What the papers say - Amaral V McCanns trial

"Over the last two days, we've heard a lot about Mr Amaral's thesis that Madeleine is dead," he said. "And I also hope you've heard that there is absolutely no evidence to support that thesis. A thesis without evidence is meaningless and that is what we are challenging."
It was the second time Mr McCann, 41, from Rothley, has spoken to reporters outside the court.


So using his own argument there is also no evidence that madeleine was abducted therefore his claims of abduction are meaningless.

He has admitted there is evidence as has the pink princess by coming up with innocent explanations for what was found.
If there was no evidence why would they need to come up with innocent explanations?

So his argument that there is no evidence to induicate serious harm has befallen Madelien is also a lie. There are indications that harm has befallen her ( cadaverine and blood in the car , apartment, clothing )

The trouble with telling lies is trying to remember what lie you told to whom and when and what about.
And when you tell a lie you then have to back it up with further lies all needing their own back up lies resulting in a tangled web of deceit and for each person invlolved you have to double and treble the lies and then it all falls apart with just one tweak of the truth.
With the truth it will stand alone and up to any and all scrutiny and no matter how much you try to break it or change it it cannot be altered, it is a fact and unchangeable. It was, it is and always will be whereas a lie is like smoke empty and easily blown away

MaryB wrote:Why is my name appearing next to this topic when I never started it.

I think that one of the mods maybe changed the title on a thread that you did start, Mary.

it may be hard to dispute the actual wording of one article but when the media are all writing the exact same quote and showing the same tv clips it is very hard to dispute what was said.
their only recourse would be it was taken out of context or they were under pressure and slipped up. none of which would stand up to scrutiny in court.
Once you say something in front of another person it cannot be unsaid and when you say it in front of the press then the whole world will see what you said.and they have never demanded the papers print an apology for printing an untruth regarding that statement.
Once again kate opens mouth before engaging brain, no wonder gerry doesn't like leaving her alone.he is terrified that she will drop them right in it

Well it looks like someone did not like that story, nowhere to be found in the Mail

http://www.the3arguidos.info/topic3590.html

Spin, spin, spin

I like the use of the word "slurs" to describe evidence given in court.

As for "my little maddie", really give me a break. It has nothing to do with Maddie and everything to do with money and reputation.

the only problem is that they seem to have been hoist by their own petard as the saying goes.

There was a lot of things in those files the McCanns didn't like. Well at least the files can't be whooshed clucked. Even less so now after the court reports of the proceedings. At last a bit of truth.

hobnob wrote:"Over the last two days, we've heard a lot about Mr Amaral's thesis that Madeleine is dead," he said. "And I also hope you've heard that there is absolutely no evidence to support that thesis. A thesis without evidence is meaningless and that is what we are challenging."
It was the second time Mr McCann, 41, from Rothley, has spoken to reporters outside the court.


So using his own argument there is also no evidence that madeleine was abducted therefore his claims of abduction are meaningless.

He has admitted there is evidence as has the pink princess by coming up with innocent explanations for what was found.
If there was no evidence why would they need to come up with innocent explanations?

So his argument that there is no evidence to induicate serious harm has befallen Madelien is also a lie. There are indications that harm has befallen her ( cadaverine and blood in the car , apartment, clothing )

The trouble with telling lies is trying to remember what lie you told to whom and when and what about.
And when you tell a lie you then have to back it up with further lies all needing their own back up lies resulting in a tangled web of deceit and for each person invlolved you have to double and treble the lies and then it all falls apart with just one tweak of the truth.
With the truth it will stand alone and up to any and all scrutiny and no matter how much you try to break it or change it it cannot be altered, it is a fact and unchangeable. It was, it is and always will be whereas a lie is like smoke empty and easily blown away

Very good post
It started with the patiodoors (closed, open) and the window.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

MaryB wrote:Why is my name appearing next to this topic when I never started it.

I think that one of the mods maybe changed the title on a thread that you did start, Mary.

