McCanns v Amaral

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Annabel wrote:Witness list as provided by Blacksmith
Ed Smethurst
Emma Loach
Susan Hubbard
Susan Healy
Alan Pike
Patricia Cameron
Jim Gamble
Angus McBride
David Trickey
Dave Edgar
Michael Wright

Alípio Ribeiro
José Magalhães e Menezes
João Melchior Gomes
António Marinho e Pinto
Paulo Rebelo
José Barra da Costa

Wonder where Blacksmith got this list from? Is he a friend of the McCanns? Or is he a friend of Goncalo Amaral? Who is doing the leaking of information I wonder?

There you go, wondering again! Why not just ask the person who posted the information?

Because firstly I like mysteries and secondly I don't have access to Blacksmith unless he is on this forum in which case could he please tell us who is doing the leaking of information?

So, what do you expect to be the result of your wondering on this forum? We don't know. Can't you go wonder somewhere else? There are people who do much better speculation than we do here. Maybe they would help you with your wondering and love of mysteries, which we, obviously, can't help you with.

Almost every thread on the forum is full of speculation as to why people did or did not do things. Most of those speculations cannot be answered by people here. Its funny that only this particular speculation seems to get you so annoyed. This and the speculation about Amaral changing his lawyer of course.

[quote="Navigator"]

Colonel Fabien wrote:

dutchclogs wrote:

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.[/quote

Exactly, Why should he, DO the McCanns tell us every thing they are going to do, No they don't, only the things they want to SPIN[b]

So right. GA is under no obligation to keep us informed of everything he does. I'm sure he had good reasons to change his lawyer.

No harm in speculating though is there? Got to be a serious reason surely at that stage of a case. There would be a big difference for example if his lawyer effectively dismissed him rather than him dismissing his lawyer.

You are getting increasingly boring here. Please now accept that there is no one here who is going to give you the information you seek and please feel free to go elsewhere.

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Wonder where Blacksmith got this list from? Is he a friend of the McCanns? Or is he a friend of Goncalo Amaral? Who is doing the leaking of information I wonder?

There you go, wondering again! Why not just ask the person who posted the information?

Because firstly I like mysteries and secondly I don't have access to Blacksmith unless he is on this forum in which case could he please tell us who is doing the leaking of information?

So, what do you expect to be the result of your wondering on this forum? We don't know. Can't you go wonder somewhere else? There are people who do much better speculation than we do here. Maybe they would help you with your wondering and love of mysteries, which we, obviously, can't help you with.

Almost every thread on the forum is full of speculation as to why people did or did not do things. Most of those speculations cannot be answered by people here. Its funny that only this particular speculation seems to get you so annoyed.

I'm not annoyed. I don't get annoyed with trivia. Your posts are trivia. I have no worries about this. Yours is the worry, not mine. Try being a little bit more carefree about this, kind of sans_souci, if you like.

[quote="AnnaEsse"]

Navigator wrote:

Colonel Fabien wrote:

dutchclogs wrote:

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.[/quote

Exactly, Why should he, DO the McCanns tell us every thing they are going to do, No they don't, only the things they want to SPIN[b]

So right. GA is under no obligation to keep us informed of everything he does. I'm sure he had good reasons to change his lawyer.

No harm in speculating though is there? Got to be a serious reason surely at that stage of a case. There would be a big difference for example if his lawyer effectively dismissed him rather than him dismissing his lawyer.

You are getting increasingly boring here. Please now accept that there is no one here who is going to give you the information you seek and please feel free to go elsewhere.

OK so you are saying that any speculative question which cannot be answered by members should not be posted on this forum. Thats a very interesting stance considering all the questions which have been allowed before which nobody here could possibly answer.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

There you go, wondering again! Why not just ask the person who posted the information?

Because firstly I like mysteries and secondly I don't have access to Blacksmith unless he is on this forum in which case could he please tell us who is doing the leaking of information?

So, what do you expect to be the result of your wondering on this forum? We don't know. Can't you go wonder somewhere else? There are people who do much better speculation than we do here. Maybe they would help you with your wondering and love of mysteries, which we, obviously, can't help you with.

