Gonçalo Amaral is a Liar

Posted by Textusa

The “Generals” who’ve been responsible for running the McCann Campaign in the Great Maddie War (2007 - ?) have done so quite successfully, I must recognize and compliment, using three basic tactics or main guidelines:

- erosion by time,
- creation and attack of a Center of Gravity,
- sanity.

Logic would state that I should start with the first, follow it with the second and then the third. But this subject has proven to be completely out of logic, so I’ll start with the second: the Center of Gravity (CoG).

About the other two I’ll just use, for now, two examples: #1, the demise of the 3A Forum, and #3, The Madeleine Foundation.

Wikipedia says that the US Defense Department states that: “the definition of a CoG is "the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act." (Joint Publication 1-02, DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms), (Washington, DC:2008)) Thus, the center of gravity is usually seen as the "source of strength".

It’s easily understandable that the most crucial, or decisive, advantage that a party can have over the other is to identify and act upon the adversary’s CoG. That thing, fact or whatever that will make him topple. Fall. Give up. Be defeated and not willing to deny the fact.

In medieval times the CoG was the monarch. Once the King/Queen was toppled, the whole kingdom fell with him. A concept simple to understand.

The problem appears when the enemy’s CoG is simply impossible to conquer, either by the lack of our strength or by the surplus of his.

In that there only are two options: avoidance, by concurrence or submission (much used in diplomatic fora), or, if you’re able to, convince the adversary that his CoG is other than the effective one. If you’re able convince him that he withdraws his strength from something that you can control, you’re on the road to success.

If you can’t beat his CoG, create one that you can.

What are, in my opinion, the various CoGs in what I’ve designated as the Great Maddie War?

For those on our side, it’s the public and official recognition of the truth. The McCanns rely on the fact that the establishment will NEVER recognize the truth as you know it to be. That would mean the application of punishment upon those involved.

Our CoG is the truth, the punishment is simply a consequence of its conquest.

For them, well there are the McCanns, the McCann and the McCann.

For the McCanns, as in those in very high places who are protecting Kate and Gerry, the CoG is to be able to let the issue slide into forgetfulness by the average human being. Do a Big Brother on the whole thing. As if it never happened.

If they do that, they will be able to on living their everyday life as they did before, as is my opinion, David Payne killed Maddie.

For the McCann, as in Kate, her CoG is to successfully create a time machine and never, ever set foot in Portugal.

That being impossible, she’s invented one where she’s left alone to suffer the misery of repentance. The consequence, she dreams, is self-forgiveness.

Hard luck, guilt has a tendency to stick harder than a starved leach.

For the McCann, as in Gerry, the CoG is simply to be a dick. No, not in an insulting manner, but in a vain, arrogant mine-is-bigger-than-yours kind of dick. The consequence? To be a worldwide recognized celebrity, which is the state he suddenly found himself in, and adamantly unwilling to let go.

Both Gerry and Kate are an immense burden amongst their troops. I believe that the couple have been much more cursed by those on their side than from all the curses and insults from our side put together. And there have been many…

Summing up, the CoGs involved are: ours, the truth, theirs, our forgetfulness.

Both #1 and #3 tactics/guidelines of the McCann Campaign (erosion of time and sanity) have the intent of imposing forgetfulness upon all of us.

The first by natural tendency that we remember most what we prioritize as important, and these priorities are permanently renovated, thus what is important today is not what was last year around about this time.

The second, or #3, is to label any opposing opinion as belonging to the odd, the abnormal, the perverted, the extremist or the lunatic.

The so-called and self-assumed normal, sane and respected people will naturally antagonize these, together with the inconvenient said opinion, that due to this has now become exclusively theirs. Of the mad. The surreal. The despicable. Those that should be ignored.

And nobody remembers what it ignores. Forgetfulness is achieved.

Theoretically, #1 and #3 are enough to conquer the desired CoG, and win the war.

Why then did I come up with #2?

