Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by Woofer 05.03.14 18:46

marconi wrote:I don't believe Amaral wil ever accept an agreement.
he was unfairly attacked, wasn't he?
The media saying he lost the battle?

It`s a good idea to use the `quote` button of the post you are replying to Marconi, then we will know what you`re commenting on. The last comment on Amaral coming to an agreement was about 12 comments back and I had to go back to find out what you were on about.

by Guest 05.03.14 18:54

Woofer wrote:
marconi wrote:I don't believe Amaral wil ever accept an agreement.
he was unfairly attacked, wasn't he?
The media saying he lost the battle?

It`s a good idea to use the `quote` button of the post you are replying to Marconi, then we will know what you`re commenting on. The last comment on Amaral coming to an agreement was about 12 comments back and I had to go back to find out what you were on about.

Marconi has difficulty with English, Woofer, so perhaps will not understand your suggestion.

by Guest 05.03.14 19:00

Châtelaine wrote:We have to face, that he's probably not necessarily grieving over his lost daughter after 6 years, but sorry for himself ... But, I agree that the sadness, pain and sorrow are genuine

Two or three pictures on, before or after GMs, taken at the same meeting, there's a shot of KH, showing a plain text to the camera.

Can we enlarge the text and see what she's communicating?

by diatribe 05.03.14 19:44

sallypelt wrote:
, so my faith in British justice can be restored.

I don't see how the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal has got anything whatsoever to do with British justice, Sally. Surely if you wish to restore your faith in the British justice system , you should be looking at all the miscarriges of justice perpetrated in Britain, not Portugal, I mean lets have it right , there are enough of them, both past and present.

by diatribe 05.03.14 19:58

PeterMac wrote:It was not intended to be funny, obviously.
It was intended as a satirical comment on the endless "look at us, We are the Victims, we are the Martyrs,"
and the ridiculous, (sorry - "ludicrous") way in which they change their faces from laughing and gurning and grinning to these ersatz quasi-grief stricken images at the drop of another coin into the Fund.

If it offends, then I am sorry.
If it really offends, then Admin, please remove it.

I'll be disappointed if this image is removed, after all, isn't part of the forum's agenda to defend freedom of speech, or in this case, freedom of cariacture, no matter who finds it offensive. There's an awful lot of stuff in life that I find offensive, not least having to suffer the indignity of hearing other's puerile mobile phone conversations, but they still continue to resemble walking telephone kiosks whilst talking crap.

by Guest 05.03.14 20:21

diatribe wrote:
PeterMac wrote:It was not intended to be funny, obviously.
It was intended as a satirical comment on the endless "look at us, We are the Victims, we are the Martyrs,"
and the ridiculous, (sorry - "ludicrous") way in which they change their faces from laughing and gurning and grinning to these ersatz quasi-grief stricken images at the drop of another coin into the Fund.

If it offends, then I am sorry.
If it really offends, then Admin, please remove it.

I'll be disappointed if this image is removed, after all, isn't part of the forum's agenda to defend freedom of speech, or in this case, freedom of cariacture, no matter who finds it offensive. There's an awful lot of stuff in life that I find offensive, not least having to suffer the indignity of hearing other's puerile mobile phone conversations, but they still continue to resemble walking telephone kiosks whilst talking crap.

I have removed it. It would cause offence to some, I must admit I didn't like it, and although I understand what PM is talking about, it would only be used against this forum imo.

by sallypelt 05.03.14 22:16

diatribe wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
, so my faith in British justice can be restored.

I don't see how the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal has got anything whatsoever to do with British justice, Sally. Surely if you wish to restore your faith in the British justice system , you should be looking at all the miscarriges of justice perpetrated in Britain, not Portugal, I mean lets have it right , there are enough of them, both past and present.

Diatribe, what I hoped would get across is my post is, I, like so many others on here, believe that the McCann's have been protected by the powers at the top of the tree. This has led me to lose faith in our justice system (not that I was 1005 satisfied with it before, but that's for another time). I believe that ALL wrong-doers should feel the arm of the law, regardless of colour, political sway or religious believe. As for Portugal, it NEVER entered my mind, so I am struggling to understand what you are getting at. But I will say it again, for clarity, when it comes to the photograph of GM, the suffering on his face pulls on my heartstrings. Maybe I am a softy when it comes to human suffering, but I detest it. And in this sorry saga, despite the lies and the deceit of the McCann's and their crew, it's those who are protecting them that I have no stomach for. Without me appearing to be condoning the McCann's, I can understand their damage limitation approach, but it's those people, who protect them for financial gain that get up my fins. I have no doubt, that when the money runs out (if it ever will) Carter-Ruck and ID and the rest of the disgusting lot, will be conspicuous by their absence.

