The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.12.09 0:00

Just posted a few minutes ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmDDsNBRbL4

And here is Part 1 which was posted three days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6uD5ahcTvw

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by preciousramotswe on 17.12.09 0:04

'Portugal is respectable people'.

Not a word I would personally use about Goncalo Amaral, or about people who shout down the attempts of parents to explain how they think their daughter deserves to be looked for.

preciousramotswe

Posts : 269
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Autumn on 17.12.09 0:12

Thanks for getting the link, Tony. How rude the McCanns' PR man seemed in contrast to the quiet and polite Dr Amaral.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

It's the way you tell 'em, Clarrie

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.12.09 0:27

@Autumn wrote:Thanks for getting the link, Tony. How rude the McCanns' PR man seemed in contrast to the quiet and polite Dr Amaral.
Yes, the McCanns have quite a line in PR men, the U.K. one once said on Irish TV that most Brits are happy to leave their kids on their own most of the evening ('it's a cultural thing').

He also compared Robert Murat to Ian Huntley.

And what was that about 'none of them were wearing watches' the night Madeleine was reported missing?

Ah yes - corection - some of them were, some of them weren't.

It's the way you tell 'em, Clarrie

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Which abductor are we looking for?

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.12.09 0:30

badmanners wrote:'Portugal is respectable people'.

Not a word I would personally use about Goncalo Amaral, or about people who shout down the attempts of parents to explain how they think their daughter deserves to be looked for.
badmanners, we've had 14 artists' impressions of the abductor in the papers (and that's not counting Dave Edgar's notorious comment 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman not a man').

Just to help us search, can you help us on which one of those 14 we're all supposed to be looking for?

And just how 'convinced' are you (Dave Edgar's word) that she is being hidden in a prison lair in the lawless hills around Praia da Luz?

It would certainly narrow the world-wide search a bit

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Guest on 17.12.09 8:07

@Autumn wrote:Thanks for getting the link, Tony. How rude the McCanns' PR man seemed in contrast to the quiet and polite Dr Amaral.

Calmly and politely bodged up looking for poor Madeleine. What a great guy never mind

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Ruby on 17.12.09 8:57

He didn't botch it, he was stopped.
Read his book for enlightenment if this is truly news to you.
Which of the 14 photofits do you favour, then? never mind

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

We need a new artists' impression by an F,B.I.-trained forensic artist

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.12.09 9:11

@Ruby wrote:He didn't botch it, he was stopped.
Read his book for enlightenment if this is truly news to you.
Which of the 14 photofits do you favour, then? never mind
They will probably say 'Jane Tanner man', who in her rogatory gave police the following information (the interrogator is Sandra Ferguson of Leics Police):

SF: Right. And when you first became aware of this man holding the child, if you can try and picture in your mind, as I am sure you have done over and over again, and start from the top of his head and work your way down and tell me what he looked like?

JT: You see this is where now I’m really, I don’t even know whether it’s worth doing this, because there’s been so much, since then I’ve had the, when they took me round for the surveillance to look at, and I’m guessing now it’s Murat they wanted me to look at and, you know, all the other bits and bobs, I really don’t know, but I think I’d prefer just to stick with what I said in my original statement, in terms of the, because even, I mean, this is coming back to the sketch, even when I did the sketch, by that stage, you know, things were, were murky, I needed to that sketch that first night, I mean, they took me in to do the sketch, but they only had, erm, front facing software, so you know, and at that point I said, you know, is there, can I do, because the clothes and everything was the thing was the thing that was the most in my mind then and I can remember saying to the chap I met on the stairs earlier, I think it’s […inaudible], is it?

SF: Yeah.

JT: Because he took me in the car back and forth and I can remember saying to him on the way back: ‘Look, is there a way I can do a sketch with clothes, you know, do you have software or any way that I can do a sketch of the clothes or a side, a side view’. And he sort of said: ‘No, we don’t have that feasible, you know, feasibility or availability’. And I said then: ‘Can I do that when I go back to the U.K.?’, you know, because at that point it was in my head and it would have been, and they were the bits that I think would have been recognisable to get down on paper. But at that point it was like: ‘Oh no, we can’t do that, we don’t work in that way’, which I can understand and, you know, now obviously I think: ‘Oh I should have pushed and really pushed’, but at that point you rely on, you don’t, you know, you’re just in such shock and you just think: ‘O.K., that’s the way things do’, but…but, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to […inaudible], but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill-fitting, but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy-ish sort of ill-fitting more than…And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly, sort of…

SF: And what colours?

