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

by ultimaThule 11.06.14 1:30

Imo the first thing they'll do if convicted is protest their innocence and launch a series of appeals, while whatever of their relatives who haven't been jailed alongside them will continue to keep the TM publicity machine going at full throttle in a futile attempt at damage limiitation - providing, of course, they're handsomely rewarded for their service.

Also in my imo, they were never overly fond of their eldest daughter and have distanced themselves so much from her that they've most probably convinced themselves she engineered her own death and forced them to conceal her body tin order to spite them. Nothing is ever the wee one's fault because, in his opinion, he's faultless and, as his spouse's vanity is such that she believes she can do no wrong, there'll be no grieving for Madeleine but they'll both do a lot of wallowing in self-pity.

by Halfwit 11.06.14 1:56

@UT

I don't know where the boundaries of grief are. It's said to be average three years so one feels a bit useless if one doesn't sharpen up and conform.

by ultimaThule 11.06.14 2:29

Other than Gerry's intellectual capabitlities and the iq of his spouse, imo the McCanns are far from being average and such people rarely have any boundaries that the rest of us are familiar with, Halfwit.

Fwiw, in my experience there is no time limit on grief but, while time does not heal, its passing allows us to reach some accomodation whereby our grief doesn't constantly overwhelm us.

by aiyoyo 11.06.14 4:35

halfwit wrote :
I suspect the first thing they'll do if arrested and convicted, is really grieve. I doubt they've even given themselves the chance, yet. "

No, not the McCanns ! Forget normal boundaries of grief, this won't apply to them.

They never grieved for Madeleine as proven by their public behaviour.
They only want people to believe that but their poor acting gave them away.
Their ability to switch between happy face (candid) to contrived grief face (on national tv & press conference) for cameras purpose speaks volume.

If they are in the dock, the more eloquent (by comparison out of the two) gerry would do an "oscar" ie fight for his life by arguing like a 'cocky school boy' with the ~~school master~~ prosecutor, while stammering can't string a proper sentence kate will do her trademark hand on heart gesture and contort her face features to look as if she was distress and basically perform all the tricks she'd mastered over the years to elicit sympathy.

by Liz Eagles 11.06.14 4:59

Good morning everyone (or afternoon depending on where you are),

I'm looking forward to reading more on this debate today.

I'd like to make a small request to CynicAl (I'm not speaking of the endless reams of unnecessary prose used to convince/batter others into thinking 'I'm right, I'm eloquent, so shut up') no, mine is a simple request.

Here it is CynicAl. As most people are here for the common reason of finding justice for Madeleine McCann, do you think you could be less patronising and rude please as it's rather unpleasant and counter-productive to your argument which after all is only your opinion.

Phew, there it is a simple and polite request.

Let today's debate commence.

PS: to anyone else who enters the ring with CynicAl today, don't be put off by the long responses it's often used as a "debating tool". big grin

by Guest 11.06.14 5:35

Goodmorning Europe, nighty night Americas and goodday to Asia.

There is something bothering me in this interview.
It's the part about Madeleine being declared dead
after seven years, before digging begun.

Afaik the parents did not request it.
It should have been requested by Justice Hogg as well, me thinks.

If Madeleine has been officially declared dead last month, that wont look nice
for them in the libel trial. No new date, September I guess.

Was Madeleine officially declared dead or am I reading it wrong.

Kindest regards

parapono

by Guest 11.06.14 6:53

HI good morning parapono,
Yes it is said, but by the interviewer not GA. Probably has his facts wrong.

"Anchor: Gonçalo Amaral, is there any cause-effect relation between the fact that these searches, these excavations started shortly after Madeleine McCann was officially declared dead by British authorities?

Gonçalo Amaral: That death declaration, a declaration in terms of, a civil death, which is a mechanism that we also have in Portugal, when someone disappears, I think it Portugal it’s after five years –

Anchor: But these excavations come afterwards, not before…"

by Guest 11.06.14 8:45

dantezebu thanks!
parapono

by noddy100 11.06.14 8:56

dantezebu wrote:HI good morning parapono,
Yes it is said, but by the interviewer not GA. Probably has his facts wrong.

