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

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

Gracias.

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.

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.

ProfessorPPlum wrote: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.

View-from-Ireland wrote:If that were the case, he wouldn't be the only poster one could accuse of being condescending to those that disagree with his standpoint.

Gollum wrote:

ProfessorPPlum wrote: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.

Excuse me for pocking my five eggs in here but I think the subject is going way off track. CynicAl continuously posts objections to anything that suggests 'conspiracy' (the new 'C' word) in global terms. A few members have questioned particular aspects of the case that might or might not (depending how you personally interpret) indicate a conspiracy or whatever else you wish to call it. CynicAl hasn't responded to these questions other than to reiterate a general objection to conspiracy theories and otherwise to directly accuse fellow forum members of stupidity.

I don't have any objection to lengthy posts providing it's packed with information, not page after page of meaningingless sentences that all seem to say the same thing. IMO.

CynicAl wrote:

Gollum wrote:

ProfessorPPlum wrote: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.

Excuse me for pocking my five eggs in here but I think the subject is going way off track. CynicAl continuously posts objections to anything that suggests 'conspiracy' (the new 'C' word) in global terms. A few members have questioned particular aspects of the case that might or might not (depending how you personally interpret) indicate a conspiracy or whatever else you wish to call it. CynicAl hasn't responded to these questions other than to reiterate a general objection to conspiracy theories and otherwise to directly accuse fellow forum members of stupidity.

I don't have any objection to lengthy posts providing it's packed with information, not page after page of meaningingless sentences that all seem to say the same thing. IMO.

Sorry Gollum, but that's simply not true. 

I've repeatedly upheld the possibility of a specific conspiracy where specific evidence indicates such a certainty. I have also repeatedly denounced the imperitive to raise, promote and insist upon a 'conspiracy theory' which exists only because the proponent finds it a more satisfying idea, not because solid evidence demonstrates that it is the case. I have also pointed out that the only conceivable purpose of a conspiracy which is to fulfil a goal thoroughly and in secrecy, is utterly undermined by the idea that conspiracies might be left to be counter-productive and self-defeating, might be deemed to be succesful in their idiocy as a means of explaining away the lack of evidence for their having existed, or that grand high massive multiagency conspiracies can exist and work successfully utilising increasing numbers of personnel, a publicly expanding budget, makinga vast amount of attention-drawing noise and achieving no discernible benefit. 

I've answered vast numbers of questions reasonably and thoroughly. I think you'll find that it is the conspiracy theorists who respond to everything by repeating that a conspiracy must have taken place because its the only thing that makes sense to their imagination of whaot must have happened and be still happening. 

Or at least that's what the messages in my inbox keep telling me.

CynicAl wrote:

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:
If all my secrets are published today, as a result of media, police and judicial inquiry, and published in reports, and those reports are available for the next seven years with unrestricted access in spite of my taking legal recourse to confound attempts to publish or redistribute them, you cannot argue in seven years time that the government conspired on my behalf to cover-up my secrets. Nothing has been suppressed. Nothing is hidden. The very process of having investigated me is public knowledge. The findings are public knowledge. They might be speculated over and debated over but the very act of speculation and debate in public affirms that nothing has been secreted away or hidden or covered-up.

If none of my secrets are published today because media did not report on what they happened to know about me, if police had refused to investigate and judicial inquiries had hastily dismissed cases brought against me, reports written were shredded and seven years from now you found out upon my death that suddenly people had flooded forward to accuse me, to confirm that they'd been to the authorities but been warned off, ignored, threatened and that I'd spent seven years placing media injunctions to prevent negative gossip, entertaining high ranking police officers, playing golf with high ranking judicial figures, entertaining the Queen, you could conclude that everything had been suppressed, that I'd been involved in something dark and sinister and that high-powered friends had effected a vast cover up in my favour.

The former is the McCann case.

No it isn't. The cover-up isn't about hiding the McCanns involvement in their daughters disappearance. Its about hiding the secret that caused the establishment involvement from the very beginning. A secret that very much remains hidden.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I agree but struggle to understand the relevance. Your analogies were based on the idea that those of us that are open minded enough to consider a cover-up of something  is a viable theory, believe that the conspiracy is to protect the McCanns. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't believe that at all. I was merely highlighting that your assumption was invalid. I wasn't trying to convince you that there is a cover-up because I realise that you won't even consider the possibility.