Two reasons. First, these two tactics only apply pressure and exercise an outstanding patience, but cannot take care of popularity. Truth is popular. If something is popular, there is NO way it can be pushed it into the “nutcase” category and can subsequently made to be discarded by the regular Joes.

Second, our CoG will always be there, theirs depends on our memory. The only way to “destroy” the truth is to carve its credibility away, so it becomes something else, then compared to how it was and nobody will ever believe what it was supposed to be.

The sardine eaters smearing campaign was and is designed to attack both the popularity and credibility of the Portuguese and the Portuguese police. All the racial and social slander we’ve read, unacceptable to all except to those who control the media that forces the message.

But that is still not enough. A Country, as poor, disgusting and subhuman as Portugal has been portrayed, is never responsible for a specific manslaughter. We’ll get there one of these days, but we’re not there yet.

The CoG is then impossible to conquer. A truth to slander, a Country to humiliate. Too much. Next step, as per text-book, is, as I’ve said, to create a CoG.

In any self-defense class, if outnumbered by the threat and unable to run away, there’s a golden rule to be remembered. Only one. Attack whoever represents the biggest threat. If you lose, usually he has the right to the spoils, which basically means that you’ll be beaten solely by the character, but if you defeat him, you defeat the pack. Why? Because he is the pack’s CoG, and once he falls, the rest go down with him.

And who is the leader of our pack?

Well, they’re done a pretty good job in making us believe that it’s Gonçalo Amaral. Now you know why.

They’ve almost succeeded in making us think that if he falls, all our credibility falls with him. Words will be swept under rugs and ideas blown away into the wind. And I say almost, although I do sense some desperation from some when faced with the possible confirmation of the injunction.

That’s why the McCanns are centering everything on this man.

And it’s why that I need to remind all of something very important. A crime has happened, and Amaral did not commit it. Independently of how much you smear his name, ONE thing remains a fact: he didn’t kill Maddie, the Tapas did.

Likewise, no matter how much is the saintly image of the McCanns pushed down our throats, the fact still is the same as was in the paragraph above: the Tapas killed Maddie, not Amaral.

So is prohibiting the sale of his book a useless exercise?

Once again it’s a two-fold answer, the book and the man, but with one common denominator: it will have a boomerang effect.

About the book, it seems at first to be an apparent innocuous attempt of silencing of something that is already out there. I’ve said so myself.

But if the book is forced out of circulation, then it cannot be used officially against the McCanns in any official forum, namely in the Courts or to re-open the process.

So think the McCanns.

Also, my friend Ironside has pointed out something very, very important: the Gaspar episode. I’ll get to it later.

McCanns, stupid, stupid McCanns, what you to gain is so little to what you’ve already lost, and do you think this possible injunction will have any relevance when your pretty ass will be on the line? The powerful that’ve protected you, will be the one’s that will not rest until they see your blood spilt all over the Court-room floor. Yes, the book WILL be used. Then the injunction will just be an overlookable technicality.

About the man. You’ve run a good campaign smearing his name and reputation, Ill give you that. But all will go down the drain if he comes victorious, and he might.

Do be careful. We all know is resolute and intelligent. And is hurt, in his dignity and honor.

But we, you and I, also know that he is a liar.

The theory in his book makes as much sense as your abduction fantasy tale.

You see, he pinpoints Maddie’s death at 21:20, the exact time my good friend Jane Tanner sees my other good friend Gerald McCann talking to some Jeremy fellow. According to Amaral, Maddie died, falling between the couch and the wall upon hearing her father in this conversation on the other side of the window.

What Amaral overlooks to explain is the smell of dead bodies in two separate locations of the apartment, plus the body’s disposal, witnessed by a family, all under 40 minutes, time between the referred conversation and the alarm set off by St. Kate of Rothley?

The only plausible explanation would be by him bringing onto the scene your enormously talented abductor.


