Re: 10 Questions The Mccann's want Amaral to answer

by Luz Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:09 pm

Mrs Edward Smethursts?!!!! What's her name,...it would be easier on the tennis or whatever courts she goes to.

by happychick Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:12 pm

Can you tell us what apartment she's in?

by Luz Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:14 pm

happychick wrote:Can you tell us what appt she's in?

I can check it tomorrow, but no garanties - i bet she doesn't want to be found.

by happychick Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:17 pm

Please check and tell us. 10 Questions The Mccann's want Amaral to answer - Page 2 725573

by Luz Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:38 pm

happychick wrote:Please check and tell us.

All right chicky. See you tomorrow.

by dragonfly Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:03 pm

Luz wrote:There is nothing to point out at the several authorities asked to intervene in this sad case. They were all very professional and acted according to their rules (we know that the ruling for GNR on what concerns missing children was not adequate, but considering this was the first case they were called upon we have to understand why they didn't shove all those stampers off and didn't isolate the parents as persons of interest - the poor bastards thought they were dealing with respectable people). Whatever was done was within the law and pretty fast. I wish that all people that suffered any criminal assault had the same response.

What this thread is trying is to derail what really happened.

From me, no thanks.

What are you talking about? you're not making sense, to me anyway, You said on your previous post Amaral is not a 'poor man' No one has from what I have seen on this forum called him that, In fact people on here hold him high in regard, And as for this thread 'trying to derail' I can only assume you do not understand the point of the posting, In point it was providing information How hypocritical the Mccann's are coming across, Luz I have only seen a couple of your posts and it is very carrot and stick like,

by dragonfly Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:23 pm

Luz wrote:First of all thanks for allowing me in here - after Miss Carly decided to dennounce me as a firestarter I thought my next step would be the International Criminal Court. But since I'm not bombing Lybians or Syrians I guess I can still express my ideias about this case.

To start with, Mr. Amaeral is not a "poor man" (in the portuguese sense of miserable that cannot envisage another way). Mr. Amaral could have been much better in his career, maybe, if it wasn't for the Madeleine case, but he is not in misery - he is a respected professional and a very intelligent man that does not need to be fed by ingeneous schemes to make the general public and the money sharks get bought by fantastic stories.

Do you care to post where it says he is a poor man? A misery ? What is your post in response to?

by dragonfly Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:38 pm

Luz wrote:Please do not take me wrong, but I'll skip responding those questions posed to the authorities. You have the files, you have the answers, what more do you want?!! Gossip?!!!!!!

Let's play it clean - whose responses haven't we had until now?

The GNR? The PSP? The PJ? The Portuguese Prosecutor?.....I think not. What about Leicestershire Police, Mr and Mrs McCann, the Tapas 7, etc??????

P.S. In Portugal, in more than 20 years there's 4 cases of missing kids: 3 are suspected of abduction, and the 4th is Madeleine, which is registered as missing, as it should.

I did not see a request for your answers, as for Gossip , Who has asked for gossip? I feel you are undermining people, If you feel that they see this as a 'gossip' site,
People have genuine concerns about the disappearance of an innocent little girl, after several of your postings I can only rightly/wrongly assume that either English is your second language and you're misinterpreting the posts, or you can not grasp the basis of simple posts and you are reading in to things that no one has said

by dragonfly Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:47 pm

littlepixie wrote:To be sitting there scheming and thinking up all these questions to post on her facebook wall out of the blue gives insight into Kate McCanns frame of mind. Sorry to say it but she is making it look as if she has mental problems.

Hello Pixie If you read the first post it said 'a link was provided through the official fb site to the writings of the wrongs who took the questions from j4 forum' Just to clear that up

by **tigger** Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:32 am

[quote="dragonfly"]The writings of the wrongs have posted these up as taken from j4 forum
Questions put to Amaral again

1. On the night of May 3, 2007 how much had you had to drink after 18:00 hours?

2. If you had chosen to drive to Praia da Luz when the call for help was made on May 3, 2007 would you have been breaking the law?

3. Is that in fact one of the reasons you chose to coordinate from home?

4. How long did you sleep knowing that a small child was missing from her bed?
How did they sleep leaving 3 children alone in bed unquote

There's that alcoholic thread again! Doesn't Kate know it reveals more about her than about Amaral? Asking how much he had to drink after 6.pm? Why the time? In those countries one has usually some wine with lunch. Drinking after 6 pm is the alcoholics excuse for not being one.
She is now trying to tell us he could have been too drunk to do his job. Actually, I expect top policemen have drivers, so that they have time to go through the facts of the case on the way to the scene.
And question 4 doesn't obliterate the fact that Kate admitted sleeping that very night and generally sleeping quite well, thank you. Seeing that even the GNR officers were still there around 4.00 am, I expect Amaral got less sleep than the bereft parents.

Accusing others of one's own crimes is a well documented tactic.

And the Tapas went through 14 bottles of free wine when MW offered free drinks to Gerry after the event. The tab is available for inspection.

Oh yes, and whilst you were asleep Kate, the biggest manhunt operation ever mounted in Portugal was under way. Luckily they already had the photograph you must have prepared so thoughtfully, showing a little girl who looked nothing like Maddie at all, as we now know.
Now that is top of my list of questions and for that there is concrete, reliable evidence.

Log in for more topics