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

by CynicAl 11.06.14 23:07

Gollum wrote:
CynicAl wrote:
Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl

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

There was indeed something of consequence taken away that left a tell tale gap. That something is called Madeleine McCann.
And that has what to do with a massive high level conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence?

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

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

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

I'm sorry, I don't know how to make myself more clear. You seem to think that I don't accept these wild high level conspiracy theories because I won't consider them. I don't accept them because in considering why there's no good reason to give them the time of day they proved to be unmitigated nonsense with no supporting evidence compelling their postulation as credible solutions to real problems.

I really don't know what to do with the comments about 'unnecessary words analysed... Mean nothing coherent.' i can only presume english is not your first language. The positive supportive emails I've received suggest to me that the problem with coherent english may not be mine.

I also can't relate to the irrationality of your reactive hyperbole. 'attempts at discrediting practically everything posted on this forum' is a statement of falsehood. A lie. I've left 98% of the contents of this forum entirely alone. I got tired of the repeated delving into wild bull territory which discredits the rational users here, and fervently challange the bollocks, as it were. Your wild and false accusation doesn't make me hopeful for the quality of the speculations you promote. As said previously, if there was credible supporting evidence rather than invention and assumption, it would speak for itself.

The rest is just you childishly stropping and taking your bat home, and doesn't warrant a civil comment.

by JackieL 11.06.14 23:15

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

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

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

by nobodythereeither 11.06.14 23:24

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

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

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

And you expect them to do - what?

They are the parents/family of a missing child, and insufficient evidence has so far been found to charge anybody.

Therefore, at this stage of the investigation (and possibly even after it has been concluded if sufficient evidence has still not been found) they are presumed innocent, at least in public, and the police have to appear to be supportive of them.

That has been the case with other children's parents who were subsequently charged and convicted, has it not?

I didn't think Redwood's body language and facial expressions when appearing on television with the McCanns indicated any kind of "cosying up", quite the reverse in fact.

If there were "key omissions" in the timeline as shown on Crimewatch, then perhaps there was good reason for that, we just don't know at this point. What were the omissions?

by CynicAl 11.06.14 23:30

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

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

Candyfloss, I do apologise. I also apologise that I have had comments and messages from your members calling my posts "excellent", "spot on", "refreshing" and "a breath of fresh air" as well as "sane", "rational", "making sense" and "you said everything I wish I had the writing skill to say." Then there was" Thank you for standing up for common sense. A few of us have tried and we just get torn to pieces by all the same people. You have to havea strong character to stick it out. I stopped dropping by so often because of it, but having checked in this week i was really encouraged to read your thoughts which agree with my own. "

Perhaps those kind members of your site would appreciate you tackling those attacking me, who are also prone to being disrespectful and demeaning with equal measure. My personal feeling is that I've answered as many as demanded an answer of me, provoked me, insulted me or challenged my intelligence or questioned the integrity of my motive and intent. With all due respect, I think attacks about how well someone can present their thoughts or how many words are used are bang out of order considering that certain members of the board have a history of being allowed the longest posts opining their own authority or 'research.' Would it be too much to ask that posters be able to expect their posts to be judged on the quality of the argument not the number of the words? Did anyone get hurt by my using a lot of words to make myself clear to as broad a readership as possible? Does any damage get done by those using a few concise words to express spurious, ill-conceived, hurtful or wildly defamatory statements or insinuations?

by Hicks 11.06.14 23:31

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by plebgate 11.06.14 23:31

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz how many more times are we going to see this same line of posting. Posters can air their beliefs without constantly being asked what they expect etc.