Also it’s outstandingly remarkable the Gaspar episode in the book. Completely misplaced and out of context. If the book is to defend the thesis of an accidental death and the disposal due to social implications, why on earth put in a disgusting sexually explicit episode that had happened two years before? And when in it the most despicable character is none of the parents, although the father isn’t exactly portrayed favorably, to say the least.

Was Amaral trying to tell you something, explicitly as well? Something like I got you by the b*lls and I’m going to squeeze? Oh, and here he’s not lying. Yes, he is a liar, but a very selective one. Not a desperate one like you lot.

The relevant question certanly is not if he’s lying, but why.

He was at the scene, he coordinated a team that handled and analyzed all the information and all the misinformation. Yes, please don’t forget that whatever all Amaral knows, all his team members know it too. If you ever are able to silence him who knows where from the next RELIABLE source will come from…

But that is YOUR problem, not mine, and not even the intent of this post. And you certainly don’t want to explain publicly why he’s lying. You could have used what I’ve said above against him and you haven’t. You know your reasons. I do too.

The intent of this post is take some of the burden off the back of this man. It’s a big, big one that he is carrying.

We’re all falling into the trap that the McCanns have laid out for us: making Gonçalo Amaral our CoG.

Our CoG, I repeat, is the truth. Let’s let Amaral fight his battles without this burden. He is defending, quite correctly, the freedom of speech. His freedom of speech.

He might win, or he might lose. I’m really divided on this one. I cannot foresee how this will end.

On one side, the need of the establishment of not losing ace, on the other the freedom of speech, an issue so dear to Europe. And Europe, although completely indefinable, is much wider than the UK and Portugal.

It comes to my mind the known lack of tolerance for bullsh*t of the Germans, just to name one other nation.

So I don’t know if he’s going to lose or win. I believe that he won’t lose faith in either case, because many a battle awaits him. If he wins, the publication of the book in the UK, if he loses, exposing this entire charade to European courts.

Maddie is dead. The Tapas did it.

Personally, I’ve had my V-Day on that December morning (or was it afternoon?) when I came to the knowledge that the McCanns had cowardly walked into Court through the side door, running away from a non-existing mob.

That alone is the explicit verdict of “guilty as charged” from the fairest, most incorrupt and just Court of all: self-judgment. Better than any hammer from any Judge in any Court, anytime, anywhere.


http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/02/goncalo-amaral-is-liar.html

Sense at last. I've always said Mr Amaral wasn't telling the truth. I'm glad Textusa agrees.

"Well, they’re done a pretty good job in making us believe that it’s Gonçalo Amaral. Now you know why."

I think anyone with sense would see that this isn't the truth either. He was created as a hero by Claudia, Miss Morais and Astro for starters. It was they who put him on a pedestal and the negative atmostphere was created by the press, mostly British against him. This negativity has been slippy - shouldered on to the McCanns when in fact it did not start with them at all. Perhaps if Miss Morais and Co hadn't made him out to be the saint he's not, things could have been a lot different. I have read very little where the McCanns have actually said anything about Mr Amaral at all, until his book came out. It's great how myths evolve isn't it?

I don't believe that's what Textusa is saying at all, Ariel.

I think he's alluding to something else entirely...

What's he/she saying then? That Amaral is a clever liar. I don't agree and I think the man is a fool. Such a pity that it was he whowas in charge of finding Madeleine Beth McCann. She never stood a chance did she? And as far as freedom of speech goes, ask Miss Morais about that and her other Portuguese cronies who allow no one except their supporters a voice silencing them and not allowing their point of view on their blogs. It's a total joke. They wouldn't know freedom of speech if it stood up and bit them on the derriere.

Wrong again...

Ariel wrote:What's he/she saying then? That Amaral is a clever liar. I don't agree and I think the man is a fool. Such a pity that it was he whowas in charge of finding Madeleine Beth McCann. She never stood a chance did she? And as far as freedom of speech goes, ask Miss Morais about that and her other Portuguese cronies who allow no one except their supporters a voice silencing them and not allowing their point of view on their blogs. It's a total joke. They wouldn't know freedom of speech if it stood up and bit them on the derriere.