by marconi 05.03.14 22:23

Checking on calls of May3/4th could mean an extremely lot of work. It could mean that a lot of people could be investigated, not only those few ones that night. A list of people known by Tapas 7 too, their calls to each other through weeks, months and who knows years.

by Guest 05.03.14 22:35

IMO a lot of phone analysis went on the evening CW was aired ...

by diatribe 05.03.14 22:41

sallypelt wrote:
Diatribe, what I hoped would get across is my post is, I, like so many others on here, believe that the McCann's have been protected by the powers at the top of the tree. This has led me to lose faith in our justice system (not that I was 1005 satisfied with it before, but that's for another time). I believe that ALL wrong-doers should feel the arm of the law, regardless of colour, political sway or religious believe. As for Portugal, it NEVER entered my mind, so I am struggling to understand what you are getting at. But I will say it again, for clarity, when it comes to the photograph of GM, the suffering on his face pulls on my heartstrings. Maybe I am a softy when it comes to human suffering, but I detest it. And in this sorry saga, despite the lies and the deceit of the McCann's and their crew, it's those who are protecting them that I have no stomach for. Without me appearing to be condoning the McCann's, I can understand their damage limitation approach, but it's those people, who protect them for financial gain that get up my fins. I have no doubt, that when the money runs out (if it ever will) Carter-Ruck and ID and the rest of the disgusting lot, will be conspicuous by their absence.

I understand what you are stating, Sally, but you are however misguided in blaming the British justice system. It isn't the British justice system that is protecting the McCanns, it is the gov. the police, the media, lawyers, Public relation companies, who in effect are part of the media etc.

With regards to the Portugese aspect, it is the Portugese justice system that the aforementioned are protecting the McCanns from, not the British justice system. The latter will come into effect in relation to the Donation Fund, which of course can only emanate from the former proving the McCanns had knowledge of their daughter's death or whereabouts at the time the fund was instigated.

I'm sorry, I don't do compassion except in the case of animals. big grin

by sallypelt 05.03.14 22:59

diatribe wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Diatribe, what I hoped would get across is my post is, I, like so many others on here, believe that the McCann's have been protected by the powers at the top of the tree. This has led me to lose faith in our justice system (not that I was 1005 satisfied with it before, but that's for another time). I believe that ALL wrong-doers should feel the arm of the law, regardless of colour, political sway or religious believe. As for Portugal, it NEVER entered my mind, so I am struggling to understand what you are getting at. But I will say it again, for clarity, when it comes to the photograph of GM, the suffering on his face pulls on my heartstrings. Maybe I am a softy when it comes to human suffering, but I detest it. And in this sorry saga, despite the lies and the deceit of the McCann's and their crew, it's those who are protecting them that I have no stomach for. Without me appearing to be condoning the McCann's, I can understand their damage limitation approach, but it's those people, who protect them for financial gain that get up my fins. I have no doubt, that when the money runs out (if it ever will) Carter-Ruck and ID and the rest of the disgusting lot, will be conspicuous by their absence.

I understand what you are stating, Sally, but you are however misguided in blaming the British justice system. It isn't the British justice system that is protecting the McCanns, it is the gov. the police, the media, lawyers, Public relation companies, who in effect are part of the media etc.

With regards to the Portugese aspect, it is the Portugese justice system that the aforementioned are protecting the McCanns from, not the British justice system. The latter will come into effect in relation to the Donation Fund, which of course can only emanate from the former proving the McCanns had knowledge of their daughter's death or whereabouts at the time the fund was instigated.

I'm sorry, I don't do compassion except in the case of animals.

The police, lawyers, judges etc ARE the bodies that make up the legal system. Andy Redwood is part of it, as is any lawyer. The government is the LEGISLATOR of the legal system, and the judges etc EXECUTE it. Again, I will reiterate, I am not referring to Portugal, because it's not relevant to my original statement

Edited to add, so let's look who we BELIEVE are protecting the McCann's: Lawyers, politicians, police?. The very bodies that make up our LEGAL system.

by diatribe 05.03.14 23:21

sallypelt wrote:
The police, lawyers, judges etc ARE the bodies that make up the legal system. Andy Redwood is part of it, as is any lawyer. The government is the LEGISLATOR of the legal system, and the judges etc EXECUTE it. Again, I will reiterate, I am not referring to Portugal, because it's not relevant to my original statement

Edited to add, so let's look who we BELIEVE are protecting the McCann's: Lawyers, politicians, police?. The very bodies that make up our LEGAL system.

