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

Newintown wrote:

aquila wrote:AndyB wrote

"Its very disappointing because I had hoped you'd engage in discussion and challenge my theories (all of which are precisely that - theories, not religious beliefs like you claim) but unfortunately you won't allow the discussion to even start. It seems your purpose for being here is not to join in debate but to patronise and belittle those with whom you disagree. Fair enough, its a free world and you're entitled to express yourself in anyway you see fit irrespective of the offence that you cause but I hope that the admins here will not allow you to stifle any debate or to suppress any view points just because you disagree with those views or have a dislike of conspiracy theories. You've certainly stopped me commenting much in the future - life's too short for the abuse"

@Andyb - if you look there's something of the religious about CynicAl's posts - it's The Word According to CynicAl (TWAC) which says "Thou shalt have no other opinion than mine, I have a lot of followers, they even congratulate me by private message". It also says "If you disagree with me you are delusional and I will cast ye down with a thousand words'.

As for stopping you commenting much in the future AndyB, you'll find quite a few people can't be bothered to comment on this thread. There's little point. CynicAl has achieved the ultimate with his diatribe and will no doubt be congratulating himself.

I expect that was the whole point of his long diatribes, to stifle discussion.  However, if you ignore all of his posts, as if they never happened, life can carry on as it was on the forum.   

CynicAl wrote:

Newintown wrote:

aquila wrote:AndyB wrote

"Its very disappointing because I had hoped you'd engage in discussion and challenge my theories (all of which are precisely that - theories, not religious beliefs like you claim) but unfortunately you won't allow the discussion to even start. It seems your purpose for being here is not to join in debate but to patronise and belittle those with whom you disagree. Fair enough, its a free world and you're entitled to express yourself in anyway you see fit irrespective of the offence that you cause but I hope that the admins here will not allow you to stifle any debate or to suppress any view points just because you disagree with those views or have a dislike of conspiracy theories. You've certainly stopped me commenting much in the future - life's too short for the abuse"

@Andyb - if you look there's something of the religious about CynicAl's posts - it's The Word According to CynicAl (TWAC) which says "Thou shalt have no other opinion than mine, I have a lot of followers, they even congratulate me by private message". It also says "If you disagree with me you are delusional and I will cast ye down with a thousand words'.

As for stopping you commenting much in the future AndyB, you'll find quite a few people can't be bothered to comment on this thread. There's little point. CynicAl has achieved the ultimate with his diatribe and will no doubt be congratulating himself.

I expect that was the whole point of his long diatribes, to stifle discussion.  However, if you ignore all of his posts, as if they never happened, life can carry on as it was on the forum.   

So, does that make you foolish, since all my 'long diatribes' have done nothing except PROMOTE discussion, and I've done nothing but play along and discuss?

SixMillionQuid wrote:From what I've gathered political interference during the course of an investigation, resulting the forced removal of the lead investigator, does not amount to a conspiracy. Really!!?

To conspire: To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

It doesn't need every single person in every organisation to conspire to achieve an objective - just a few in right places. And as we know some people have stuck their noses in, especially with witnesses, while the investigation was still ongoing in Portugal.

Praia wrote:Cynicalal, what do you make of the British Ambassador's phone call to the head of the PJ in Lisbon the night of May 3???

aquila wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

Newintown wrote:

aquila wrote:AndyB wrote

"Its very disappointing because I had hoped you'd engage in discussion and challenge my theories (all of which are precisely that - theories, not religious beliefs like you claim) but unfortunately you won't allow the discussion to even start. It seems your purpose for being here is not to join in debate but to patronise and belittle those with whom you disagree. Fair enough, its a free world and you're entitled to express yourself in anyway you see fit irrespective of the offence that you cause but I hope that the admins here will not allow you to stifle any debate or to suppress any view points just because you disagree with those views or have a dislike of conspiracy theories. You've certainly stopped me commenting much in the future - life's too short for the abuse"

@Andyb - if you look there's something of the religious about CynicAl's posts - it's The Word According to CynicAl (TWAC) which says "Thou shalt have no other opinion than mine, I have a lot of followers, they even congratulate me by private message". It also says "If you disagree with me you are delusional and I will cast ye down with a thousand words'.

As for stopping you commenting much in the future AndyB, you'll find quite a few people can't be bothered to comment on this thread. There's little point. CynicAl has achieved the ultimate with his diatribe and will no doubt be congratulating himself.

I expect that was the whole point of his long diatribes, to stifle discussion.  However, if you ignore all of his posts, as if they never happened, life can carry on as it was on the forum.   

So, does that make you foolish, since all my 'long diatribes' have done nothing except PROMOTE discussion, and I've done nothing but play along and discuss?

Cast me aside CynicAl, keep going, you just concentrate on getting your message out there. You keep going and 'promoting' discussion. Obviously your idea of discussion differs from mine but I do so enjoy your posts.