Thanks Grouse. I am getting paranoid. It must be catching!!

So there is no evidence that madeleine has come to any harm,so where is she then kate,oooops you dont know do you,or is part of the fantasy still the belief that shes being treated like a princess?

The very fact that she isnt around means she came to HARM that night,she was left in HARMS way by being LEFT ALONE night after night,the only question is,by whos hand did she come to HARM.

And as for the trauma of having to put up with hearing about GAs book for the next few years,spare a thought(if you can concede that there are other people on this planet besides yourselves) for us poor mortals who have listened to team mccanns tripe for the last 3 years.

After the fiasco of the last three days it was obvious that 'they' would be spinning in top gear again and it will no doubt carry on until the next court appearance February 10th. What these people do not seem to realize is the complete waste of time, effort and money this PR/gagging campaign represents. The events in Lisbon effectively destroyed all their efforts of the last two and a half years and so it will continue as each court case is reported and more and more people become aware that the only person actively trying to find out the truth about Madeleine's disappearance is Dr. Amaral.

I WILL FACE THESE SLURS IF IT HELPS GET A million.

steve1295 wrote:I WILL FACE THESE SLURS IF IT HELPS GET A million.

The fund will run dry before and if they get a penny from Mr Amaral. Who is going to pay their legal fees then.

steve1295 wrote:I WILL FACE THESE SLURS IF IT HELPS GET A million.

Thats more like it.

suzyone wrote:Spin, spin, spin

I like the use of the word "slurs" to describe evidence given in court.

As for "my little maddie", really give me a break. It has nothing to do with Maddie and everything to do with money and reputation.

the only problem is that they seem to have been hoist by their own petard as the saying goes.

Exactly! I've noticed a tendency within the British press to describe everything that isn't pro-McCann as 'slurs'. Too bad that everything that was said in court is also in the official police files and cannot in any way be described as slurs. OTOH, there have been many slurs aimed by Team McCann and the British press at Mr Amaral and the PJ in general.

And if Kate McCann wants to help Madeleine, she can go back to Portugal and cooperate with the police by answering the 48 questions she left unanswered and by insisting to her friends that they must all offer to go back for a full reconstruction. Until she does these things she won't be taken seriously as wanting to help her 'little Maddie'.

The court case did more than I think even most of us hoped it would. It laid bare many of the facts that Team McCann, aided by the British media, have sat on for a long time now. The contents of the official case files should have been made known to the general public in the UK by the media, since this case has had a high media profile (thanks to the McCanns) since day 1. It is an utter disgrace that most people in the UK didn't seem to be aware the case files existed, let alone what was in them. What is the point of having media, particularly the press, who take a disgracefully biased view in a criminal matter, ie the disappearance of a child. Their meddling in the case and their grossly offensive attitude to the Portuguese police may have had a detrimental effect in various ways; if so, and if their refusal to look at the case dispassionately has in any way hampered getting truth and justice for Madeleine, then that is unforgivable.

I hope when the truth about Madeleine's disappearance comes out we will see the dishonourable and discredited people who call themselves journalists hang their heads in shame. They'll probably come out with some nonsense about having been fooled or they knew all along but couldn't say anything, but it won't wash. They refuse to do their job, leaving others to do it for them.

Back to Kate McCann - why isn't she demanding (they're good at demanding) that this case be reopened? What mother wouldn't want the case of her missing daughter to be reopened, so that all possible explanations of the child's disappearance could be examined? Their silence on this matter has always spoken volumes and after the disclosures in the courtroom this week many people may have a better idea why.

After the last three days can't see how anybody can take them seriously. Being there for Madeleine. What tosh. They should have been there for their daughter in May 2007. And if they want to believe in abduction then they can. But don't force that belief on other people. Let them think for themselves. Because there is no evidence of abduction. So abduction remains a thesis. And even Gerry McCann told us theses were meaningless.

Twobitz wrote:So there is no evidence that madeleine has come to any harm,so where is she then kate,oooops you dont know do you,or is part of the fantasy still the belief that shes being treated like a princess?