Almost every thread on the forum is full of speculation as to why people did or did not do things. Most of those speculations cannot be answered by people here. Its funny that only this particular speculation seems to get you so annoyed.

I'm not annoyed. I don't get annoyed with trivia. Your posts are trivia. I have no worries about this. Yours is the worry, not mine. Try being a little bit more carefree about this, kind of sans_souci, if you like.

So posts which consider the actual events which are taking place in Portugal in a real court case are just trivia. Another interesting stance.

Are you saying people people should not be interested in the fact that Amarals lawyer apparently refused to continue with the case? Is that not of importance?

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Because firstly I like mysteries and secondly I don't have access to Blacksmith unless he is on this forum in which case could he please tell us who is doing the leaking of information?

So, what do you expect to be the result of your wondering on this forum? We don't know. Can't you go wonder somewhere else? There are people who do much better speculation than we do here. Maybe they would help you with your wondering and love of mysteries, which we, obviously, can't help you with.

Almost every thread on the forum is full of speculation as to why people did or did not do things. Most of those speculations cannot be answered by people here. Its funny that only this particular speculation seems to get you so annoyed.

I'm not annoyed. I don't get annoyed with trivia. Your posts are trivia. I have no worries about this. Yours is the worry, not mine. Try being a little bit more carefree about this, kind of sans_souci, if you like.

So posts which consider the actual events which are taking place in Portugal in a real court case are just trivia. Another interesting stance.

Are you saying people people should not be interested in the fact that Amarals lawyer apparently refused to continue with the case? Is that not of importance?

I'm not saying anything other than we will have to wait and see and that you are increasingly boring, not annoying, just boring. Now, please move along and go back to the cesspit you came from.

Navigator, you're entertaining me.
As I told you before, I know a group of people who are as dying to know as you are. I think all will be disappointed, but that's just my opinion.
Oh, and no, not a secret. And no, not only few people know. If it was a secret, you wouldn't be here asking about it because you wouldn't know.

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Because firstly I like mysteries and secondly I don't have access to Blacksmith unless he is on this forum in which case could he please tell us who is doing the leaking of information?

So, what do you expect to be the result of your wondering on this forum? We don't know. Can't you go wonder somewhere else? There are people who do much better speculation than we do here. Maybe they would help you with your wondering and love of mysteries, which we, obviously, can't help you with.

Almost every thread on the forum is full of speculation as to why people did or did not do things. Most of those speculations cannot be answered by people here. Its funny that only this particular speculation seems to get you so annoyed.

I'm not annoyed. I don't get annoyed with trivia. Your posts are trivia. I have no worries about this. Yours is the worry, not mine. Try being a little bit more carefree about this, kind of sans_souci, if you like.

So posts which consider the actual events which are taking place in Portugal in a real court case are just trivia. Another interesting stance.

Are you saying people people should not be interested in the fact that Amarals lawyer apparently refused to continue with the case? Is that not of importance?

Really? And where did you get that from?

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

So, what do you expect to be the result of your wondering on this forum? We don't know. Can't you go wonder somewhere else? There are people who do much better speculation than we do here. Maybe they would help you with your wondering and love of mysteries, which we, obviously, can't help you with.

Almost every thread on the forum is full of speculation as to why people did or did not do things. Most of those speculations cannot be answered by people here. Its funny that only this particular speculation seems to get you so annoyed.

I'm not annoyed. I don't get annoyed with trivia. Your posts are trivia. I have no worries about this. Yours is the worry, not mine. Try being a little bit more carefree about this, kind of sans_souci, if you like.

So posts which consider the actual events which are taking place in Portugal in a real court case are just trivia. Another interesting stance.

Are you saying people people should not be interested in the fact that Amarals lawyer apparently refused to continue with the case? Is that not of importance?

I'm not saying anything other than we will have to wait and see and that you are increasingly boring, not annoying, just boring. Now, please move along and go back to the cesspit you came from.

I came from no cesspit. I am not the person you clearly think I am.

All I am doing is trying to get to the actual truth about this aspect of the McCann case. I want the whole truth to be revealed. What the McCanns did of course and what others have done and are doing. I don't want a one-sided truth no matter which side its from. If we can speculate about what, when, who, where etc regarding the McCanns then its fair to do it regarding everyone in the case isn't it?