Amaral is the only one who truly cares about justice for Madeleine Mccann. The Mccanns definitely would agree that it's a pity he was in charge but not because they don't think he helped to find maddie but the opposite; he was TOO close to finding her and he knew exactly who was implicated in her disappearance. Just how do you expect any police officer to find her when her own parents refused to answer questions, to do a reconstruction and tell endless lies? It was they who hindered justice and not Amaral who was a damn fine police officer who was on to them and so had to be removed. You are talking s**t.

Amaral is the only one who truly cares about justice for Madeleine Mccann

I'd feel a lot better about that if he or his witnesses had mentioned that as the reason he wrote the book.

marigold wrote:

Ariel wrote:What's he/she saying then? That Amaral is a clever liar. I don't agree and I think the man is a fool. Such a pity that it was he whowas in charge of finding Madeleine Beth McCann. She never stood a chance did she? And as far as freedom of speech goes, ask Miss Morais about that and her other Portuguese cronies who allow no one except their supporters a voice silencing them and not allowing their point of view on their blogs. It's a total joke. They wouldn't know freedom of speech if it stood up and bit them on the derriere.

Amaral is the only one who truly cares about justice for Madeleine Mccann. The Mccanns definitely would agree that it's a pity he was in charge but not because they don't think he helped to find maddie but the opposite; he was TOO close to finding her and he knew exactly who was implicated in her disappearance. Just how do you expect any police officer to find her when her own parents refused to answer questions, to do a reconstruction and tell endless lies? It was they who hindered justice and not Amaral who was a damn fine police officer who was on to them and so had to be removed. You are talking s**t.

I would suggest it is you who is talking nonsense. Old crap we see time and time again and not worth arguing with at this stage. Mr Amaral hasn't a clue what happened to Madeleine McCann and in my opinion isn't interested either, except to make money from her.

Here's a follow up post by Textusa which hopefully will help Ariel understand the OP:

As predictable as rats after peanut-butter, the Pro-McCanns had quite a fest with my previous post “Gonçalo Amaral is a Liar”.

Used as they are to read tabloid junk, and probably writing it, the Black Hatters felt quite satisfied with little more than the title to go and party on their corny little corner of the internet where with all the ignorant, frustrated and malignant smirks, smiles and giggles make Macbeth’s opening scene, witches around a caldron, seem a tale of feathery fairies.

Oh how they gloated over the fact that finally a White Hat had discovered and recognized that the Amaral thesis had more holes than a swiss cheese.

It’s fascinating to see how one can deduce that someone just for pointing out what in my opinion is an INTENCIONAL mistake by Mr. Amaral, has turned his back on him, stabbed him in the back and, for having sensed his downfall, basically had left him as if had the plague.

Let’s get some facts straight.

If Mr. Amaral loses tomorrow, he is just beginning. With my total support.

If he wins, his smile will be a reflection of mine.

I subscribe almost the totality of his book, because almost the totality of his book is based on fact. Hard, stone cold objective fact.

What I know is not true in the book is reduced to the where, how, when and why Maddie died. That is a moment that fateful night. All that is written that happened before, during and after that night, days and weeks, exposing the many inexplicable contradictions by the McCanns, I subscribe entirely.

And what is not true, I do understand why he wasn’t truthful. And so do the McCanns otherwise they would have contested the facts, not the book as an object like are doing.

Lastly let me lay out on very simple terms what your “holes in a Swiss cheese” really mean:

- Me questioning the validity of the abduction thesis, highlights the McCann guilt.
- Me questioning the validity of the Amaral thesis, highlights the McCann guilt.

Couldn’t you see this a mile away? But you couldn't resist riding the wave, could you?

Please, do raise your guard and don’t make things so easy.

I would call you dumbasses, but I’ve stopped being cruel to the fictitious animals.