Sally, if you believe that the police and politicians control the British justice system, then we really are in trouble with civil liberties.(Perhaps that's why the CPS command an 83% conviction success rate) By the justice system, I mean the law courts, perhaps this is where our misunderstanding lies.

Portugal may not be relevant to your original statement, but neither is the British justice system. I was merely stating that all those you refer to who are protecting the McCanns are protecting them from the Portugese Justice system, as opposed to the British Justice system. Lawyers certainly work within the justice system, but they don't constitute the justice system anymore than a lathe turner working for BAE controls the International Arms Race.

by sallypelt 05.03.14 23:41

diatribe wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
The police, lawyers, judges etc ARE the bodies that make up the legal system. Andy Redwood is part of it, as is any lawyer. The government is the LEGISLATOR of the legal system, and the judges etc EXECUTE it. Again, I will reiterate, I am not referring to Portugal, because it's not relevant to my original statement

Edited to add, so let's look who we BELIEVE are protecting the McCann's: Lawyers, politicians, police?. The very bodies that make up our LEGAL system.

Sally, if you believe that the police and politicians control the British justice system, then we really are in trouble with civil liberties.(Perhaps that's why the CPS command an 83% rate of conviction success) Portugal may not be relevant to your original statement, but neither is the British justice system.

I was merely stating that all those you refer to who are protecting the McCanns are protecting them from the Portugese Justice system, as opposed to the British Justice system. Lawyers certainly work within the justice system, but they don't constitute the justice system anymore than a lathe turner working for BAE controls the International Arms Race.

Again, diatribe, you are putting words into my mouth that I have NOT said. But let me give you a little bit of information in regards to how the law works. The LEGISATOR of the law is PARLIAMENT (politicians) and JUDGES. (both groups have been accused of protection the McCann's. Remember Gordon Brown?) The enforces of the law is police force, CPS (and aren't NSY and the CPS coming in for criticism in this case?).

Now that is what makes up our LEGAL system, and in many cases many of these APPEAR to be protecting the McCann's. So, again, I will repeat, those who we should have faith in, to ensure JUSTICE are now being accused of PROTECTING wrong-does.

And a little bit of personal information for you. My daughter a LAW student, so I really don't want to get heavy with how the law works in the UK, I am now bowing out of this conversation, as I have made my point, and I think it has come to its natural end.

Oops, and let me add, I studied the British Constitution at university, so I will recommend a good read on this subject. The English Constitution, by Walter Bagegot.

by notlongnow 06.03.14 0:39

Châtelaine wrote:IMO a lot of phone analysis went on the evening CW was aired ...

I still feel the 2 holidaymakers phoned in CW and gave the same name to be very interesting.

by sallypelt 06.03.14 2:17

sallypelt wrote:
diatribe wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
The police, lawyers, judges etc ARE the bodies that make up the legal system. Andy Redwood is part of it, as is any lawyer. The government is the LEGISLATOR of the legal system, and the judges etc EXECUTE it. Again, I will reiterate, I am not referring to Portugal, because it's not relevant to my original statement

Edited to add, so let's look who we BELIEVE are protecting the McCann's: Lawyers, politicians, police?. The very bodies that make up our LEGAL system.

Sally, if you believe that the police and politicians control the British justice system, then we really are in trouble with civil liberties.(Perhaps that's why the CPS command an 83% rate of conviction success) Portugal may not be relevant to your original statement, but neither is the British justice system.

I was merely stating that all those you refer to who are protecting the McCanns are protecting them from the Portugese Justice system, as opposed to the British Justice system. Lawyers certainly work within the justice system, but they don't constitute the justice system anymore than a lathe turner working for BAE controls the International Arms Race.

Again, diatribe, you are putting words into my mouth that I have NOT said. But let me give you a little bit of information in regards to how the law works. The LEGISLATOR of the law is PARLIAMENT (politicians) and JUDGES. (both groups have been accused of protecting the McCann's. Remember Gordon Brown, for example?) The enforcers of the law are the police force, CPS etc (and aren't NSY and the CPS coming in for criticism in this case?).

Now that is what makes up our LEGAL system, and in many cases these APPEAR to be protecting the McCann's. So, again, I will repeat, those who we should have faith in to ensure JUSTICE, are now being accused of PROTECTING wrong-does.

And a little bit of personal information for you. My daughter is a LAW student, so I really don't want to get heavy with how the law works in the UK, I am now bowing out of this conversation, as I have made my point, and I think it has come to its natural end.

Oops, and let me add, I studied the British Constitution at university, so I will recommend a good read on this subject. The English Constitution, by Walter Bagegot.