CynicAl wrote:

Newintown wrote:CynicAl, you're guessing as to what is going on with the PJ and SY just as much as the rest of us, except it takes you about 3,000 words to express yourself while other posters take a few short paragraphs.

 

Perhaps. And so what?

I fear for you reading the final version of the police files if word count bothers you. In fact, it just becomes apparent that most of you couldn't possibly have done so. You're looking for the juicy bits. That's poor form. This isn't a game, it isn't entertainment. You are either informed and informing others or you are misinformed and misinforming others. I find the very idea of stepping beyond the bounds of evidence, rationale and common sense in order to inform people with misinformation utterly reprehensible.

As for 'you're guessing as to what is going on with the PJ and SY just as much as the rest of us' that may be true. The difference is that my approach constrains me to patience, to stay on evidence, to go with precedent and pattern, to think rationally. It doesn't cause me to self-pen an elaborate Hollywood thriller which defies realism and invites people to saturate themselves in pure fantasy.

Snifferdog wrote:]Not meaning to hurt your feelings or anything, you may even take this as a compliment...but are you perhaps the Pink One?   

Newintown wrote:CynicAl, you're guessing as to what is going on with the PJ and SY just as much as the rest of us, except it takes you about 3,000 words to express yourself while other posters take a few short paragraphs.

 

CynicAl wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:From what I've gathered political interference during the course of an investigation, resulting the forced removal of the lead investigator, does not amount to a conspiracy. Really!!?

To conspire: To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

It doesn't need every single person in every organisation to conspire to achieve an objective - just a few in right places. And as we know some people have stuck their noses in, especially with witnesses, while the investigation was still ongoing in Portugal.

Political 'interference' is actually not illegal. It is not a crime. It is a legislative consideration of the prerogative of the state.

If the Queen decides to interrupt some proceedings, delay them, or instruct some changes which do not affect the actual outcome of a case, good luck prosecuting her for 'illegal conspiracy.' Political interference can delay a court case, it can call for other considerations to be presented. More to the point, political 'interference', the EXACT SAME TYPE of political interference can be put to good use, putting pressure on Sudan to release a woman sentenced to death for not being a Muslim, to put pressure on Iran to release Christians incarcerated for their faith, to require nations to delay plans or alter the course of events for a more favourabe outcome. That's politics. It isn't unreasonable, it isn't illegal, and it isn't automatically insidious and dark and rubbing its hands with glee over the death of a little girl in bizarre circumstances.

You've no idea what a working example of conspiracy actually is, do you?

You're not talking about 'conspiracy', you're still talking about 'Conspiracy Theory.'

If some people have 'stuck their noses in' and you call that criminal conspiracy, what the monkey nuts did they actually change? The investigation is still ongoing in two countries by two police forces, having been dormant for five years. The evidence is still in the same files it always was. The published documents are still published like they always were. Delays in the process are NOT illegal. They are NOT criminal. They are not a 'cover up', because for something to be a cover up it has to have been taken away. Nothing has been spirited off into the ether. The parents are still as much in the frame as they always were. The media are still champing at the bit to crucify them. So what is missing? Except that your impatience and unreasonable demands for instantaneous information and summary justice is fuelling a hyperactive imagination and making you see bogeymen where there are perfectly conventional villains to account for.

CynicAl wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:From what I've gathered political interference during the course of an investigation, resulting the forced removal of the lead investigator, does not amount to a conspiracy. Really!!?

To conspire: To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

It doesn't need every single person in every organisation to conspire to achieve an objective - just a few in right places. And as we know some people have stuck their noses in, especially with witnesses, while the investigation was still ongoing in Portugal.

Political 'interference' is actually not illegal. It is not a crime. It is a legislative consideration of the prerogative of the state.

If the Queen decides to interrupt some proceedings, delay them, or instruct some changes which do not affect the actual outcome of a case, good luck prosecuting her for 'illegal conspiracy.' Political interference can delay a court case, it can call for other considerations to be presented. More to the point, political 'interference', the EXACT SAME TYPE of political interference can be put to good use, putting pressure on Sudan to release a woman sentenced to death for not being a Muslim, to put pressure on Iran to release Christians incarcerated for their faith, to require nations to delay plans or alter the course of events for a more favourabe outcome. That's politics. It isn't unreasonable, it isn't illegal, and it isn't automatically insidious and dark and rubbing its hands with glee over the death of a little girl in bizarre circumstances.

You've no idea what a working example of conspiracy actually is, do you?

You're not talking about 'conspiracy', you're still talking about 'Conspiracy Theory.'

