IF AMARAL LOSES HIS RIGHT

We just have to hope and pray the Goncalo Amaral gets Justice.

It will be a big blow if they win. I for one will be gutted

I will probably take to me bed

What we have to worry about is that the young woman judge's father and other senior members of the judiciary have not taken her aside to explain that they have done a deal with the British Government to make sure that she bans the book.

I bet Amaral has far more information than he has revealed. I do not believe that all the paedophile-watchers have not sent him reams of information for his perusal. He probably knew about the Holly Greig case was about to be uncovered well before anyof us did. I would imagine he is kept well- abreast of all our filth here in the UK.

margaret wrote:

Lilemor wrote:Do you think that Dr. Amaral does know much more than he is allowed to let out????

Yes. And I also believe there is stuff that isn't even in the files.

Didn't the Mcs have extra pages that weren't in the files??

The extra pages were the names and adresses of paedophiles, and their statements/alibis, it was kept from the dvd because of fear of vigilante attacks, Clarence the pink ponce, of course repeated a lot of it to the media.

fred wrote:
The extra pages were the names and adresses of paedophiles, and their statements/alibis, it was kept from the dvd because of fear of vigilante attacks, Clarence the pink ponce, of course repeated a lot of it to the media.

aaaah 'he who lies with as many teeth in his mouth'..... no l still think there is stuff WE haven't heard yet, not sure if the Mcs have ALL that info though

Jem wrote:What we have to worry about is that the young woman judge's father and other senior members of the judiciary have not taken her aside to explain that they have done a deal with the British Government to make sure that she bans the book.

We are of like mind, Jem.

Estelle

The McCanns are flying back to Portugal tomorrow. Can you believe this? What are they trying to prove here? Coz I think they are just digging themselves a big deep hole that their extradition lawyers may not be able to haul them out of.

lea wrote:I hope people on here and other forums wont lose faith in this case if amaral loses and keep on digging and fighting for justice for maddie,
im so proud of every body on here and other forums for their hard work on trying to find the truth and getting justice for this little girl,
its been nearly 3 years and still we are here,
hope amaral keeps on fighting if he loses,
not long to wait now,lets hope that great man gets what he deserves,
justice for a little angel with no voice.
i have had a few glasses of wine and i always get upset about maddie when ive had a drink,
but i will never give up on her like the rest of you on here,
ive been following this case for nearly 3 years and wont give up till maddie gets the justice she deserves.

Well said :Applaud:And I am here to the the bitter end

im not going anywhere!!!

I am sending all good thoughts to Mr Amaral I hope to see justice for Madeleine. I was shocked when the case was archived, so I am prepared for any result. The one thing I have learnt from all of this very sad saga is to expect anything from the McCanns, Just when you think they couldn't stoop any lower some how they always do.

Yes, this trial is interesting, but even if Goncalo Amaral loses this appeal, it is the libel trial I am looking forward to. Now from what I can gather (perhaps our PT friends can confirm this), the onus is not on Goncalo having to prove he did not commit libel, like it is in the UK, the onus is on the McCann's that they have been libelled.

Now for the McCann's to prove an abduction, enter Jane Tanner who saw the abductor, Jane's story has changed so much, from identifying Muart to not being sure, even to where Gerry was standing. Oh it should be fun to watch her cross-examined.

Now if I was a defence lawyer, I would consider showing the documentary where Jane gives into Gerry about where he and Jez were standing. If Jane was confident in her statement they were on the other side of the road, why did she allow Gerry to say he was on a different side of the road. You see line of sight is changed for both him and Jez Wilkins.

Surely if Jane is 100% confident in her statement to where they were standing she would not have bowed down to Gerry, so that leaves me with the impression she was not sure, so if she was not sure where they were standing, can it also be said that she is not sure if the man was carrying a child or not.

You know by Jane backing down and not saying "look Gerry, I know what I saw and you were not on that side of the road" can lead to her statement as not being credible.

ETA

As far as I can see (thanks to T4Two who explained it), even if the McCann's decide to pull out of the libel trial and stop everything in Portugal they are then faced with costs, the costs of Goncalo, the Publishers and Film makers. Oh yes they have got to go the whole way now and pray they win, otherwise they could be face with paying a hefty legal bill plus the publishers could ask for costs of lose of earnings from the book. The opened "Pandora's box" good and proper. Interesting times ahead I think.

Let us see if we (and Dr. Amaral) will be confronted with a huge wall of cover up in the court rooms...

I hope that Dr. Amaral is a honest human, really.

Regarding the saintly couple I have still conceived my own opinion...
(A long time ago and it has been very easy)

I too am absolutely convinced that Mr Amaral knows more than he has let on; same as I believe the McCanns themselves know shedloads more than they have let out.