P.S. The absence of the UK Press accompanying the Saintly Couple makes me wonder, since we’re on the subject of abandonment, who has abandoned who. Not saying that Amaral will win, just saying that many already think that the McCanns are LOSERS.
Textusa

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/02/black-hat-fest.html

jkh wrote:Here's a follow up post by Textusa which hopefully will help Ariel understand the OP:

As predictable as rats after peanut-butter, the Pro-McCanns had quite a fest with my previous post “Gonçalo Amaral is a Liar”.

Used as they are to read tabloid junk, and probably writing it, the Black Hatters felt quite satisfied with little more than the title to go and party on their corny little corner of the internet where with all the ignorant, frustrated and malignant smirks, smiles and giggles make Macbeth’s opening scene, witches around a caldron, seem a tale of feathery fairies.

Oh how they gloated over the fact that finally a White Hat had discovered and recognized that the Amaral thesis had more holes than a swiss cheese.

It’s fascinating to see how one can deduce that someone just for pointing out what in my opinion is an INTENCIONAL mistake by Mr. Amaral, has turned his back on him, stabbed him in the back and, for having sensed his downfall, basically had left him as if had the plague.

Let’s get some facts straight.

If Mr. Amaral loses tomorrow, he is just beginning. With my total support.

If he wins, his smile will be a reflection of mine.

I subscribe almost the totality of his book, because almost the totality of his book is based on fact. Hard, stone cold objective fact.

What I know is not true in the book is reduced to the where, how, when and why Maddie died. That is a moment that fateful night. All that is written that happened before, during and after that night, days and weeks, exposing the many inexplicable contradictions by the McCanns, I subscribe entirely.

And what is not true, I do understand why he wasn’t truthful. And so do the McCanns otherwise they would have contested the facts, not the book as an object like are doing.

Lastly let me lay out on very simple terms what your “holes in a Swiss cheese” really mean:

- Me questioning the validity of the abduction thesis, highlights the McCann guilt.
- Me questioning the validity of the Amaral thesis, highlights the McCann guilt.

Couldn’t you see this a mile away? But you couldn't resist riding the wave, could you?

Please, do raise your guard and don’t make things so easy.

I would call you dumbasses, but I’ve stopped being cruel to the fictitious animals.

P.S. The absence of the UK Press accompanying the Saintly Couple makes me wonder, since we’re on the subject of abandonment, who has abandoned who. Not saying that Amaral will win, just saying that many already think that the McCanns are LOSERS.
Textusa

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/02/black-hat-fest.html

jkh

Ariel wrote:

marigold wrote:

Ariel wrote:What's he/she saying then? That Amaral is a clever liar. I don't agree and I think the man is a fool. Such a pity that it was he whowas in charge of finding Madeleine Beth McCann. She never stood a chance did she? And as far as freedom of speech goes, ask Miss Morais about that and her other Portuguese cronies who allow no one except their supporters a voice silencing them and not allowing their point of view on their blogs. It's a total joke. They wouldn't know freedom of speech if it stood up and bit them on the derriere.

Amaral is the only one who truly cares about justice for Madeleine Mccann. The Mccanns definitely would agree that it's a pity he was in charge but not because they don't think he helped to find maddie but the opposite; he was TOO close to finding her and he knew exactly who was implicated in her disappearance. Just how do you expect any police officer to find her when her own parents refused to answer questions, to do a reconstruction and tell endless lies? It was they who hindered justice and not Amaral who was a damn fine police officer who was on to them and so had to be removed. You are talking s**t.

I would suggest it is you who is talking nonsense. Old crap we see time and time again and not worth arguing with at this stage. Mr Amaral hasn't a clue what happened to Madeleine McCann and in my opinion isn't interested either, except to make money from her.

Your idols the Mccann have used Madeleine as a cash cow now for almost 3 years. Tell me, when are they going to sell their house and put the money in the 'fund'? They really don't need a house that size. They have made millions on the back of that neglected child. They marketed her as a business and tout for money constantly for that business. What excuse do you have for that?