JT: Dark colours, but again it was, I think it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket, but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a Mark Warner holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material, but baggy.

SF: You know the artist’s impression that you…that has been circulated a lot. How happy are you with that?

JT: Erm, phew, reasonably, but, I mean, it was the best I could do after that time, I mean, it was more, the hair was the one thing on that, that I wasn’t completely happy about, but we couldn’t get it any better because it was the sort of, I almost think that might have been slightly too long or just, but on the whole I think the actual sort of style and everything was, was fairly right. I mean, I tried to do that, though from my original description that we wrote down, sort of well, afterwards […inaudible] we tried to get all our thoughts down and I tried to do it as much as I could from that, because six months on, as I say, there was, I think the problem is there’d been so much put into my head since then, like doing the surveillance and, you know, looking at people on that and things, it was very hard to, to do it.

SF: I must come back and talk about that when we have finished going through everything.

JT: Yeah, that’s fine, yeah.

SF: What about the height of the man?

JT: Erm, phew, well, you know, I did it on the, I sort of pointed out where it was on the person that interviewed me originally and, erm, sort of, not six foot, but taller than me, but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten. But I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower. But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so.

SF: O.K. And his build?

JT: Medium, well sort of just normal build. As I say, I think the clothes were quite baggy, so I think they made him look more bigger than he probably was, but…and also he would have been, his shoulders would have been out, you know, sort of. So, I think, erm, yeah, medium-ish, a medium-ish build.

SF: And you said earlier you thought he was, I can’t remember what word you used, walking, you didn’t say briskly, but…

JT: Purposefully.

SF: Purposefully?

JT: Yeah.

SF: Did you notice anything else about the way he walked?

JT: Not really, just that it was very, as I say, it did seem quite a very, you know, a purposeful. And also the way he was carrying was sort of, it’s the way I would pick my children up if I didn’t want to wake them up, you know, if you’re sort of picking them up to put them into another bed or something, it is the way I would pick them up if they were asleep, because it’s, normally you would imagine you would carry them over your shoulder or something. So, again, in hindsight, that was probably a bit of an odd way to be, you know, be carrying, but…

SF: Is there anything else about the man that you can remember now?

JT: No, I mean, I would be so worried now about things that are put into my, I think the only two things that I’m still absolutely adamant on is a lot of hair, sort of a lot of thick, thick hair and sort of dark and baggy, well, not, ill-fitting clothes, I think is the sort of, you know, sort of is the two things that still, I mean obviously I get this image in my head all the time and they are the two things that are still, are still, are still there.

SF: And then think about the child again, as much as you can see of that child in that split second, and tell me what you saw?

JT: Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet. But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description. And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas. And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said: ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went: ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas. Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know: ‘Oh was I trying to’, I can think that I would think: ‘Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing pink pyjamas’, so, you know, if you were subconsciously putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn’t think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention.

SF: [REST SNIPPED]


Given that former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar said Jane Tanner's abductor coud be an abductress, surely what the nation, indeed the world. needs is another appearance by Clarence Mitchell holding up a new artists' impression, once again of course by an F.B.I.-trained forensic artist (nothing less would be acceptable), showing 'purposeful-person' as a woman. Mind you, having said that, her choice of shoes and hairstyle were a bit odd and I'm not sure that baggy light brown trousers were that much in ladies' fashion in Portugal in 2007; she was also presumably fairly flat-chested

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Guest on 17.12.09 10:03

Are you suggesting that police should stop having any interest in eye witness information at all because it is not ever 100% accurate, is that what you are saying Mr Bennett? or are you trying to somehow allege that the eye witness description is in fact 100% accurate and no mistakes are ever made? Which is it Mr Bennett, pick an argument, you evidently feel very strongly about it but you are not articulating very well what your issue is?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Guest on 17.12.09 23:15

@Ruby wrote:He didn't botch it, he was stopped.
Read his book for enlightenment if this is truly news to you.
Which of the 14 photofits do you favour, then? never mind

He was removed from the case because he was an absolite liability. He couldn't organise a pee up in a brewery, and the impending allegations of turning a blind eye to the torture of a mother of another missing child didn't help did they?

