Madeleine McCann

Tomw86

Something Else

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Just a reminder, we've been down this neglect avenue already and it looks like it's going done the same path again.


I don't want to see that on the thread as it causes a train wreck.

Sorry, I don't think I saw the previous discussion on it.

I simply quoted a definition of child neglect from the NSPCC in the UK and asked the previous poster to advise how it was not defined as neglect.

Facts and legal definitions cannot be argued with

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

I'm not interested in researching those file as they are fundamentally flawed and contaminated.

Eh seriously???? I for one am not going to rely on the tabloid reporting for sure.

The PJ files are the translations of investigation documents officially released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law. The released documents are marked as belonging to the Ministerio Publico in Portimao, Portugal.

The BBC in BBC Panorama programme have also used and detailed the PJ files in the the story "Madeleine McCann: 10 years on"

You could of course take the original documents as written in Portuguese and get them translated for your own perusal if your not happy with the translations...

maebee

Accident happened, parents hid body

Steve F wrote: »

It wasn't a photo,it was video.It was posted on youtube but I can't remember the channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask

v638sg7k1a92bx

maebee wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask

Here we go again, taking a 5 second video and wrenching it out of context.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Eh seriously???? I for one am not going to rely on the tabloid reporting for sure.

The PJ files are the translations of investigation documents officially released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law. The released documents are marked as belonging to the Ministerio Publico in Portimao, Portugal.

The BBC in the BBC Panorama programme have also used and detailed documents taken from the PJ files in the the story "Madeleine McCann: 10 years on"

You could of course take the original documents as written in Portuguese and get them translated for your own perusal if your not happy with the translations...

The PJ files prove absolutely nothing. There is no evidence that Madeline McCann is dead. Their investigation was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

v638sg7k1a92bx

chicorytip wrote: »

A formal suspect for what? The murder itself?? He was accused of falsifying documentation in relation to the case - a charge that, to my knowledge, was not upheld. He had no direct role in the interrogation of the suspects who, by the way, happened to be the mother and uncle of the murdered girl. They had been conducting an incestuous relationship and had been seen having sex by Joana. They decided to kill her to prevent their secret from being exposed.
Amaral did not purport the "freezer" theory in relation to Madeleine. That is something that has been speculated about by investigating journalists and people on internet forums such as this one. He is convinced that the McCann's are lying and that Madeleine died (accidentally) in the apartment.

The mother in that case retracted her confession btw.

Amaral is a convicted perjurer, not the McCann's. So you can save your phoney outrage for another day. Why do you put so much stock in a convicted perjurer peddling his book about a dodgy conspiracy theory based on zero evidence?

Also, the national director of the PJ, Alípio Ribeiro, resigned, citing media pressure from the investigation; he had publicly said the police had been hasty in naming the McCanns as suspects http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7387166.stm

maebee

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Here we go again, taking a 5 second video and wrenching it out of context.

It is what is is. Not at all out of context. Gerry McCann is laughing his head off, days after his 3 year old daughter "has been abducted". Very very strange.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Eh seriously???? I for one am not going to rely on the tabloid reporting for sure.

The PJ files are the translations of investigation documents officially released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law. The released documents are marked as belonging to the Ministerio Publico in Portimao, Portugal.

The BBC in the BBC Panorama programme have also used and detailed documents taken from the PJ files in the the story "Madeleine McCann: 10 years on"

You could of course take the original documents as written in Portuguese and get them translated for your own perusal if your not happy with the translations...

On 4 August Portugal's Ministério Público released 17 case files containing 11,233 pages on CD-ROM to the media, including 2,550 pages of sightings. The files included a 58-page prosecutors' report, which concluded: "No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances."

So much for your PJ files.

v638sg7k1a92bx

maebee wrote: »

It is what is is. Not at all out of context. Gerry McCann is laughing his head off, days after his 3 year old daughter "has been abducted". Very very strange.

So he is supposed to go around in a catatonic state? You have no idea what the conversation is or what the context is.

You really are barrel scraping at this stage.

maebee

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

So he is supposed to go around in a catatonic state? You have no idea what the conversation is or what the context is.

You really are barrel scraping at this stage.

No barrel scraping. Abducted child = no laughter - ever.

GM had a long term plan - http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2009/09/gerry-mccann-and-long-term-agenda.html

maebee

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

So he is supposed to go around in a catatonic state? You have no idea what the conversation is or what the context is.

You really are barrel scraping at this stage.

