Latest interview with Dr Amaral - copied from Joana Morais - with thanks

"As for cadaver dogs sniffing death on Kate; I mean, what is she? Lassie?"

candyfloss wrote:j.rob far too many quotes, making your one line post totally invisible.

CynicalAl, I would be grateful if you showed a little more respect to members, although I agree with a lot of what you say, as someone just mentioned your use of 20 words when one or two would do is becoming rather tiresome sorry to have to say.  Please let other members have their own opinions without ridiculing them.  Thanks.

perpendicular circus wrote:
Those that are outraged and certain that this is a whitewash, may I ask what exactly would a non-whitewash investigation look like, what proceedures would you have expected , what is the source of your current disappointment ?

Gollum wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl

"For something to have been covered up in this case something of consequence must have been taken away and what would be left is a tell tale gap."

There was indeed something of consequence taken away that left a tell tale gap.  That something is called Madeleine McCann.

And that has what to do with a massive high level conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence?

You'll have to get up earlier in the morning if you think you're going to catch me out with self-fulfilling circular arguments in which an objective material fact is directly equatable and interchangeable with a work of complete fiction.

I apologise unreservedly for being flippant but your attempts at discrediting practically everything posted on this forum has become somewhat tiresome. Your modus operandi might be more acceptable if you would only consider the opinions of other members as plausible or realistic as your own rather than dishing out reams of unecessary words that when analysed sentence by sentence mean absolutely nothing coherent.

If the forum were to follow your line of logic, as far as I understand it, there would be nothing to debate, perhaps that's your desire? However I have no desire to be the butt of your relentless attitude so leave you to your own devices, whatever they might be.

perpendicular circus wrote:
Those that are outraged and certain that this is a whitewash, may I ask what exactly would a non-whitewash investigation look like, what proceedures would you have expected , what is the source of your current disappointment ?

"for which the investigation team and family are very grateful.

JackieL wrote:

perpendicular circus wrote:
Those that are outraged and certain that this is a whitewash, may I ask what exactly would a non-whitewash investigation look like, what proceedures would you have expected , what is the source of your current disappointment ?

Source of current disappointment? Well, Redwood cosying up to the McCanns on TV sofas for a start, along with the doctored timeline (key omissions) on the Crimewatch programme, and the latest official Met. Police press release which links the investigation and "the family" together, as if any suspicion of them is never to be considered - quoting from the release today:

"for which the investigation team and family are very grateful.

candyfloss wrote:j.rob far too many quotes, making your one line post totally invisible.

CynicalAl, I would be grateful if you showed a little more respect to members, although I agree with a lot of what you say, as someone just mentioned your use of 20 words when one or two would do is becoming rather tiresome sorry to have to say.  Please let other members have their own opinions without ridiculing them.  Thanks.

perpendicular circus wrote:Interesting interview with Clarence Mitchell here , in which he is happy to reveal how he espied an opportunity and decided to go for it .  I think his own ambition was sufficient motivation . 

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/mehr-clarence-als-man-vertragt.html

I don't quite see why CynicAl's view is so startling and unwelcome ?   The idea that this may not be a deliberate whitewash would surely only be good news to a few?   We don't know what was in Exton's file , that SY now have , we only know Mc's wanted to suppress it.  Why is there such an urgent need to diss the SY investigations, exactly ?  

Today's announcement clearly states they are /have been working on the hypothesis that Madeleine was killed and moved a short distance from the apartment .  Sounds like progress to me.  They also state this is the first phase , that they have more , doesn't immediately smell like a whitewash ? 

As others have stated, it was not just Clarence that was loaned from the UK it was also the top body-finder Mark Harrison and someone whose name gets forgotten , Lee Rainbow the profiler.  Wikileaks exposed , in the cables, , that it was UK who worked out the line of complicity of the parents , alongside PJ, , and this has been conveniently removed from the popular narrative. I have only posted here once before and then I asked why Amaral had not named Mark Harrison explicitly, but instead described him as a British citizen , then contacted by MI5.  There has been an opacity with regards to how closely in the early days the UK police worked with PJ. This suited only one party, so far as I can see . 

Those that are outraged and certain that this is a whitewash, may I ask what exactly would a non-whitewash investigation look like, what proceedures would you have expected , what is the source of your current disappointment ?

DonNewbery wrote:

candyfloss wrote:j.rob far too many quotes, making your one line post totally invisible.

CynicalAl, I would be grateful if you showed a little more respect to members, although I agree with a lot of what you say, as someone just mentioned your use of 20 words when one or two would do is becoming rather tiresome sorry to have to say.  Please let other members have their own opinions without ridiculing them.  Thanks.

I've been busy, so only skim-read the huge number of posts here since I last looked. But what strikes me v strongly is that CynicalAl is a huge ego who likes to talk authoritatively, down at all and sundry, from dawn to dusk, and effectively 'flattens all thought'. So, sadly, doesn't do the overall cause much good. The last thing this website should be about is the airing of egos. Can we just pull together, and try to use our words succinctly and effectively?

JackieL wrote:

perpendicular circus wrote:
Those that are outraged and certain that this is a whitewash, may I ask what exactly would a non-whitewash investigation look like, what proceedures would you have expected , what is the source of your current disappointment ?