Ariel, I think you're in the wrong forum darlin'. JATYK is that way --------->

Jkh lovey , first if all I don't actually give a toss what Textusa says and have no problems understanding the tosh that he/she writes so thanks anyway. Is this another forum where only the thoughts and opinions of Amaral followers are tolerated?

marigold wrote:

Ariel wrote:

marigold wrote:

Ariel wrote:What's he/she saying then? That Amaral is a clever liar. I don't agree and I think the man is a fool. Such a pity that it was he whowas in charge of finding Madeleine Beth McCann. She never stood a chance did she? And as far as freedom of speech goes, ask Miss Morais about that and her other Portuguese cronies who allow no one except their supporters a voice silencing them and not allowing their point of view on their blogs. It's a total joke. They wouldn't know freedom of speech if it stood up and bit them on the derriere.

Amaral is the only one who truly cares about justice for Madeleine Mccann. The Mccanns definitely would agree that it's a pity he was in charge but not because they don't think he helped to find maddie but the opposite; he was TOO close to finding her and he knew exactly who was implicated in her disappearance. Just how do you expect any police officer to find her when her own parents refused to answer questions, to do a reconstruction and tell endless lies? It was they who hindered justice and not Amaral who was a damn fine police officer who was on to them and so had to be removed. You are talking s**t.

I would suggest it is you who is talking nonsense. Old crap we see time and time again and not worth arguing with at this stage. Mr Amaral hasn't a clue what happened to Madeleine McCann and in my opinion isn't interested either, except to make money from her.

Your idols the Mccann have used Madeleine as a cash cow now for almost 3 years. Tell me, when are they going to sell their house and put the money in the 'fund'? They really don't need a house that size. They have made millions on the back of that neglected child. They marketed her as a business and tout for money constantly for that business. What excuse do you have for that?

How silly to use the term "idols".

Marigold, you seem to be fixated with their house. I dont understand why this is so important to you. It's actually not that big but you seem to have it down as a mansion.

I've never thought Madeleine's home was worth selling to further the fund - it was only recently bought, and property prices have fallen steadily. Selling it would achieve a lower monthly outgoing, but probably not a lump sum. It's not a huge house for a family of five.

I agree.Although these houses look big on the outside a lot of rooms can be quite pokey.

vaguely1 wrote:I've never thought Madeleine's home was worth selling to further the fund - it was only recently bought, and property prices have fallen steadily. Selling it would achieve a lower monthly outgoing, but probably not a lump sum. It's not a huge house for a family of five.

No longer a family of 5 due to them. Whether or not it's recently bought isn't the point. Before they expect others to part with their hard earned cash and children and pensioners to part with their money, they should use their own money to fund the 'search'. Any other parent would have sold everything they owned to find their child but not these two. They expect others to search and to pay up while they sit on their backsides doing nothing and spending nothing. They have an almighty cheek. It is THEIR responsibility to pay for so called 'detectives' and no one else's.

marigold wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:I've never thought Madeleine's home was worth selling to further the fund - it was only recently bought, and property prices have fallen steadily. Selling it would achieve a lower monthly outgoing, but probably not a lump sum. It's not a huge house for a family of five.

No longer a family of 5 due to them. Whether or not it's recently bought isn't the point. Before they expect others to part with their hard earned cash and children and pensioners to part with their money, they should use their own money to fund the 'search'. Any other parent would have sold everything they owned to find their child but not these two. They expect others to search and to pay up while they sit on their backsides doing nothing and spending nothing. They have an almighty cheek. It is THEIR responsibility to pay for so called 'detectives' and no one else's.

Well it's their responsibility to find the money to pay, and because of that it has to be their decision in how they go about finding that money. They're not tin rattlers. You would have to be quite proactive in sending money to them if you agreed with their cause. There are a lot of charities or causes that intrude upon our lives - just walking down the high street can feel like an assault course of people wanting to spend your wages for you. Certainly since arguido status the only people paying money in to their fund are going to be people who believe in their innocence. If they want to hand over their money then I don't see a problem with that.