Wow, I can see so many typing errors in the above post, but it's too late to edit them on the original post, so I will do it here. This is what happens when one is trying to multitask at such a late hour.

by ultimaThule 06.03.14 3:13

Cristobell wrote:
diatribe wrote:< snip >
I appreciate this is the wrong thread, but do you think it is possible that the McCanns have withdrawn from the action and reached some kind of secret deal with Goncala regarding his costs.
Apologies Diatribe, only just seen this.

I don't know what has held up the trial, we can only speculate at this stage. The longer the delay however, the more suspicious it becomes, we are now into March, and the last day of the hearing was before Christmas!

I don't think there will be any offers or acceptances of a settlement. The case has come too far and Goncalo Amaral is entitled to his day in Court. He has fought the libel actions to the bitter end, it would go against all his constitutional rights to deny him a verdict in open court.

The trial may have become invalid due to some sort of proof that Madeleine is dead. There are two investigations going on, so it is well within the realms of possibility. I am not a legal person, but in the event Madeleine is dead then it would have all sorts of knock on effects as to the validity of HER claim against Goncalo Amaral. We were told one of the delays was due to the Wardship issue.

In addition, dramatic new evidence has emerged during the course of the trial. Courtesy of The Times, the world learned that the McCanns suppressed the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public. The Apology did nothing to put that particular cat back in the bag, it merely altered the length of time the McCanns suppressed the evidence.

The case may have collapsed. That is the McCanns and/or their Lawyers may have decided to withdraw and offered to pay all costs. Terms would have to be agreed by all parties including Goncalo Amaral and the two other Defendants. I don't really know what happens when a case collapses, but I am sure there are cases out there.

Ouch - look at costs faced by David Irving (pro nazi historian) in his failed action against author Deborah Lipstadt and publishers Penguin - it goes into millions and that is 2002!

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/05/humanities.highereducation

In addition, dramatic new evidence has emerged during the course of the trial. Courtesy of The Times, the world learned that the McCanns suppressed the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public. The Apology did nothing to put that particular cat back in the bag, it merely altered the length of time the McCanns suppressed the evidence.

How did this 'dramatic new evidence' emege? Was it discovered during the course of the proceedings, and what impact has it had on the trial?

Did the McCanns issue an apology for 'suppressing the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public' and how did the apology alter the length of time they'd suppressed the evidence? confused

I seem to recall you were invited back to, is it peoplestv? the name escapes me at the moment , in order to update viewers on the libel trial. Will you be making a further appearance any time soon?

by **PeterMac** 06.03.14 8:23

candyfloss wrote:
I have removed it. It would cause offence to some, I must admit I didn't like it, and although I understand what PM is talking about, it would only be used against this forum imo.

Fair enough. It is your forum.
Hitler and Mussolini both practised their gestures and facial expressions, using Opera as the basis.
In the days before TV monitors, gestures had to be large, and although they now look ridiculous in close up, they are exactly what singers and actors do on a large stage
The gestures are wide and slower than normal, and after each one there is a dramatic pause so that the message may 'sink in'

The McCanns seem to have perfected their "Oh so sad', We are the victims, look at us and ~~donate~~ weep look, which they are able to turn on at will, and then, as we saw on the TV studio, turn off again.

Look back at the comparison of Kate and Mary we posted some months back. Exactly the same way of holding the head and the hand across the neck
It seem they have been practicing this, probably on advice.
That was my point

by ultimaThule 06.03.14 9:42

I see nothing in this photo which evokes any feeling of pity. What I do see is the wee one with his eyes closed and, from his tightly repressed mouth, it seems to me that were his eyes open the image would be the familiar one of contempt and disdain for those around him.

What seems to be the development of baggy jowls is more probably explained by his head being slightly down with his chin tucked in towards his neck, but the botox is holding up well and I suspect the portrait of Gerry McCann which is too hideous for the eye to behold remains stored in Rothley Towers in much the same manner as Dorian Gray was able to hide his true face from society.

IMO what we're seeing here is as described by tigger because only the prospect of the lifestyle fund drying up forever could cause an expression of genuine anguish to transform Mr Tiny Tears face into any resemblance of sorrow and, needless to say, 'sorry' is a word he reserves entirely for himself.

by Cristobell 06.03.14 9:49

ultimaThule wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
diatribe wrote:< snip >
I appreciate this is the wrong thread, but do you think it is possible that the McCanns have withdrawn from the action and reached some kind of secret deal with Goncala regarding his costs.
Apologies Diatribe, only just seen this.

