is there. jimo

Maybe it's me getting it wrong but I was sure it was always mr amaral saying there are things he hasn't said, i've never seen a reference to the mccanns saying that

Allegations made by the former PJ inspector are considered to be defamatory

by Cláudia Lima da Costa /HB
16-05-2009 20: 12

The parents of Madeleine McCann, the little English girl that disappeared in the Algarve on the 3rd of May 2007, have announced that they are going to sue former Polícia Judiciária (PJ) inspector Gonçalo Amaral for defamation. The former police inspector, who was responsible for the investigation into the child's disappearance, has already reacted to the news and says that "there are things that I haven't said yet, that I can prove in court".

The information was advanced by the BBC, citing the couple's spokesperson, who said that this legal action was prompted by "entirely unfounded and grossly defamatory claims".

"We - together with our three children Madeleine, Sean and Amelie - are taking this legal action against Gonçalo Amaral over his entirely unfounded and grossly defamatory claims".

Gonçalo Amaral reacted to the couple's spokesperson's statements and told TVI that he is a "tranquil man" and that he receives the news "calmly". The former PJ inspector says that the "situation was awaited," especially after the broadcast of the documentary, that was produced by the couple, and the interview with Oprah didn't achieve "the desired effect".

"There are things that I haven't said yet"Gonçalo Amaral further stated that he trusts the Portuguese Justice and that he has "no doubts" that the process will be reopened. "Let's go to court! That is a way to reopen the process," he said in a statement to tvi24.pt, alleging that there are still diligences to be made and that he has "the right" to defend himself.

The former inspector has not been officially notified of the decision, but he reacts indignantly: "This is an intimidation attempt that could backfire for them, because there are things that I haven't said yet, things that I can prove in court," he said.

this could be one of the things Amaral hasn't said yet but linking it with the royals would have not great consequences for him, much more dangerous than statement he could make about McCanns and their party which is what I think he was getting at.

Gerry did say there were things they knew and weren't saying and "we know how to keep quiet" and presumably, how NOT to - well, we know they know how NOT to, they've thrown everyone into the frame but great aunt bessie and have had their go at the government, the police and all.

I would take it as more of a threat given McCanns attempt to get info about the investigation since the time they made Maddie a WoC summer of 2007, until recently, that they may know or have info about pedophiles in high places that they could talk about if they wanted to. And would like to have more of that kind of info pressing to have all the "leads" even if those are just names of pedophiles they can then harrass and accuse and have their team investigate - possibly in order to prod or humiliate the government into doing something.

I don't know that this man approaching underaged girls would qualify as a pedophile "as such", again this is the pedo/statuatory rape scenario - approaching an underage girl for sex seems to indicate that she is at least of an age to be approached as such, possibly a sex worker or teenaged prostitute which sadly abound in NYC and other large cities, someone that wasn't 18 - so not an adult. It's bad but doesn't put him in the category of someone who would attack a toddler.

very young inexperienced teenage girls seems likely to me...but it is the sex industry...the royals ..dont really think so but ' in the same circle of friends' who knows..

widowan wrote:I don't know that this man approaching underaged girls would qualify as a pedophile "as such", again this is the pedo/statuatory rape scenario - approaching an underage girl for sex seems to indicate that she is at least of an age to be approached as such, possibly a sex worker or teenaged prostitute which sadly abound in NYC and other large cities, someone that wasn't 18 - so not an adult. It's bad but doesn't put him in the category of someone who would attack a toddler.

a rational assessment of this story.