Hopefully if the investigation is reviewed and reopened then they will not need to fund the search themselves. One way or another their money will be of no use.

vaguely1 wrote:

marigold wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:I've never thought Madeleine's home was worth selling to further the fund - it was only recently bought, and property prices have fallen steadily. Selling it would achieve a lower monthly outgoing, but probably not a lump sum. It's not a huge house for a family of five.

No longer a family of 5 due to them. Whether or not it's recently bought isn't the point. Before they expect others to part with their hard earned cash and children and pensioners to part with their money, they should use their own money to fund the 'search'. Any other parent would have sold everything they owned to find their child but not these two. They expect others to search and to pay up while they sit on their backsides doing nothing and spending nothing. They have an almighty cheek. It is THEIR responsibility to pay for so called 'detectives' and no one else's.

Well it's their responsibility to find the money to pay, and because of that it has to be their decision in how they go about finding that money. They're not tin rattlers. You would have to be quite proactive in sending money to them if you agreed with their cause. There are a lot of charities or causes that intrude upon our lives - just walking down the high street can feel like an assault course of people wanting to spend your wages for you. Certainly since arguido status the only people paying money in to their fund are going to be people who believe in their innocence. If they want to hand over their money then I don't see a problem with that.

Hopefully if the investigation is reviewed and reopened then they will not need to fund the search themselves. One way or another their money will be of no use.

Well they were 'tin rattlers' at first weren't they? They had buckets or whatever at the OC with 'fighting fund' on them. The point is, why didn't they spend their own money first without hassling others in the form of endless appeals and libel suits so as to deposit money into a fund that isn't a charity and then they make themselves directors which basically means they can spend the money on whatever they please. It smacks of sheer greed. I state again, that genuine, distraught parents would have been out searching and sold everything. To ask others to cough up when they haven't is totally outrageous.

Would that apply if you believed Madeleine to have been abducted and if they'd been on the premises when that happened, or are you angry about the fund because you believe them involved?

ty

Maybe it was the way they went about it. Madeleine had only been missing a short while and the police were looking for her but their main priority seemed to be shaking the begging bowls, jogging and globetrotting.

I can remember Gerry McCann talking to a reporter and his last words were "keep the money coming in".

How did they know the police wouldn't find her that day?

Why was money so important in the early days? It's not as if there was a ransom or anything. Why fighting fund? Who were they fighting?

vaguely1 wrote:Would that apply if you believed Madeleine to have been abducted and if they'd been on the premises when that happened, or are you angry about the fund because you believe them involved?

ty

If they had been on the premises in said scenario (abduction) then there wouldn't have been an abduction as the parents would have been protecting her by their presence. If I did believe she had been abducted ( and I am absolutely certain she has not been) I would still be angry and disturbed by the callous, cold marketing of their child and the seeming indifference to her plight highlighted by the jogging, lunches, entertaining, hairdos etc etc. and the refusal to both search and pay for the search themselves. Even if I considered them innocent of any wrongdoing in Madeleines demise their words and actions would appall me and I would question the fund. I really don't know how anyone can support them after the way they have behaved and spoken, I really don't. I would be sick with anger if they were members of my family let alone strangers even if I didn't consider them guilty.

ufercoffy wrote:Maybe it was the way they went about it. Madeleine had only been missing a short while and the police were looking for her but their main priority seemed to be shaking the begging bowls, jogging and globetrotting.

I can remember Gerry McCann talking to a reporter and his last words were "keep the money coming in".

How did they know the police wouldn't find her that day?

Why was money so important in the early days? It's not as if there was a ransom or anything. Why fighting fund? Who were they fighting?

His last words were 'keep the money coming in!' WTF. :megashock: :pale: As always his first priority.
Yes, why fighting fund. They seemed to know immediately that there were going to be lawyers fees to pay. Is the fighting fund still separate from the no stone unturned fund I wonder.