The very fact that she isnt around means she came to HARM that night,she was left in HARMS way by being LEFT ALONE night after night,the only question is,by whos hand did she come to HARM.

And as for the trauma of having to put up with hearing about GAs book for the next few years,spare a thought(if you can concede that there are other people on this planet besides yourselves) for us poor mortals who have listened to team mccanns tripe for the last 3 years.

"by whose hand did she come to harm" I have seen that hand countless times. In interviews when it is not being firmly clamped by loving hubby it - all by itself, and especially in the panorama interview - describes the hideous, ghastly moment when it struck at something with full force. That moment is so etched in the mind of its owner that it plays endlessly through her tortured mind. What a memory to live with every day for the rest of your life. What a thing to wake up to every morning and carry with you for the rest of the day. What a living nightmare and how it shows. All this imo.

The McCanns without doubt are proberly the most unlikeable people i've seen.For two plus years they've blundered through peoples lives ,people who are nothing to do with this have had their names and photographs plastered over the media,on the excuse they might be involved in a Madeleines vanishing,they have laid blame on anyone and everyone ,who have had the misfortune to have crossed their path.Amaral had a career before these two appeared in his life and who now seem hell bent on destroying him.Well good doctors even if we humour you and consider an abduction,at the end of the day twist it how you will the buck stops with you.You who were ultimately responsible for the care of your children,and it was you who failed them.Not Amaral not the PJ not the British police ,it was you.Rant over for this week.

i have just skimmed vanessa allen article about katy mac.. i have always wondered why the the journo's bother to write such sympathetic articles about the mcannas...i am certain they dont actually believe in the macs fairy storys and we all know they are not allowed to write anything anti- mcann, but why don't they choose to be less gushing....? i think todays newpapers reports are going to get right up peoples noses...how much longe are they going to carry on treating us like fools..
very annoyed today with our newspapers.... some rotten tomotoes needs throwing at the editors or whoever....

Really lovely picture that, Kate, Fiona and I presume the top notch lawyer. Although I have to say that they look as though they are going in to audition for parts in Macbeth ( the three witches spring to mind!!).

theyre just all so ugly - and with very thin lips especially gerrys which looks like a cats arse....normally a sign of being mean and mercenary.

oliver wrote:theyre just all so ugly - and with very thin lips especially gerrys which looks like a cats arse....normally a sign of being mean and mercenary.

Hey you!!! leave cats' arses out of it. I'll have you know my cat has a nice arse

In my view, this is an empty threat. The E Convention H R, and the Portuguese Constitution, do not guarantee an unrestricted right to freedom of expression.

_________

ARTICLE 10
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
___________

The E Court H R is an independent recourse to provide a remedy against state interference in the fundamental rights of a citizen. It is not an appeal court if the result of a civil action is not to your liking, and in my view the council would not allow it to be used as such.

In essence, Amaral wrote a book making certain accusations. The McCanns did not like it and have brought a libel action against him. This is being played out in court, in terms of the injunction and the libel case itself. The court will decide whether the book / documentary etc are libellous or not and pass judgement accordingly. Both sides will have the right to appeal to the supreme court in due course. .

I interpret it this way. Mr Amaral wrote a book about the inevestigation. So he may be entitled to do that or he may not be. We shall have to wait and see. But the point is if Mr Amaral isn't allowed to express the theories the police held, then neither should the McCanns have a public platform to be allowed to express the theories they hold. Because a theory or thesis (note word) without evidence is meaningless. And no evidence of abduction. I also read they could be 10 years clearing their name. So they're not expecting any swarthy abductor to come forward or Madeleine to be found. Why should it take 10 years to clear their name when according to them Madeleine is findable. And if Mr Amaral's book contains the facts of the police investigation how can it be libellous. Doesn't libel have to be untruths.

Well said

This doesn't appear online and I only read it tonight.

I think the Mercury's reporting is not only shameful it is reprehensible.