ETA my post in response to NTE.

by petunia 11.06.14 23:38

Maybe when the Met said family, they meant the teams that have been working with them closely for the past 8 day's or however long and don't necessary mean the mccann's just a thought.

by CynicAl 11.06.14 23:39

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

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

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

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

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

by perpendicular circus 11.06.14 23:39

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

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

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

That's not really answering my question/s though, is it ? That was a public statement during which SY had no entitlement to treat the family in any other way . What did you expect him to do, look daggers at them or something ? Personally I prefer the innocent till proved guilty aspect of our judicial system and I rather think that a lead investigator behaving in an uncivil or blatantly prejudicial manner might just prejudice any future trial. This is not a soap opera or a TV series, it is horribly real after all. Currently SY is operating outside a Joint Investigative role, it has to adhere to certain rules and thus far the family has to be included in the statements they make , that would be the same if the crime had happened here. Them's the rules. I don't know what omissions you mean, I am pleased to see the timeline shifted back closer to 9.30/40 ...is that the concern?

by DonNewbery 11.06.14 23:46

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

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

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

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

I believe you do harm by your continual, aggressive, domineering stance. You speak always as this huge authority that no-one else ever has a right to question. I'd be fascinated to know who exactly who or what you are in everyday life. Whence this grandeur? My main point was about succinctness. If nothing else, please try and make your points with fewer words in future. Thanks in anticipation.

by CynicAl 11.06.14 23:51

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

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

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

Those that are outraged and certain that this is a whitewash, may I ask what exactly would a non-whitewash investigation look like, what proceedures would you have expected , what is the source of your current disappointment ?
Regarding Clarence Mitchel, I'm afraid you are falling for his spin. Mitchel was SENT by the Foreign Office, in other words by Gordon Brown.

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

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

In what ways are my posts "becoming slightly offensive?" Am I right in thinking that you're actually advocating that a public forum discussing a subjectas serious as this that critical, intelligent, rational or complex thrashing out of ideas should NOT be present? All ideas discussed here should be flippant, throwaway and as wild as you like? That concerns me because it leads me to believe that this forum wants to be more about entertainment than a constructive, rational, sane consideration of a hugely serious subject?

Out of curiosity, what do you expect a reconstruction of the carefully formulated McCann timeline would achieve, except to prove what we already know and how would you propose to get the T9 to Portugal when they made it clear that unless they see the value they won't budge? Do you think you can shame them into it in ways they're not already resistant to.? Compel them? Make them suspects? Let them lawyer up? You'll only get one chance to fish or cut bait, and going on a fishing exercise with them will get a judge's hackles up. You don't think SY are working within their real world constraints?

by perpendicular circus 11.06.14 23:52

@ Hicks
I won't quote , as that gets lengthy and tendentious and I might be accused of going over the permitted word count .

But no, I think you will find I am fully insulated against Clarence's spin. I posted the link because in it he is brazen and revealing of himself and his motivations . I assume you did not actually read it however ? He was a civil servant , a small time journalist and a reject from the beeb when he got the gig .

Second point I disagree , I find CynicAl to be well reasoned , interesting and provocative in a good way, I prefer those posts to the one liner plus "amusing"pic stylee , but each to their own.

Final point, not entirely sure that SY are in a position to call for a reconstruction in another nation state . I agree that a reconstruction would certainly iron out or reveal some blatant inconsistencies but I doubt the means are in their hands ?

What else would you expect to see ?

by plebgate 11.06.14 23:55

A reconstruction could possibly bring new evidence to the fore, something which one of them might since have remembered, which might have been a good thing at the beginning of this review/investigation.

ETA @ CynicalAl.

by Halfwit 12.06.14 0:06

aquila wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Doug D wrote: wrote:
Yes, CM flew back to PdL with GM on 22nd May, having apparently met him for the first time on 21st.
He then hung around with them for three weeks, before disappearing for a few months.
Don't forget that Clarence's wife miscarried their son whilst he was representing the McCanns in PDL and Clarence felt closer to the McCanns as a result.

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

What a loathsome creature.