If some people have 'stuck their noses in' and you call that criminal conspiracy, what the monkey nuts did they actually change? The investigation is still ongoing in two countries by two police forces, having been dormant for five years. The evidence is still in the same files it always was. The published documents are still published like they always were. Delays in the process are NOT illegal. They are NOT criminal. They are not a 'cover up', because for something to be a cover up it has to have been taken away. Nothing has been spirited off into the ether. The parents are still as much in the frame as they always were. The media are still champing at the bit to crucify them. So what is missing? Except that your impatience and unreasonable demands for instantaneous information and summary justice is fuelling a hyperactive imagination and making you see bogeymen where there are perfectly conventional villains to account for.  

JackieL wrote:Staying strictly on topic, for me one of the crucial events which hints at someone being "leaned on" at a very high level was the radio interview given by Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the PJ back in February 2008, in which he famously said that Portuguese detectives were "hasty" in arguido-ing the McCanns.  A slap in the face to his own team. Was this high level political involvement? Or was he just expressing the view that the PJ should've had conclusive proof on the forensics before they arguidoed the parents and they effectively jumped the gun?

candyfloss wrote:

JackieL wrote:Staying strictly on topic, for me one of the crucial events which hints at someone being "leaned on" at a very high level was the radio interview given by Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the PJ back in February 2008, in which he famously said that Portuguese detectives were "hasty" in arguido-ing the McCanns.  A slap in the face to his own team. Was this high level political involvement? Or was he just expressing the view that the PJ should've had conclusive proof on the forensics before they arguidoed the parents and they effectively jumped the gun?

He did a U turn on that JackieL, and said he was wrong to say it, will see if I can find it.

candyfloss wrote:

JackieL wrote:Staying strictly on topic, for me one of the crucial events which hints at someone being "leaned on" at a very high level was the radio interview given by Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the PJ back in February 2008, in which he famously said that Portuguese detectives were "hasty" in arguido-ing the McCanns.  A slap in the face to his own team. Was this high level political involvement? Or was he just expressing the view that the PJ should've had conclusive proof on the forensics before they arguidoed the parents and they effectively jumped the gun?

He did a U turn on that JackieL, and said he was wrong to say it, will see if I can find it.

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

JackieL wrote:Staying strictly on topic, for me one of the crucial events which hints at someone being "leaned on" at a very high level was the radio interview given by Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the PJ back in February 2008, in which he famously said that Portuguese detectives were "hasty" in arguido-ing the McCanns.  A slap in the face to his own team. Was this high level political involvement? Or was he just expressing the view that the PJ should've had conclusive proof on the forensics before they arguidoed the parents and they effectively jumped the gun?

He did a U turn on that JackieL, and said he was wrong to say it, will see if I can find it.

Here it is............
Daily Mail

Apologetic police chief says it was right to make the McCanns 'arguidos'

Last updated at 10:41 05 February 2008

Detectives were right to make the McCanns offiial suspects, says apologetic Portugues police chief.

Alipio Ribeiro has reportedly said sorry to his officers for saying they rushed into making Gerry and Kate McCann suspects in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance.

Mr Ribeiro apologised to a police union boss and senior detectives in the Algarve, the newspaper 24 Horas reported today.

The director of the Judicial Police said he had made an ?error of expression? when he said there had been ?hastiness? in making the McCanns ?arguidos?, or formal suspects.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic3784.html

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

JackieL wrote:Staying strictly on topic, for me one of the crucial events which hints at someone being "leaned on" at a very high level was the radio interview given by Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the PJ back in February 2008, in which he famously said that Portuguese detectives were "hasty" in arguido-ing the McCanns.  A slap in the face to his own team. Was this high level political involvement? Or was he just expressing the view that the PJ should've had conclusive proof on the forensics before they arguidoed the parents and they effectively jumped the gun?

He did a U turn on that JackieL, and said he was wrong to say it, will see if I can find it.

Here it is............
Daily Mail

Apologetic police chief says it was right to make the McCanns 'arguidos'

Last updated at 10:41 05 February 2008

Detectives were right to make the McCanns offiial suspects, says apologetic Portugues police chief.

Alipio Ribeiro has reportedly said sorry to his officers for saying they rushed into making Gerry and Kate McCann suspects in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance.

Mr Ribeiro apologised to a police union boss and senior detectives in the Algarve, the newspaper 24 Horas reported today.

The director of the Judicial Police said he had made an ?error of expression? when he said there had been ?hastiness? in making the McCanns ?arguidos?, or formal suspects.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic3784.html

candyfloss wrote:

JackieL wrote:Staying strictly on topic, for me one of the crucial events which hints at someone being "leaned on" at a very high level was the radio interview given by Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the PJ back in February 2008, in which he famously said that Portuguese detectives were "hasty" in arguido-ing the McCanns.  A slap in the face to his own team. Was this high level political involvement? Or was he just expressing the view that the PJ should've had conclusive proof on the forensics before they arguidoed the parents and they effectively jumped the gun?

He did a U turn on that JackieL, and said he was wrong to say it, will see if I can find it.

Praia wrote:Cynicalal, what do you make of the British Ambassador's phone call to the head of the PJ in Lisbon the night of May 3???