Navigator:Are you saying people people should not be interested in the fact that Amarals lawyer apparently refused to continue with the case? Is that not of importance?


So you already know the answer then?
So it's not a secret then, is it?
So why are you speculating and wondering?

Claudia79 wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

So, what do you expect to be the result of your wondering on this forum? We don't know. Can't you go wonder somewhere else? There are people who do much better speculation than we do here. Maybe they would help you with your wondering and love of mysteries, which we, obviously, can't help you with.

Almost every thread on the forum is full of speculation as to why people did or did not do things. Most of those speculations cannot be answered by people here. Its funny that only this particular speculation seems to get you so annoyed.

I'm not annoyed. I don't get annoyed with trivia. Your posts are trivia. I have no worries about this. Yours is the worry, not mine. Try being a little bit more carefree about this, kind of sans_souci, if you like.

So posts which consider the actual events which are taking place in Portugal in a real court case are just trivia. Another interesting stance.

Are you saying people people should not be interested in the fact that Amarals lawyer apparently refused to continue with the case? Is that not of importance?

Really? And where did you get that from?

I qualified it by "apparently". And like most other truth seekers I got it from the internet.

Now you on the other hand "apparently" have a direct link to the real information but instead of quashing rumours once and for all you enjoy keeping your little secrets. Can you explain how naming the new lawyer can damage the case? Can you explain how telling us why Amaral got rid of his lawyer (as you clearly imply was the case by your question and use of smiley) will damage the case? Surely all that matters is that he has a new lawyer now as you claim and the case is continuing apace. Answering those questions doesn't as I see it affect the way the case is pursued.

almostgothic wrote:Navigator:Are you saying people people should not be interested in the fact that Amarals lawyer apparently refused to continue with the case? Is that not of importance?


So you already know the answer then?
So it's not a secret then, is it?
So why are you speculating and wondering?

Where did I say I knew the answers? I don't thats why I am speculating.

Who is the new lawyer?
Why did Cabrita withdraw or Amaral dismiss him?

How does knowing the answers to those questions make it more difficult for Amaral to answer the case in court?
The name of this new lawyer Claudia says he has will have to become public knowledge sooner or later won't it?

Navigator wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Navigator:Are you saying people people should not be interested in the fact that Amarals lawyer apparently refused to continue with the case? Is that not of importance?


So you already know the answer then?
So it's not a secret then, is it?
So why are you speculating and wondering?

Where did I say I knew the answers? I don't thats why I am speculating.

Who is the new lawyer?
Why did Cabrita withdraw or Amaral dismiss him?

How does knowing the answers to those questions make it more difficult for Amaral to answer the case in court?
The name of this new lawyer Claudia says he has will have to become public knowledge sooner or later won't it?

And where is fancy bred?

Navigator wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Navigator wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Almost every thread on the forum is full of speculation as to why people did or did not do things. Most of those speculations cannot be answered by people here. Its funny that only this particular speculation seems to get you so annoyed.

I'm not annoyed. I don't get annoyed with trivia. Your posts are trivia. I have no worries about this. Yours is the worry, not mine. Try being a little bit more carefree about this, kind of sans_souci, if you like.

So posts which consider the actual events which are taking place in Portugal in a real court case are just trivia. Another interesting stance.

Are you saying people people should not be interested in the fact that Amarals lawyer apparently refused to continue with the case? Is that not of importance?

Really? And where did you get that from?

I qualified it by "apparently". And like most other truth seekers I got it from the internet.

Now you on the other hand "apparently" have a direct link to the real information but instead of quashing rumours once and for all you enjoy keeping your little secrets. Can you explain how naming the new lawyer can damage the case? Can you explain how telling us why Amaral got rid of his lawyer (as you clearly imply was the case by your question and use of smiley) will damage the case? Surely all that matters is that he has a new lawyer now as you claim and the case is continuing apace. Answering those questions doesn't as I see it affect the way the case is pursued.