Nonsense. My analogies were based on the idea that you cannot, with a straight face, claim that something pertaining to a case has been 'covered up' when there is no evidence of anything in that case being 'covered up' and then argue that what was covered up wasn't actually anything to do with that case, but actually something totally inconsequential to the case.

CynicAl wrote:

Gollum wrote:

ProfessorPPlum wrote: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.

Excuse me for pocking my five eggs in here but I think the subject is going way off track. CynicAl continuously posts objections to anything that suggests 'conspiracy' (the new 'C' word) in global terms. A few members have questioned particular aspects of the case that might or might not (depending how you personally interpret) indicate a conspiracy or whatever else you wish to call it. CynicAl hasn't responded to these questions other than to reiterate a general objection to conspiracy theories and otherwise to directly accuse fellow forum members of stupidity.

I don't have any objection to lengthy posts providing it's packed with information, not page after page of meaningingless sentences that all seem to say the same thing. IMO.

Sorry Gollum, but that's simply not true. 

I've repeatedly upheld the possibility of a specific conspiracy where specific evidence indicates such a certainty. I have also repeatedly denounced the imperitive to raise, promote and insist upon a 'conspiracy theory' which exists only because the propo nent finds it a more satisfying idea, not because solid evidence demonstrates that it is the case.

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

Gollum wrote:

ProfessorPPlum wrote: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.

Excuse me for pocking my five eggs in here but I think the subject is going way off track. CynicAl continuously posts objections to anything that suggests 'conspiracy' (the new 'C' word) in global terms. A few members have questioned particular aspects of the case that might or might not (depending how you personally interpret) indicate a conspiracy or whatever else yoish to call it. CynicAl hasn't responded to these questions other than to reiterate a general objection to conspiracy theories and otherwise to directly accuse fellow forum members of stupidity.

I don't have any objection to lengthy posts providing it's packed with information, not page after page of meaningingless sentences that all seem to say the same thing. IMO.

Sorry Gollum, but that's simply not true. 

I've repeatedly upheld the possibility of a specific conspiracy where specific evidence indicates such a certainty. I have also repeatedly denounced the imperitive to raise, promote and insist upon a 'conspiracy theory' which exists only because the propo nent finds it a more satisfying idea, not because solid evidence demonstrates that it is the case.

In what way is "I have [...] repeatedly denounced the imperitive to raise, promote and insist upon a 'conspiracy theory'" different from the "simply not true" "CynicAl continuously posts objections to anything that suggests 'conspiracy'"?

CynicAL:
The "Conspiracy Theory" is religious by nature, requiring only the will to believe and attempting to account for everything in one elaborate narrative

Snifferdog wrote:Flamingboy said:
I'm not as well read with regard to this case as others that contribute in this forum.  I simply don't have the time looking through all the threads here there and everywhere in attempting to try and piece it all together to better my understanding as others clearly have. Maybe I'm missing something somewhere and perhaps others can enlighten me as far as a possible conspiracy is concerned.
Why were the McCanns allowed to travel back to the UK if evidence against them, albeit circumstantial, was found. At least evidence that understandably needed probing and investigating further. What instigated Amaral's removal? Is it true or is there any truth in that the British Government was involved in Amaral's removal from the case by pressurising the authorities in Portugal?
To others the answers may seem simple and straightforward. To me they're not.
Maybe I'm reading a little too deep but there does seem to be a certain 'click' on this forum from a 'looking down one's nose' standpoint and point scoring.
Any input appreciated or at least direct me to an area where I can read up a little more. Thanks.
Anyway
Snifferdog said: Good points Flamingboy, I should like to hear what could be the explanation for these very valid points you have raised...but I seriously doubt you will get a satisfactory answer...

CynicAl wrote:

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

Gollum wrote:

ProfessorPPlum wrote: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.

Excuse me for pocking my five eggs in here but I think the subject is going way off track. CynicAl continuously posts objections to anything that suggests 'conspiracy' (the new 'C' word) in global terms. A few members have questioned particular aspects of the case that might or might not (depending how you personally interpret) indicate a conspiracy or whatever else yoish to call it. CynicAl hasn't responded to these questions other than to reiterate a general objection to conspiracy theories and otherwise to directly accuse fellow forum members of stupidity.

I don't have any objection to lengthy posts providing it's packed with information, not page after page of meaningingless sentences that all seem to say the same thing. IMO.

Sorry Gollum, but that's simply not true. 