He chose to jump before he was pushed which cleared the way to a million euro book. He keep harping on about evidence he has, did he not share that evidence with Mr Rebelo who had to go back in an re-investigate the first shoddy investigation? If not, why not? Will the next charge he's up against be witholding evidence in a criminal case?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Raffle, please educate yourself.

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.12.09 23:35

Raffle wrote:He was removed from the case because he was an absolute liability. He couldn't organise a pee up in a brewery, and the impending allegations of turning a blind eye to the torture of a mother of another missing child didn't help did they?
Raffle, please educate yourself.

This is what really happened to little Joana Cipriano.

And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral.

Sadly, you are wrong. Joana is not 'missing'. She is dead. Killed by relatives who told the world she had been abducted:

Court hears Joana’s horror story

Onlookers in the public gallery screamed abuse at the mother and uncle of Joana Cipriano as they were ferried to and from court.

The case, which has shocked the nation with its account of incest, murder and desecration, took just three days to be tried.

The Public Ministry has pressed for jail terms of 24 years for the defendants, who are charged with qualified murder, as well as desecrating and concealing a body.

Joana disappeared, presumed murdered, in the Algarve village of Figueira, near Portimão. She was last seen buying food from a nearby café on the evening of September 12 last year.

Prosecutors charge that she came home to find her mother, 34-year-old Leonor Cipriano, and her uncle, 32-year-old João Cipriano, having sex. Fearful that Joana would relate the incident to her stepfather, they allege that the couple decided to kill her. The prosecution also said that the couple had repeatedly mistreated Joana, recounting that she was little more than a “servant” in her own household.

The court heard a catalogue of horrifying details, including an earlier video taped confession from Joana’s uncle in which he related the circumstances of his niece’s murder.

This video testimony is now the subject of an appeal from the defence team who claim it should be excluded because the couple exercised their right to remain silent during the trial.

In the taped confession, João Cipriano said he and his sister hit Joana who then banged her head against a wall before collapsing, unconscious, onto the floor. João Cipriano claimed that he had wanted to call an ambulance but that his sister prevented him, telling him instead to go to Joana’s stepfather and inform him that she had disappeared.

Her mother made subsequent public appeals for her daughter’s safe return, claiming that she had been kidnapped. But authorities began to suspect the couple after villagers noted their allegedly offhand reaction to Joana’s disappearance.

Local shopkeeper Nídia Rochato remembered that Leonor neither cried nor seemed unduly concerned. When she commented on this to her, Leonor reportedly replied that she believed that her daughter was still alive.

The absence of a corpse delayed the arraignment process but the Public Ministry were able to indict the couple following statements from neighbours. Investigators also gathered forensic evidence at the house where Joana lived with her mother, stepfather and two brothers.

Pinheiro castigated Joana’s mother for her “emotional instability, insensitivity and disregard for other people’s needs”. Only when Pinheiro announced that he was pressing for a 24-year jail term for both defendants did Leonor show emotion, sobbing uncontrollably.

Pinheiro explained why his team was pressing for such a long sentence. “The defendants’ guilt is heightened by their cold and calculating behaviour after their child’s death, as well as the devious manoeuvres they adopted to conceal the crime,” he said.

The trial included key testimony from Joana’s stepfather, António Leandro, who related that Leonor had confided to him that she had had a sexual relationship with her brother. He also told the court that during this conversation, which took place a few days after Joana’s disappearance, at judicial police headquarters, Leonor had admitted that she and her brother had killed the little girl.

A key element of the prosecution’s case rests on the fact that the couple dismembered the girl’s corpse.

António Leandro, confronted with photographs of tools allegedly used by the couple, said he recognised a saw he had kept at home. In the video taped confession, João Cipriano admitted that the body of the girl was dismembered and placed in a refrigerated trunk.

A doctor involved in the case, Albino Santana dos Santos, conceded that body parts, matching the size of a girl of Joana’s height, could have been stuffed inside the trunk.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by DCB1 on 17.12.09 23:39

"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.

DCB1

Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Careful...

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.12.09 23:44

@DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.
What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by DCB1 on 17.12.09 23:48

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.
What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

Oh no - you are not wrong at all - GA certainly was involved in the case.