Source of current disappointment? Well, Redwood cosying up to the McCanns on TV sofas for a start, along with the doctored timeline (key omissions) on the Crimewatch programme, and the latest official Met. Police press release which links the investigation and "the family" together, as if any suspicion of them is never to be considered - quoting from the release today:

"for which the investigation team and family are very grateful.

CynicAl wrote:

DonNewbery wrote:

candyfloss wrote:j.rob far too many quotes, making your one line post totally invisible.

CynicalAl, I would be grateful if you showed a little more respect to members, although I agree with a lot of what you say, as someone just mentioned your use of 20 words when one or two would do is becoming rather tiresome sorry to have to say.  Please let other members have their own opinions without ridiculing them.  Thanks.

I've been busy, so only skim-read the huge number of posts here since I last looked. But what strikes me v strongly is that CynicalAl is a huge ego who likes to talk authoritatively, down at all and sundry, from dawn to dusk, and effectively 'flattens all thought'. So, sadly, doesn't do the overall cause much good. The last thing this website should be about is the airing of egos. Can we just pull together, and try to use our words succinctly and effectively?

I'm sorry, I didn't invite personal insults or a Sigmund Fraud psychoanalysis. Stick to the content not attacks on the person. 

I think you'll find it hard to demonstrate anywhere on this forum where I 'flatten all thought.'  The evidence is quite the opposite. Can you also demonstrate where my contribution does any harm at all to 'the cause?'

Hicks wrote:

perpendicular circus wrote:Interesting interview with Clarence Mitchell here , in which he is happy to reveal how he espied an opportunity and decided to go for it .  I think his own ambition was sufficient motivation . 

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/mehr-clarence-als-man-vertragt.html

I don't quite see why CynicAl's view is so startling and unwelcome ?   The idea that this may not be a deliberate whitewash would surely only be good news to a few?   We don't know what was in Exton's file , that SY now have , we only know Mc's wanted to suppress it.  Why is there such an urgent need to diss the SY investigations, exactly ?  

Today's announcement clearly states they are /have been working on the hypothesis that Madeleine was killed and moved a short distance from the apartment .  Sounds like progress to me.  They also state this is the first phase , that they have more , doesn't immediately smell like a whitewash ? 

As others have stated, it was not just Clarence that was loaned from the UK it was also the top body-finder Mark Harrison and someone whose name gets forgotten , Lee Rainbow the profiler.  Wikileaks exposed , in the cables, , that it was UK who worked out the line of complicity of the parents , alongside PJ, , and this has been conveniently removed from the popular narrative. I have only posted here once before and then I asked why Amaral had not named Mark Harrison explicitly, but instead described him as a British citizen , then contacted by MI5.  There has been an opacity with regards to how closely in the early days the UK police worked with PJ. This suited only one party, so far as I can see . 

Those that are outraged and certain that this is a whitewash, may I ask what exactly would a non-whitewash investigation look like, what proceedures would you have expected , what is the source of your current disappointment ?

Regarding Clarence Mitchel, I'm afraid you are falling for his spin. Mitchel was SENT by the Foreign Office, in other words by Gordon Brown.

CynicAL and his posts are becoming slightly offensive, which is a shame as he (?) makes some very good points. This is a forum for debate, not a selection process to join the Flying Squad!

If this investigation is not a whitewash then I would expect to see a full reconstruction in PDL with the parents and all of their friends who were there at that fateful time. After all, they were/are the first hand witnesses. Andy Redwood said he was taking everything back to zero, surely a reconstruction would do that? It would also highlight all the inconsistencies in the statements for starters. Wouldn't this be a good place to start?

aquila wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Doug D wrote: wrote:
Yes, CM flew back to PdL with GM on 22nd May, having apparently met him for the first time on 21st.
He then hung around with them for three weeks, before disappearing for a few months.

Don't forget that Clarence's wife miscarried their son whilst he was representing the McCanns in PDL and Clarence felt closer to the McCanns as a result.

This man will even use the loss of his own child to support the McCanns. He will use the grief of his wife's miscarriage to support a campaign.

What a loathsome creature.

notlongnow wrote:Excuse my ignorance,but why do SY have to pussy foot around the T9 like they are royalty?

aquila wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Doug D wrote: wrote:
Yes, CM flew back to PdL with GM on 22nd May, having apparently met him for the first time on 21st.
He then hung around with them for three weeks, before disappearing for a few months.

Don't forget that Clarence's wife miscarried their son whilst he was representing the McCanns in PDL and Clarence felt closer to the McCanns as a result.

This man will even use the loss of his own child to support the McCanns. He will use the grief of his wife's miscarriage to support a campaign.

What a loathsome creature.

Woofer wrote:@CynicAl - you ask "In what ways are my posts "becoming slightly offensive?"

This way :-

In a reply to Gollum - "The rest is just you childishly stropping and taking your bat home, and doesn't warrant a civil comment"

It`s a shame you resort to nastiness as per the example above because there are some grains of interest, in amongst the cynicism, that would initiate some reasoned debate.  Personally I don`t want a battle, and it likely puts a few others off engaging with you.