I don't know what has held up the trial, we can only speculate at this stage. The longer the delay however, the more suspicious it becomes, we are now into March, and the last day of the hearing was before Christmas!

I don't think there will be any offers or acceptances of a settlement. The case has come too far and Goncalo Amaral is entitled to his day in Court. He has fought the libel actions to the bitter end, it would go against all his constitutional rights to deny him a verdict in open court.

The trial may have become invalid due to some sort of proof that Madeleine is dead. There are two investigations going on, so it is well within the realms of possibility. I am not a legal person, but in the event Madeleine is dead then it would have all sorts of knock on effects as to the validity of HER claim against Goncalo Amaral. We were told one of the delays was due to the Wardship issue.

In addition, dramatic new evidence has emerged during the course of the trial. Courtesy of The Times, the world learned that the McCanns suppressed the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public. The Apology did nothing to put that particular cat back in the bag, it merely altered the length of time the McCanns suppressed the evidence.

The case may have collapsed. That is the McCanns and/or their Lawyers may have decided to withdraw and offered to pay all costs. Terms would have to be agreed by all parties including Goncalo Amaral and the two other Defendants. I don't really know what happens when a case collapses, but I am sure there are cases out there.

Ouch - look at costs faced by David Irving (pro nazi historian) in his failed action against author Deborah Lipstadt and publishers Penguin - it goes into millions and that is 2002!

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/05/humanities.highereducation
[color=#ff0000]In addition, dramatic new evidence has emerged during the course of the trial. Courtesy of The Times, the world learned that the McCanns suppressed the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public. The Apology did nothing to put that particular cat back in the bag, it merely altered the length of time the McCanns suppressed the evidence.

How did this 'dramatic new evidence' emege? Was it discovered during the course of the proceedings, and what impact has it had on the trial?

Good question. The Times were the only paper to run with the suppression story, so they unearthed it themselves, or someone gave them a tip off. As for its impact on the trial, it remains to be seen, but this long delay is curious. The basis of the McCanns' claim for damages is that GA's book harmed the search for Madeleine, the McCanns suppressing a key sighting raises huge questions as to the validity of the McCanns' 'search'.

Did the McCanns issue an apology for 'suppressing the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public' and how did the apology alter the length of time they'd suppressed the evidence?

The McCanns didn't issue an apology for suppressing the Smith sighting, they extracted an apology from the Times. However it wasn't quite what they demanded, the story stood, only the length of time the McCanns suppressed the story was altered.

I seem to recall you were invited back to, is it peoplestv? the name escapes me at the moment , in order to update viewers on the libel trial. Will you be making a further appearance any time soon?

The trial has not resumed and there have been changes at TPV, so the answer is I honestly don't know.

by Guest 06.03.14 9:51

Woofer wrote:I`m weird I know, but I can`t joke about that pic of GM - it really gets to me - so sad and real for once.

I feel the same. What was the date of the photo?

by Guest 06.03.14 10:00

ultimaThule wrote:

When and where was this photo taken???

by Guest 06.03.14 10:03

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Woofer wrote:I`m weird I know, but I can`t joke about that pic of GM - it really gets to me - so sad and real for once.

I feel the same. What was the date of the photo?

It's May 2013, sixth anniversary, from the Daily Mail, I believe. Trying to find it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319228/Madeline-McCann-A-tearful-emotional-Gerry-Kate-mark-sixth-anniversary-daughters-disappearance.html

Thanks, Chatelaine.

by Guest 06.03.14 10:19

Well he certainly looks a condemned man in that photo. The only photo i have seen of GM where he genuinely looks sad and the pain is clearly there etched on his face.

I think that's more to do with the possibility of a lengthy custodial sentence than genuine anguish over MBM.

He looks very worried and so he should be. The end is in sight maybe and he knows it.

by Guest 06.03.14 10:21

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Woofer wrote:I`m weird I know, but I can`t joke about that pic of GM - it really gets to me - so sad and real for once.

I feel the same. What was the date of the photo?

What affects me is what happened to his 3 year old daughter, Madeleine, and the suffering she endured.

The parents can relieve any perceived "pain" they are enduring by telling the truth of the circumstances of her disappearance. I have no sympathy for them.

by Guest 06.03.14 10:22

Andrew77R wrote:Well he certainly looks a condemned man in that photo. The only photo i have seen of GM where he genuinely looks sad and the pain is clearly there etched on his face.

I think that's more to do with the possibility of a lengthy custodial sentence than genuine anguish over MBM.

He looks very worried and so he should be. The end is in sight maybe and he knows it.

So what was going on around that time that might have suddenly rendered him so concerned?

Log in for more topics