"Anchor: Gonçalo Amaral, is there any cause-effect relation between the fact that these searches, these excavations started shortly after Madeleine McCann was officially declared dead by British authorities?

Gonçalo Amaral: That death declaration, a declaration in terms of, a civil death, which is a mechanism that we also have in Portugal, when someone disappears, I think it Portugal it’s after five years –

Anchor: But these excavations come afterwards, not before…"

Could this indicate someone has 'talked'?
They know she is dead but need evidence to conclude

by AndyB 11.06.14 9:00

noddy100 wrote:
dantezebu wrote:HI good morning parapono,
Yes it is said, but by the interviewer not GA. Probably has his facts wrong.

"Anchor: Gonçalo Amaral, is there any cause-effect relation between the fact that these searches, these excavations started shortly after Madeleine McCann was officially declared dead by British authorities?

Gonçalo Amaral: That death declaration, a declaration in terms of, a civil death, which is a mechanism that we also have in Portugal, when someone disappears, I think it Portugal it’s after five years –

Anchor: But these excavations come afterwards, not before…"
Could this indicate someone has 'talked'?
They know she is dead but need evidence to conclude

I don't think so. I think its more to do with the fact that, after 7 years, you can apply to the court to get a declaration that a missing person is dead. The anchor above appears to have the impression that such a declaration has been made for Madeleine.

by Liz Eagles 11.06.14 9:02

I'd be wary of interpreting anything factual from this translation.

by **PeterMac** 11.06.14 10:46

I'd be wary of interpreting anything from anything !

The only thing about which we can be absolutely certain, is that we have no idea what is happening.

by Liz Eagles 11.06.14 10:47

PeterMac wrote:I'd be wary of interpreting anything from anything !

The only thing about which we can be absolutely certain, is that we have no idea what is happening.

The only certainty is that it's all uncertain.

by Watching The Detectives 11.06.14 10:51

I'm hoping that both police forces and GA have valuable information but are working on that principle of 'confusion is good' at this moment in time.......until all the required pieces are in place.

by Hicks 11.06.14 11:18

CynicAl wrote:
Hicks wrote:CynicalAL, I ask again......what was the role of Clarence Mitchel? Mitchel gave up his career to assist the McCann's. How could he be so sure that Madeleine's disappearance would continue past his resignation?
Oh god, you're going to keep asking that like its a pivotal question, aren't you?

You have several possibilities before you ever arrive at the idea that Mitchell lost his mind and decided to gamble all on being an accessory to murder and conspired to pervert the course of justice.

(i) he's a greedy little chancer who left a job he didn't like knowing that his credentials could get him a secure new post at the drop of a hat, and he decided to take up an offer of paid work on a fixed salary sum for a fixed contract period which could be amended to "as long as needed".

One thing that's not a mystery is that he wasn't put on a per hour or per day rate, wondering if he could get overtime lest his contract ended early with adead or alive recovery. Someone paid him well.

He's also smarter than an average red top reader and knew that whatever the outcome would be, he'd have a saleable story.

(ii) In his line of work he is dependent on plausible deniability, much like a lawyer. It may make him prince of darkness, but he accepts what he's told, asks no troubling questions and genuinely sees himself as doing a job divorced from his personal morals, and he will lie, cheat and steal for any paying clients.

(iii) he's a real believer. He's been seduced by the Mc's, maybe with a lie, maybe a half truth, maybe a whole truth, and he's genuinely convinced by it.

Me? I think he's Michael Clayton. But I'm damn sure he ain't 'M'.

Lets leave God out of this! Sorry CyniclAL but yes, I am going to keep on asking the question about Mitchel.

Perhaps using the words...'giving up his career' were not the right ones. Looks like he spun that one rather too well. Mitchel was SENT to Portugal by the Foreign Office, that means he was sent by Gordon Brown.