Quite. If I could find a word beneath loathsome I'd apply it but it'll do for now.

by notlongnow 12.06.14 0:15

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

by TheTruthWillOut 12.06.14 0:19

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

Maybe they are royalty? *Shyamalan twist*

by petunia 12.06.14 0:19

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of support from his wife in his quest to win Brighton..

by Halfwit 12.06.14 0:26

aquila wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Doug D wrote: wrote:
Yes, CM flew back to PdL with GM on 22nd May, having apparently met him for the first time on 21st.
He then hung around with them for three weeks, before disappearing for a few months.
Don't forget that Clarence's wife miscarried their son whilst he was representing the McCanns in PDL and Clarence felt closer to the McCanns as a result.

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

What a loathsome creature.

Quite. If I could find a word beneath loathsome I'd apply it but it'll do for now.

by Woofer 12.06.14 0:27

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

This way :-

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

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

by Halfwit 12.06.14 0:44

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

This way :-

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

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

That's so true.

Do you just want to demonstrate your superior brainwork Al?

Climb down and engage with the rest of us.

Edit. That reads as an awful group mindset that I'm speaking for and I'm really not.

by fossey 12.06.14 1:59

@CynicalAl.

Keep posting. I for one enjoy reading.

Your straightforward logic makes a lot of sense.

Although fundamentally there are certain things i don't go along with.

Overall though - great stuff.

by ProfessorPPlum 12.06.14 2:50

I agree - carry on CynicalAl I completely understand your arguments and agree with them. It seems that as soon as someone intelligent posts here they get attacked for their 'arrogance' and 'verbosity'. I despair that we seem to have such a low threshold for attention these days. I don't have any problem reading your posts not because they're long and wordy but because I find them interesting and pertinent. I hate it when this forum (perhaps unconsciously) enforces a 'soundbite' limit to the process of debate and argument. It's done as though it were some kind of noble act to save the rest of the reading public from the tyranny of your long setences when in fact it's more likely done out of a feeling of inadequacy that your logic and use of language provokes.

If that annoys anyone so be it. I tired of seeing the same reactions. The last one was the photographer guy...hounded right out of here.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.06.14 8:30

I agree with the last two posts, please keep posting CynicAl! I for one am not afraid of 'lots of words', I enjoy them, especially when they're well placed and meaningful.

by CynicAl 12.06.14 8:52

This morning I'm a person of few words.

Gracias.

by Woofer 12.06.14 9:11

CynicAl wrote:This morning I'm a person of ~~few~~ good mannered words.

Gracias.

by plebgate 12.06.14 9:11

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I agree with the last two posts, please keep posting CynicAl! I for one am not afraid of 'lots of words', I enjoy them, especially when they're well placed and meaningful.

I enjoy TB's long posts, as I find them well placed and meaningful and TB has shown he is a man who will stand by his beliefs no matter what. Marvellous.

Talk on a website is cheap. Actions speak louder than words I believe.

by cassius 12.06.14 9:24

plebgate wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I agree with the last two posts, please keep posting CynicAl! I for one am not afraid of 'lots of words', I enjoy them, especially when they're well placed and meaningful.
I enjoy TB's long posts, as I find them well placed and meaningful and TB has shown he is a man who will stand by his beliefs no matter what. Marvellous.

Talk on a website is cheap. Actions speak louder than words I believe.

Blacksmith makes some good points.

by plebgate 12.06.14 9:28

He may well do and anyone is free to click on his website, but the owner of this sites wishes must be respected imo.

by Ochosi 12.06.14 9:36

Keep posting, CynicAl. I don't mind the long posts either.

by Hicks 12.06.14 10:49

@ CynicAL, this forum and it's members are debating the mysterious disappearance of a young child who, in all probability, died in Portugal on holiday with her parents. Have my posts ever come across as flippant?
Do I seem like the kind of person who posts on this forum for 'amusement'?

Obviously I don't share your superior intellect, that probably shows. I only joined this forum in a genuine attempt to find some answers. I suspect like most here.

I accused you of being 'slightly offensive', perhaps I should have used the words ' slightly egotistical' instead.

Anyhow, lets move on. Your posts are very interesting and give good reasoning.

Latest topics