The important stuff is that which cannot be written down in words, it's the daily talking and pondering and discussing within the police station walls. All those parts of life where perceptions are formed, pieces of the jigsaw placed in the only places they'll fit, those moments where a thought turns to a suspicion, evidence is sifted, and a reasoned onclusion is reached. Oh to have been a fly on the wall as new snippets of information came in. And even more to have been present after the McCanns left - what must have passed between those Portuguese investigators as they mulled over the texting and the loillipop sucking and all that weird behaviour?

This business has legs. It'll run and run and run.

Even if the judgement from today's concluding evidence goes against Mr Amaral the McCanns still have a struggle ahead. There is still the uncomforatble fact that Mr Amaral is still there, so are his colleagues that still have the files, still have the memories, and are still stung by what must feel like a very public failure.

I have occasionally wondered if Mr Amaral's retirement was at least partially a move to allow his voice to be heard; much easier for a private citizen to speak up than a serving officer.

Shame there's no live tweeting, all hatches are obviously battened down. All this Carter-Rucking of articles and blogs and courtrooms is costing someone an absolute bomb. One has to wonder at the financial might being wielded - surely all this is beyond the generosity of a single businessman, surely it's beyond the fund?

Where has it been said there will be no live twittering?

amethyst wrote:Where has it been said there will be no live twittering?

To my knowledge - nowhere. Just the usual pesamistic view that some posters hold.

jassi wrote:

amethyst wrote:Where has it been said there will be no live twittering?

To my knowledge - nowhere. Just the usual pesamistic view that some posters hold.

ok thanks, will have to wait and see - i would have thought sky would definitely report on it

for ref. the twitter pages of the two people that reported last time

http://twitter.com/fduartecarvalho

http://twitter.com/jondipaolo

Well i will just have to stick to Jondi as Freddy speaks Portuguese

and unfortunately
I only speak hirdu

Just kiddin

Bren wrote:Yes, this trial is interesting, but even if Goncalo Amaral loses this appeal, it is the libel trial I am looking forward to. Now from what I can gather (perhaps our PT friends can confirm this), the onus is not on Goncalo having to prove he did not commit libel, like it is in the UK, the onus is on the McCann's that they have been libelled.

Now for the McCann's to prove an abduction, enter Jane Tanner who saw the abductor, Jane's story has changed so much, from identifying Muart to not being sure, even to where Gerry was standing. Oh it should be fun to watch her cross-examined.

Now if I was a defence lawyer, I would consider showing the documentary where Jane gives into Gerry about where he and Jez were standing. If Jane was confident in her statement they were on the other side of the road, why did she allow Gerry to say he was on a different side of the road. You see line of sight is changed for both him and Jez Wilkins.

Surely if Jane is 100% confident in her statement to where they were standing she would not have bowed down to Gerry, so that leaves me with the impression she was not sure, so if she was not sure where they were standing, can it also be said that she is not sure if the man was carrying a child or not.

You know by Jane backing down and not saying "look Gerry, I know what I saw and you were not on that side of the road" can lead to her statement as not being credible.

ETA

As far as I can see (thanks to T4Two who explained it), even if the McCann's decide to pull out of the libel trial and stop everything in Portugal they are then faced with costs, the costs of Goncalo, the Publishers and Film makers. Oh yes they have got to go the whole way now and pray they win, otherwise they could be face with paying a hefty legal bill plus the publishers could ask for costs of lose of earnings from the book. The opened "Pandora's box" good and proper. Interesting times ahead I think.

Hi Bren.

Jane Tanner could not agree with Gerry, because if she did then no way from the opposite side of the entrance of the Swimming Pool where Gerry said Jez Wilkin's and himself stood talking, no way would Jane Tanner have seen Mr so called Abductor and all the detail's that she said she saw, far too much distance away.

The scene from their Documentary where Jane Tanner and Gerry stood discussing where they stood on the Road that Night was filmed for a purpose, and shown on the Documentary for the reason, to put Gerry away from the Gate and the same side of the Road as Jane Tanner, who he would have seen if she walked past them near the Gate, Gerry said he had his back to the Swimming Pool entrance and was looking up at Jez who was 6ft 3, this was saying how could I (Gerry) have seen Jane Tanner I had my back to the entrance. Then someone pipes up on the Film scene and said People can make mistakes, even reliable Witnesses the word's of course meant Jane Tanner made a mistake, done and dusted.

The Scene where they were talking about where who stood where that Night, was longer than the build up to Scene and to where the so called Abductor walked across the Road.


Their Documentary was not for Madeleine it was for the McCann's, it is all about them and always will be.

Perhaps Jane Tanner's tears on the Documentary were for herself, Gerry made her look stupid, but he had his ass covered and that is all he cares about.

Perhaps Gerry McCann's arrogance will be his downfall.