'Clarence joined the Cabinet Office to become director of the governments media monitoring unit, overseeing it's development and later transfer to the central office of information (COI) whilst there, he was seconded to the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office and sent to Portugal to act as the FCO media handler for Kate and Gerry McCann after their daughter disappeared in Praia Da Luz three years ago. The McCann's LATER took Clarence as their full time media spokesperson, a position he retains to this day'.

It is a fact that Mitchel was SENT to Portugal by Gordon Brown.

I do not believe that anyone 'important' was there secretly in PDL with the McCann's. Nor do I believe in any grand conspiracy theory. What I do believe is that the death of a child occurred under mysterious circumstances, the parents covered it up-for what ever reason- and that the then Labour government were complicit in that cover up- for whatever reason.

by worriedmum 11.06.14 11:37

What was happening politically at this time?
Was it a case of 'burying bad news' using two photogenic parents and a genuinely heart-tugging story which kept other news off the front pages?
Wouldn't that explain why Mitchell was sent?

And then it all 'grew like Topsy'?

by Doug D 11.06.14 11:38

KM's take on CM's initial stint (KH1 p. 170)

‘At the beginning of June, Gerry had a call from the director of communications at the Foreign Office. There was concern in the government, he said, that Clarence was ‘becoming the story’. I am not quite sure what he meant by this. Clarence was certainly a visible presence and perhaps his open, affable style prevented him from being quite as anonymous as the Foreign Office would have liked. Perhaps it had drawn attention to the fact that they were still providing us with a media spokesperson and questions were being asked. It had been a month since Madeleine’s disappearance, so maybe they were simply trying gently to prompt us into appointing somebody of our own to help us.
Whatever the case, it was suggested to Gerry that we should use Madeleine’s Fund to employ someone to replace Clarence once our campaign visits were complete’.

by Hicks 11.06.14 11:47

Doug D wrote:KM's take on CM's initial stint (KH1 p. 170)

‘At the beginning of June, Gerry had a call from the director of communications at the Foreign Office. There was concern in the government, he said, that Clarence was ‘becoming the story’. I am not quite sure what he meant by this. Clarence was certainly a visible presence and perhaps his open, affable style prevented him from being quite as anonymous as the Foreign Office would have liked. Perhaps it had drawn attention to the fact that they were still providing us with a media spokesperson and questions were being asked. It had been a month since Madeleine’s disappearance, so maybe they were simply trying gently to prompt us into appointing somebody of our own to help us.
Whatever the case, it was suggested to Gerry that we should use Madeleine’s Fund to employ someone to replace Clarence once our campaign visits were complete’.

At the beginning of June? I understood Mitchel's involvement started from the 21st May when he accompanied GM back to Portugal after GM flying visit home. "Perhaps it had drawn attention to the fact that they were-STILL-providing us with a media spokesperson and questions were being asked". Is it me or does it seem like CM must have been there at the very beginning?

by Doug D 11.06.14 11:59

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.

Justine went out on 22nd June and stayed till September.

by CynicAl 11.06.14 12:04

Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl,

Ok. ok then. I get the picture, you're generally averse to conspiracy theories which is fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion the same as the next person.

What about Clarence Mitchell?

No Gollum, you clearly don't get the picture.

I'm into truth. I'm into facts. I'm into evidence. I'm into intelligent investigation, rational theories and informed conclusions. If the evidence leads me, by way of proof, to conspiracy then I can handle that. But don't lead me to a set of dirty windows and tell me someone recently washed them secretly for an insidious reason and proceed to give me a list of the most influential people in the area at the time. If the windows are dirtier than they were before, I don't care of you have an eyewitness that can put Prince Charles with a bucket and sponge two streets away. They ain't been washed if they're dirtier than before.

I have a natural aversion to bull, and when someone says 'you don' t believe in conspiracy theories' with the insinuation that I'm intellectually defective for not doing so, it nauseates me that someone so mindlessly demeans the process of genuine investigation by being unable to tell the difference between the uncovering of inconvenient truths and the promotion of any and every batpoo insane speculation, wild accusation and witchhunting lynch mob.

I believe in conspiracies that you've never imagined, but I base my beliefs, my conclusions on where the evidence takes me.

When you start with the assumption of a wild, preposterous, pointless, self-defeating conspiracy you will never be satisfied with a mundane answer. You'll always assume you're correct no matter how implausible.

by tasprin 11.06.14 12:16

Doug D wrote:KM's take on CM's initial stint (KH1 p. 170)

‘At the beginning of June, Gerry had a call from the director of communications at the Foreign Office. There was concern in the government, he said, that Clarence was ‘becoming the story’. I am not quite sure what he meant by this. Clarence was certainly a visible presence and perhaps his open, affable style prevented him from being quite as anonymous as the Foreign Office would have liked. Perhaps it had drawn attention to the fact that they were still providing us with a media spokesperson and questions were being asked. It had been a month since Madeleine’s disappearance, so maybe they were simply trying gently to prompt us into appointing somebody of our own to help us.
Whatever the case, it was suggested to Gerry that we should use Madeleine’s Fund to employ someone to replace Clarence once our campaign visits were complete’.

Hahaha! ... 'His open, affable style'.... she lies with such ease.

by SixMillionQuid 11.06.14 12:18

CynicAl wrote:
Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl,

Ok. ok then. I get the picture, you're generally averse to conspiracy theories which is fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion the same as the next person.

What about Clarence Mitchell?
No Gollum, you clearly don't get the picture.

I'm into truth. I'm into facts. I'm into evidence. I'm into intelligent investigation, rational theories and informed conclusions. If the evidence leads me, by way of proof, to conspiracy then I can handle that. But don't lead me to a set of dirty windows and tell me someone recently washed them secretly for an insidious reason and proceed to give me a list of the most influential people in the area at the time. If the windows are dirtier than they were before, I don't care of you have an eyewitness that can put Prince Charles with a bucket and sponge two streets away. They ain't been washed if they're dirtier than before.

I have a natural aversion to bull, and when someone says 'you don' t believe in conspiracy theories' with the insinuation that I'm intellectually defective for not doing so, it nauseates me that someone so mindlessly demeans the process of genuine investigation by being unable to tell the difference between the uncovering of inconvenient truths and the promotion of any and every batpoo insane speculation, wild accusation and witchhunting lynch mob.

I believe in conspiracies that you've never imagined, but I base my beliefs, my conclusions on where the evidence takes me.

When you start with the assumption of a wild, preposterous, pointless, self-defeating conspiracy you will never be satisfied with a mundane answer. You'll always assume you're correct no matter how implausible.

So I take it from you Goncalo Amaral is a conspirital loon?

by CynicAl 11.06.14 12:20

AndyB wrote:
CynicAl wrote:I ask again - what purpose does disingenuously reopening the investigation have which wouldn't be better served by having left it alone? Do you really think the majority of the red top reading public thought the PJ did such a good job that SY had to spend £10m to (unsuccessfully so far) try to change public perception?
Again you're ignoring the context. The establishment were quite happy to leave it all alone until Rebekah Brooks threatened David Cameron with god knows what. It was this threat that caused the review to be opened. Having been forced to open the review the powers that be, or at least that part of them that wants something hidden, have to deal with the situation. What better way is there to do this than to ensure that the review's conclusion, whatever it might be, maintains the secret?

A better question would be why did the review get upgraded to an investigation when the Met has no jurisdiction over abductions in Portugal? (The only answer I have is that the Met cannot be investigating abduction)

ETA And can we have a response to the question re Clarence Mitchel that Hicks asked and that Gollum is pressing for? I'd like to read what you think as well

I'm sorry, but if you're going to talk about context, talk about context. But be broad and thorough, don't just invent a context based on a summarised fragment of gossip abstracted from the annals of time.

If you think that a government trying to bury a cold case reopened it because a scandalised newspaper editor 'threatened the PM with bad publicity' you're delusional. People serious enough to commit to being accessory to infanticide or pervert the course of justice aren't going to be threatened by someone whose neck is on a political or criminal block. To think that's all there is to Brooks' claim is naive and ignorant of the nature of both NI and the Tory Government. Arguably if RB was coercing DC to pervert the course of justice DC could terminate RB just on her involvement and blackmail alone.

To establish the 'context' you have to know what she said and why she said it, and the background to it. You can't have Murdoch Ltd trying to save the Mc's and trying to drown them simultaneously. Did RB want the case reopened to corrupt it, or to conclude it? Without knowing that you can't know what will that interchange represented, and all you have are fragmented claims with no qualification.

by Liz Eagles 11.06.14 12:22

CynicAl wrote:
Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl,

Ok. ok then. I get the picture, you're generally averse to conspiracy theories which is fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion the same as the next person.

What about Clarence Mitchell?
No Gollum, you clearly don't get the picture.

I'm into truth. I'm into facts. I'm into evidence. I'm into intelligent investigation, rational theories and informed conclusions. If the evidence leads me, by way of proof, to conspiracy then I can handle that. But don't lead me to a set of dirty windows and tell me someone recently washed them secretly for an insidious reason and proceed to give me a list of the most influential people in the area at the time. If the windows are dirtier than they were before, I don't care of you have an eyewitness that can put Prince Charles with a bucket and sponge two streets away. They ain't been washed if they're dirtier than before.

I have a natural aversion to bull, and when someone says 'you don' t believe in conspiracy theories' with the insinuation that I'm intellectually defective for not doing so, it nauseates me that someone so mindlessly demeans the process of genuine investigation by being unable to tell the difference between the uncovering of inconvenient truths and the promotion of any and every batpoo insane speculation, wild accusation and witchhunting lynch mob.

I believe in conspiracies that you've never imagined, but I base my beliefs, my conclusions on where the evidence takes me.

When you start with the assumption of a wild, preposterous, pointless, self-defeating conspiracy you will never be satisfied with a mundane answer. You'll always assume you're correct no matter how implausible.

Given that you base your beliefs on where the evidence takes you, wouldn't you agree that your current belief in the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance to date has no more weight than anyone else's?

Don't get me wrong, there's a large part of your thinking I agree with totally. I'm a no bullshit gal and like facts. However, there is also the odd spark of what I read and think 'oh gawd' (you call it batpoo) that hits a mark like a lightning strike.

I disagree with you that there is no cover up. I can't understand how Mitchell merely wheedled his way in opportunistically as you seem to think and then becomes a Tory prospective candidate whilst simultaneously working for the McCanns. That's just one happy pill I won't swallow.

Good debate though.

ETA: I've made myself laugh with the 'happy pill' remark. I'm sure much will be made on those weird sites about drug taking/doped up/pill swallowing haters.

I find it hard to take an aspirin for a headache.

by Mirage 11.06.14 12:59

Doug D 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.

Justine went out on 22nd June and stayed till September.

That would be the Justine who memorably told Geraldo to stick to THE OFFICIAL LINE when he went into meltdown when asked about the dogs' evidence.

Here she is from circa 0.33 trying to save the situation. At around 0.37 she says:

"JUST SAY IT'S SPECULATION SO THAT YOU CAN THEN STICK TO THE OFFICIAL LINE"

OFFICIAL LINE? GRACIOUS. SURELY NOT. That would be a conspiracy theory too far, and all logicians know that cannot be the case.

You can see the cogs turning on KH's face. No wonder she shuts Justine up: "It's 'ot in 'ere. Give 'im a minute."

You see, if you don't dig around the political scene you won't dig anything up will you? That's logic of a sort. Depends on whether you want to sit and write piss poor put-downs of others' efforts. and dip into the insults bag when the sophistry wears thin.

Windy Miller. Listen and learn. Especially from others here who could leave you standing in the research department.

whacky

Log in for more topics