Did you get it from the same internet place where it said the trial had been postponed because Cabrita had dumped GA, he had no lawyer and so begged the courts to postpone the trial?
I do not have to squash any rumours. I only do so when I can and when I am sure I am allowed to. Sometimes I can't and sometimes I'm not sure if I'm allowed to or not. And no, nowhere did I say that GA 'got rid' of his lawyer. That is you speculating. You can ask the questions you like. What you can't do is force people answer them so squirm all you like. You'll soon find out anyway.

Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

Navigator wrote:Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

I guess we'd just have to wait and see. Be patient. Go have a little lie down and calm those frazzled nerves of yours.

Navigator wrote:Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

That happened already. Rogério Alves stopped representing the McCanns. So?
I know very little, Navigator. You would be disappointed, really. But that doesn't mean that the very little I know I would share with you, does it? After all, I'm pretty sure anything I'd share with you, would end up in one of the cesspits in 30 seconds. In fact, that's a good idea. One of these days I might try it. But only when my imagination is running wild.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

I guess we'd just have to wait and see. Be patient. Go have a little lie down and calm those frazzled nerves of yours.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

I guess we'd just have to wait and see. Be patient. Go have a little lie down and calm those frazzled nerves of yours.

Try:- http://www.mysterynet.com/

Phew - all that fishing and not one bite.

Try another river ......

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

I guess we'd just have to wait and see. Be patient. Go have a little lie down and calm those frazzled nerves of yours.

Not a clue what your earlier reference to fancy bred means.

Nor do I understand why you are referring to frazzled nerves. Or are you just being deliberately rude by that?
From the smiley added by your co-mod I suspect deliberate rudeness. Shame because those who want to find the truth won't find it by avoiding the difficult questions.

My nerves are not frazzled at all. Why should they be? I have no secrets to hide and spin around. I am just asking questions.

Claudia79 wrote:

Navigator wrote:Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

That happened already. Rogério Alves stopped representing the McCanns. So?
I know very little, Navigator. You would be disappointed, really. But that doesn't mean that the very little I know I would share with you, does it? After all, I'm pretty sure anything I'd share with you, would end up in one of the cesspits in 30 seconds. In fact, that's a good idea. One of these days I might try it. But only when my imagination is running wild.

Are you saying Alves and Duarte switched places just days before a hearing?

And your reference to sharing with me is interesting. Am I the only person here on this forum? Or does keeping your secrets from other members not matter? Are they just not bothered?

NoStone wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

I guess we'd just have to wait and see. Be patient. Go have a little lie down and calm those frazzled nerves of yours.

Try:- http://www.mysterynet.com/

So you think those who ask questions to get to the truth in this case are wrong to do so. What an interesting stance.

Are you really suggesting that there would not be a massive thread as I suggested? Or are you avoiding answering that question?

Navigator wrote:

NoStone wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

I guess we'd just have to wait and see. Be patient. Go have a little lie down and calm those frazzled nerves of yours.

Try:- http://www.mysterynet.com/

So you think those who ask questions to get to the truth in this case are wrong to do so. What an interesting stance.

Are you really suggesting that there would not be a massive thread as I suggested? Or are you avoiding answering that question?

OK, we're all avoiding answering questions and no one is interested in getting to the truth.

Now, please go have a read of a few other threads and try contributing.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

NoStone wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:Lets say the shoe was on the other foot and Isabel Duarte had suddenly parted company with the McCanns this week.

Would that not be the cause for massive speculation here? Would you not be looking to find the actual answers as to why it happened and wanting them published as soon as possible?

Well thats all I am doing here now about the other equal partner in the case. And its even odder because we have somebody here who claims she knows the answers but wont tell people. How would that go down if the shoe was on the other foot?

I guess we'd just have to wait and see. Be patient. Go have a little lie down and calm those frazzled nerves of yours.

Try:- http://www.mysterynet.com/

So you think those who ask questions to get to the truth in this case are wrong to do so. What an interesting stance.

Are you really suggesting that there would not be a massive thread as I suggested? Or are you avoiding answering that question?

OK, we're all avoiding answering questions and no one is interested in getting to the truth.

Now, please go have a read of a few other threads and try contributing.

I am doing just that and seeing how much speculation is normal there. Funny its not accepted on this thread.