- Posts : 85
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-05-19
Location : Kent, UK
[Mega Snipped/ Mega Quoted from your excellent post]:
"Surely they would point out the inconsistencies and say we didn't say this we actually said that and it proves we did this, or said that and didn't do this or didn't say that".
"It would be in their interest to correct any mistranslations if it would put them in the clear or show their innocence in a particular event or prove they did what they said".
In answer to the logical points/questions you raise:
(i) They are, (in line with the evidence), likely to be implicated in the disposal of Madeleine's remains and/or her abuse (whilst living) and her death
(ii) They are, (despite the evidence), not implicated in the death of their daughter and/or the disposal of her remains... but very quickly thought "What the fuck!...Sod the lottery... We can make oodles of cash out of of this golden, once in a lifetime opportunity"
Let's hope that one day the evidence is simply and openly aired (free of undemocratic, corrupt, manipulation) and that justice for a child that died, or was killed, far too young to make her way in the world is allowed to take precedence.
(n.b. My views...based upon the evidence I have seen strongly, strongly, leans towards '(i)'
Oooh... and Carter Ruck: For the record this was my personal informed opinion long before I'd ever heard of, or read, or viewed online anything to do with Dr Amaral's presentation of the evidence...and it is such a relief to see that Judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro seems to have recognised that, for many of us, this is the case. Let's hope that the Portuguese Judicial system can withstand the much vaunted weight of, and pressure, of our illustrious 'Great' British...err.. *cough, cough* (paedo-protecting) justice'.
- Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02
- Posts : 63
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-12-30
- Posts : 527
Reputation : 267
Join date : 2011-08-04