He was also involved in the Madeleine case.

Examine the similarities of the cases from an objective viewpoint.

DCB1

Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Guest on 17.12.09 23:51

@DCB1 wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.
What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

Oh no - you are not wrong at all - GA certainly was involved in the case.

He was also involved in the Madeleine case.

Examine the similarities of the cases from an objective viewpoint.
I think if the British Gov hadn't got involved then kate McCann would have had her own meetings with ashtrays, stairs and hoods over her head.

And as for you Mr Bennett, refrain from telling me to educate myself over something. Tis not I who had to tell a firm of lawyers I would pack in slandering and stalking a grieving family because I produced a factually INCORRECT leaflet based on newspaper reports and the posts of a bunch of loons at the 3arguido forum.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.12.09 23:55

@DCB1 wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.
What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

Oh no - you are not wrong at all - GA certainly was involved in the case.

He was also involved in the Madeleine case.

Examine the similarities of the cases from an objective viewpoint.
I'd go for these straight off:

1. Both claimed to have been abducted

2. Both girls

3. Parents in both cases thought by many others to be much too casual about the loss of their daughter

4. Evidence that both have died

5. Goncalo Amaral on the case

6. Portugal

7. Close relatives become suspects in both cases.

Any more I've missed?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Guest on 17.12.09 23:57

Where is the evidence they both died?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by DCB1 on 17.12.09 23:57

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.
What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

Oh no - you are not wrong at all - GA certainly was involved in the case.

He was also involved in the Madeleine case.

Examine the similarities of the cases from an objective viewpoint.
I'd go for these straight off:

1. Both claimed to have been abducted

2. Both girls

3. Parents in both cases thought by many others to be much too casual about the loss of their daughter

4. Evidence that both have died

5. Goncalo Amaral on the case

6. Portugal

7. Close relatives become suspects in both cases.

Any more I've missed?

Use your analytical skills from another viewpoint. That is what I meant by being objective.

DCB1

Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by DCB1 on 17.12.09 23:59

TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.

DCB1

Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Obtusity

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.12.09 0:00

@DCB1 wrote:Use your analytical skills from another viewpoint. That is what I meant by being objective.
Sorry DCB1, I don't mean to be critical, but you can be obtuse at times.

Why don't you spell out your viewpoint, please, it's quicker that way.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by DCB1 on 18.12.09 0:01

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:Use your analytical skills from another viewpoint. That is what I meant by being objective.
Sorry DCB1, I don't mean to be critical, but you can be obtuse at times.

Why don't you spell out your viewpoint, please, it's quicker that way.

Parents did it in both cases - had to be proved.

DCB1

Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Evidence not proof

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.12.09 0:02

@DCB1 wrote:TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.
No it's not.

I refer to evidence not proof.

And I don't say how much evidence there is that either Joana or Madeleine is dead. Merely that in both cases there is some evidence.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by DCB1 on 18.12.09 0:05

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.
No it's not.

I refer to evidence not proof.

And I don't say how much evidence there is that either Joana or Madeleine is dead. Merely that in both cases there is some evidence.

Are they both, or either still alive then?

this sounds pretty conclusive to me : "4. Evidence that both have died"

There is no "maybe" or "points to" or "possibly" in there.

DCB1

Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.12.09 0:10

@DCB1 wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.
No it's not.

I refer to evidence not proof.

And I don't say how much evidence there is that either Joana or Madeleine is dead. Merely that in both cases there is some evidence.

Are they both, or either still alive then?

this sounds pretty conclusive to me : "4. Evidence that both have died"

There is no "maybe" or "points to" or "possibly" in there.
Let's put it another way.

What actual evidence do we have that either girl is alive?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

Post by DCB1 on 18.12.09 0:13

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@DCB1 wrote:TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.
No it's not.

I refer to evidence not proof.

And I don't say how much evidence there is that either Joana or Madeleine is dead. Merely that in both cases there is some evidence.

Are they both, or either still alive then?

this sounds pretty conclusive to me : "4. Evidence that both have died"

There is no "maybe" or "points to" or "possibly" in there.
Let's put it another way.

What actual evidence do we have that either girl is alive?

In the case of Madeleine there is no death certificate.

DCB1

Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum