Translation of the Conclusions of the Appellate Court's Decision

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Realist wrote:

whodunit wrote:Neglect was their alibi.

Neglect wasn't their alibi, it was their reason as to how their daughter came to be abducted/kidnapped, because without an element of neglect, there couldn't possibly have been an abduction/kidnapping.

Not strictly so, they could have had a lot to drink and gone to bed sloshed, and when they awoke in the morning, Maddie was gone.  So there are other scenarios that don't involve them neglecting 3 toddlers 5 nights in a row.... just saying

What night/morning would that have been then?

I thought you were in the 'accident happened on evening of May 3rd' ?

You are correct, GGS, I am an accident on 3 May believer.  I'm merely answering realist who says Maddie could not have been abducted if they didn't leave her alone/neglect her.

Goncalo Amaral is saying the McCanns and all the group were neglecting their children the whole week.
I have been of the opinion for many years that the neglect was created by the McCanns and the group, though diluted with the regular checks and parents staying behind to care for sick offspring, to allow time and opportunity for an abduction.I am left feeling somewhat puzzled now.

pennylane wrote:

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Realist wrote:

whodunit wrote:Neglect was their alibi.

Neglect wasn't their alibi, it was their reason as to how their daughter came to be abducted/kidnapped, because without an element of neglect, there couldn't possibly have been an abduction/kidnapping.

Not strictly so, they could have had a lot to drink and gone to bed sloshed, and when they awoke in the morning, Maddie was gone.  So there are other scenarios that don't involve them neglecting 3 toddlers 5 nights in a row.... just saying

What night/morning would that have been then?

I thought you were in the 'accident happened on evening of May 3rd' ?

You are correct, GGS, I am an accident on 3 May believer.  I'm merely answering realist who says Maddie could not have been abducted if they didn't leave her alone/neglect her.

But you can't be talking about Madeleine though, so a hypothetical child, yes?

Because otherwise you're saying K & G could have gone to bed sloshed on either the Wednesday or the Friday and found Madeleine gone on the Thursday or Saturday. 

Not possible if you think she died on the Thursday evening.

Nina wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Realist wrote:

whodunit wrote:Neglect was their alibi.

Neglect wasn't their alibi, it was their reason as to how their daughter came to be abducted/kidnapped, because without an element of neglect, there couldn't possibly have been an abduction/kidnapping.

Not strictly so, they could have had a lot to drink and gone to bed sloshed, and when they awoke in the morning, Maddie was gone.  So there are other scenarios that don't involve them neglecting 3 toddlers 5 nights in a row.... just saying

What night/morning would that have been then?

I thought you were in the 'accident happened on evening of May 3rd' ?

You are correct, GGS, I am an accident on 3 May believer.  I'm merely answering realist who says Maddie could not have been abducted if they didn't leave her alone/neglect her.

Goncalo Amaral is saying the McCanns and all the group were neglecting their children the whole week.
I have been of the opinion for many years that the neglect was created by the McCanns and the group, though diluted with the regular checks and parents staying behind to care for sick offspring, to allow time and opportunity for an abduction.I am left feeling somewhat puzzled now.

Hi Nina, I personally believe Mrs Fenn when she says she heard crying for nearly 2 hrs on the 1st which suggests neglect.  This was also quiz night when there was discord between the parents.  I think sedatives were used after this, or perhaps stronger sedation?

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Realist wrote:

whodunit wrote:Neglect was their alibi.

Neglect wasn't their alibi, it was their reason as to how their daughter came to be abducted/kidnapped, because without an element of neglect, there couldn't possibly have been an abduction/kidnapping.

Not strictly so, they could have had a lot to drink and gone to bed sloshed, and when they awoke in the morning, Maddie was gone.  So there are other scenarios that don't involve them neglecting 3 toddlers 5 nights in a row.... just saying

What night/morning would that have been then?

I thought you were in the 'accident happened on evening of May 3rd' ?

You are correct, GGS, I am an accident on 3 May believer.  I'm merely answering realist who says Maddie could not have been abducted if they didn't leave her alone/neglect her.

But you can't be talking about Madeleine though, so a hypothetical child, yes?

Because otherwise you're saying K & G could have gone to bed sloshed on either the Wednesday or the Friday and found Madeleine gone on the Thursday or Saturday. 

Not possible if you think she died on the Thursday evening.

Hypothetically speaking yes, and addressing Realist's comment that there had to be neglect to facilitate the phantom abductor.  This isn't strictly so as (with days to plan as some believe) they could have come up with a different scenario such as taken from her bed when they were heavily asleep.



gosh, lol I hope that makes sense GGS

pennylane wrote:

Hypothetically speaking yes, and addressing Realist's comment that there had to be neglect to facilitate the phantom abductor.  This isn't strictly so as (with days to plan as some believe) they could have come up with a different scenario such as taken from her bed when they were heavily asleep.

But that would have been an even more unlikely scenario, the odds against an alleged kidnapper breaking into an apartment whilst the parents were in residence would be far greater than breaking into an apt.  when they  weren't, far greater.

The odds against their theory being plausible were already very high, particularly in the vein that they ruled out a ransom demand as the motive. For your hypothesis to hold water, they would have to be relying not only on an abductor prepared to enter an apt. but an abductor prepared to enter an apt. with adults present, the latter being an even rarer occurrence than the former. In any event, how would an abductor know the parents were 'heavily asleep' prior to gaining entry

Bearing in mind that the majority of paedophiles have a predilection for children between the ages of eight through fourteen, they would then be left with an abductor who not only had a sexual preference for four yr. old girls, but was prepared to break into an adult occupied apt. to acquire the aforementioned. Is there a precedent for this?

Realist wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Hypothetically speaking yes, and addressing Realist's comment that there had to be neglect to facilitate the phantom abductor.  This isn't strictly so as (with days to plan as some believe) they could have come up with a different scenario such as taken from her bed when they were heavily asleep.

But that would have been an even more unlikely scenario, the odds against an alleged kidnapper breaking into an apartment whilst the parents were in residence would be far greater than breaking into an apt.  when they  weren't, far greater.

The odds against their theory being plausible were already very high, particularly in the vein that they ruled out a ransom demand as the motive. For your hypothesis to hold water, they would have to be relying not only on an abductor prepared to enter an apt. but an abductor prepared to enter an apt. with adults present, the latter being an even rarer occurrence than the former. In any event, how would an abductor know the parents were 'heavily asleep' prior to gaining entry

Bearing in mind that the majority of paedophiles have a predilection for children between the ages of eight through fourteen, they would then be left with an abductor who not only had a sexual preference for four yr. old girls, but was prepared to break into an adult occupied apt. to acquire the aforementioned. Is there a precedent for this?

Hi Realist, thank you for your reply .

Yes I agree with you the former is unlikely and fraught with perils, although such things have happened; however the alleged scenario they came up with is also unlikely and fraught with perils too.  I think we are both in agreement there!

pennylane wrote:Yes I agree with you the former is unlikely and fraught with perils, although such things have happened; however the alleged scenario they came up with is also unlikely and fraught with perils too.  I think we are both in agreement there!

Absolutely in agreement, Pennylane, but in the probable circumstance that Madeleine died at their hands and with everything to lose, they formed the opinion that they had to come up with some kind of explanation. What they opted for was in their minds, anyway, probably the best of the worst.

Realist wrote:

pennylane wrote:Yes I agree with you the former is unlikely and fraught with perils, although such things have happened; however the alleged scenario they came up with is also unlikely and fraught with perils too.  I think we are both in agreement there!

Absolutely in agreement, Pennylane, but in the probable circumstance that Madeleine died at their hands and with everything to lose, they formed the opinion that they had to come up with some kind of explanation. What they opted for was in their minds, anyway, probably the best of the worst.

Yes, spot on, except I believe the decision was made fast, and the story backfitted.

pennylane wrote:

Yes, spot on, except I believe the decision was made fast, and the story backfitted.

The circumstances would have demanded a fast decision, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'backfitted'

This is off topic but there are so many threads relating to various aspects of the Lisbon trial I was spoilt for choice - short of dragging the transcript back to the fore from wayback when.  This is a stark reminder of the proverbial 'big brother is watching you' syndrome..

Forenote:  Michael Wright, married to mum Kate's cousin Anne-Marie, said the Portuguese ex-detective's allegation was to blame for a kidnap threat against twins Sean and Amelie, now eight.

McCann v. Goncalo Amaral - Day 4.  20th September 2013  [Snipped]

MW - Because of the thesis of the book according to which Madeleine was dead and her body had been concealed. At the time they were very keen to re-establish a normal family life, Gerry was working again full time and they were starting a campaign. The stress increased between the book and the documentary in March/April 2009. They were preparing a new campaign before the second anniversary. Anger and anxiety overwhelmed them because of the documentary. He says there always was activity on the internet (e-mails...) but they became very subdued.

ID - What does "negative e-mail" mean?

MW - says it refers to all sorts of conspiracy theories that appeared on various forums.

ID - asks if the witness can name some of these forums.

MW - The 3 Arguidos and Madeleine Foundation. He says Tony Bennett invited Gonçalo Amaral to do conferences in the UK. These forums were full of speculation focused on GA's conclusions. People said those conclusions must be true because GA had been in charge of the initial investigation.

ID - When?

MW - Activity was increased and heavy in March/April 2009.

ID - Did the McCanns learn about these forums? How?

MW - They learned through me, the family members who monitored the activity and their support group. I wondered whether it was worse to let them know or not to. I didn't want to add up to their pain, but a significant change happened. There were several instances of threats to kidnap the twins on the 3 Arguidos site. Then I couldn't but speak. There was a chat where a poster suggested someone should kidnap a twin to get to the truth.

ID - Is this dialogue on the forum?  Can you get a copy?

MW - says he has a copy and can deliver it.

ID - asks if it's possible to put the paper copy on the internet?

MW - thinks the 3A doesn't exist anymore. He says the McCanns took action against this threat and against the Madeleine Foundation. The main page of MF had the 5 conclusions.

ID - asks whether he has a copy.

MW - says he has screen shots. He adds he had to tell his cousins about the threats. They reported them to the UK police (Leicestershire Police). He was visited by a police officer on the matter.

ID - Was a process formally investigated?

MW - had only one contact with the police. He doesn't know what happened afterwards.

ID - What consequence did this have on the McCanns family life and in particular that relating to the twins?


[Thanks to Anne Guedes and mccannfiles.com]