I've repeatedly upheld the possibility of a specific conspiracy where specific evidence indicates such a certainty. I have also repeatedly denounced the imperitive to raise, promote and insist upon a 'conspiracy theory' which exists only because the propo nent finds it a more satisfying idea, not because solid evidence demonstrates that it is the case.

In what way is "I have [...] repeatedly denounced the imperitive to raise, promote and insist upon a 'conspiracy theory'" different from the "simply not true" "CynicAl continuously posts objections to anything that suggests 'conspiracy'"?

If you don' t know the difference between 'conspiracy' (which to prove objectively requires court admissible evidence) and a "Conspiracy Theory"  which is the attribution of events or circumstances which pose a perceived frustration, inconvenience or problem to unseen 'irresistibly powerful' interlinked individuals or agencies to act in concert with means, motive and opportunity to conceal or confound a truth which would otherwise be revealed, knowable or examinable, without clear and direct evidence to warrant such a theory and usually in contradiction of known facts or observable truths then that would explain why you insist on thinking my position is paradoxical.  The "Conspiracy Theory" is religious by nature, requiring only the will to believe and attempting to account for everything in one elaborate narrative, often requiring the suspension of disbelief or the assumption of the implausible or impossible in order to seem credible. It will often focus elaborately on what is unknown with disarming detail and intricacy, and de-emphasise what is known, observable or rational in order to create an untestable subjectively skewed narrative which is then actively promoted as fact.  in the "Conspiracy Theory" the persistent absence of evidence or testable proof is taken as proof of the veracity of the theory, it being assumed that the conspiracy has been successful in removing the evidence for its own existence. 

That the T9 sat in meetings together to plan a harmonising of statements which could be proven in court would constitute a 'conspiracy.' The incriminating statement 'we have a pact'  would be evidence, as would the demonstration that between the T9 testimonies given prior to the meeting and those given after the material substance, manner or content had changed significantly. Witnesses or statements corroborating the secret meeting would be evidence. 

I'm not sure how much leeway is given to lawyers advising guilty clients and whether that constitutes conspiracy. 

However, to explain the reluctance of prosecuting authorities to prosecute a major case with inadequate evidence, at which they only get one shot, by weaving a narrative in which the events were devised and covered up (even though they weren't) in concert with and with the knowledge of a broad range of individuals and organisations actively engaged in concealing, managing and perverting the course of justice in order to fulfil a private agenda at the expense of truth with media, executive, goverment and security services all in on the conspiracy and protecting it, shortlist for involvement including every cabinet politician in power at that time, would constitute a "Conspiracy Theory". 

I do suggest paying attention to the difference. Getting it wrong can cost you all credibility

flamingboy wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Flamingboy said:
I'm not as well read with regard to this case as others that contribute in this forum.  I simply don't have the time looking through all the threads here there and everywhere in attempting to try and piece it all together to better my understanding as others clearly have. Maybe I'm missing something somewhere and perhaps others can enlighten me as far as a possible conspiracy is concerned.
Why were the McCanns allowed to travel back to the UK if evidence against them, albeit circumstantial, was found. At least evidence that understandably needed probing and investigating further. What instigated Amaral's removal? Is it true or is there any truth in that the British Government was involved in Amaral's removal from the case by pressurising the authorities in Portugal?
To others the answers may seem simple and straightforward. To me they're not.
Maybe I'm reading a little too deep but there does seem to be a certain 'click' on this forum from a 'looking down one's nose' standpoint and point scoring.
Any input appreciated or at least direct me to an area where I can read up a little more. Thanks.
Anyway
Snifferdog said: Good points Flamingboy, I should like to hear what could be the explanation for these very valid points you have raised...but I seriously doubt you will get a satisfactory answer...

Thanks Snifferdog for your reply :-)

You know, it surprises me that a forum, such as this one, openly invites contributors to ask questions. What's the point?  I just find it totally discourteous and rude that members continue to add 'one liners' in other areas whilst at the same time completely ignoring the few points I raised just because maybe I don't understand the case, as perhaps, others do.

I spoke to one of my customers yesterday and mentioned what I'd seen on this forum coupled with some of the bullet points surrounding the findings in apartment 5A and so on. To say the least it certainly was an eye opener for him as he was completely oblivious and was led by the media stance, so to speak. He did say that something didn't seem quite right from the outset and that what we discussed was a revelation.

It just goes to show that despite the growing interest and questions being raised by many, there are clearly still many,  many others that haven't 'cottoned on' as yet.