No barrel scraping. He is in hysterics 3 days after his 3 year old daughter was "abducted" and possibly in the hands of pedophiles? Unbelievable.

maebee

Accident happened, parents hid body

https://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2009/09/gerry-mccann-and-long-term-agenda.html

"They refuse to leave Praia da Luz while their precious daughter is still missing"

That changed come Arguido day.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The PJ files prove absolutely nothing. There is no evidence that Madeline McCann is dead. Their investigation was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

Who say they 'prove' anything? As detailed the files are a record of the interviews and the details of that investigation. The scanned documents simply record the communications and various reports. It also includes the British police's rogatory interviews of the Tapas 7 and others incuding the social worker yiu didnt know existed etc.

It's irrelevant that you believe some conspiracy by the police or whether the child is dead or otherwise. Without a knowledge of these files - you wont have a clue of what is known or who was interviewed. I strongly suggest you do a bit of research and engage with the actual discussion.

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

maebee wrote: »

https://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2009/09/gerry-mccann-and-long-term-agenda.html

"They refuse to leave Praia da Luz while their precious daughter is still missing"

That changed come Arguido day.

Well, picture a scenario where they are truthful and honest in what they say and that their daughter was taken from their apartment.


If I was them, I would like the police to focus their attention on finding my daughter rather than them try to pin something on me.

hawkelady

Something Else

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Well, picture a scenario where they are truthful and honest in what they say and that their daughter was taken from their apartment.


If I was them, I would like the police to focus their attention on finding my daughter rather than them try to pin something on me.

The cops didn’t “ try and pin” anything on the parents , I’m sure ! On the limited amount of evidence available to them , they got the impression that the parents could be involved. Nothing unprofessional about that ... the cops keep an open mind , I’m still puzzled why the English cops were only allowed investigate an abduction ..

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

hawkelady wrote: »

The cops didn’t “ try and pin” anything on the parents , I’m sure ! On the limited amount of evidence available to them , they got the impression that the parents could be involved. Nothing unprofessional about that ... the cops keep an open mind , I’m still puzzled why the English cops were only allowed investigate an abduction ..

They brought them in for lengthy interviews/questioning and named them as arguidos without any evidence.
Whatever they were doing, they weren't looking for Madeline by the looks of things, and I think that's how the McCann's looked at the situation.....or depending on your stance, how they wanted to appear to look in the situation

gozunda

Something Else

Boom_Bap wrote: »

They brought them in for lengthy interviews/questioning and named them as arguidos without any evidence.
Whatever they were doing, they weren't looking for Madeline by the looks of things, and I think that's how the McCann's looked at the situation.....or depending on your stance, how they wanted to appear to look in the situation

Tbh I reckon they were doing the best they could given the glare of the worlds media and working in Tandem with the UK police on the ground.
The McCanns wern't declared Arguidos until after a considerable period and only then on suspicion that the child may have died accidentally and the body may have been hidden.

It remains that those closest to a victim of a crime are as a rule to be eliminated from an investigation. Unfortunately the parents behaviour in this regard plus I believe a certain arrogance or stupidity on their part (I'm not sure which) running their own (illegal in Portugal afaik) private investigation and using the media despite being advised to not to do so were among some of the things which led them to being declared suspects several months later. And unfortunately rather than working with the investigation to show there were no grounds - least one of then refused to cooperate and they both left Portugal.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh I reckon they were doing the best they could given the glare of the worlds media and working in Tandem with the UK police on the ground.
The McCanns wern't declared Arguidos until after a considerable period and only then on suspicion that the child may have died accidentally and the body may have been hidden.

It remains that those closest to a victim of a crime are as a rule to be eliminated from an investigation. Unfortunately the parents behaviour in this regard plus I believe a certain arrogance or stupidity on their part (I'm not sure which) running their own (illegal in Portugal afaik) private investigation and using the media despite being advised to not to do so were among some of the things which led them to being declared suspects several months later. And unfortunately rather than working with the investigation to show there were no grounds - least one of then refused to cooperate and they both left Portugal.

You fail to acknowledge the behaviour of the Portuguese police and that of since convicted perjurer Goncalo Amaral and how their manhandling of the entire investigation lead to a complete breakdown in in the relationship between the McCann's and the Portuguese police. Why would they stay and expose themselves to the risk of a since convicted perjurer. Who knows what he would have said or done to implicate the McCann's, lest he might sell more books.

You also fail to acknowledge that it was the Portuguese police leaking to the media (illegal in Portugal afaik) and not the McCanns.

So the only people involved in this investigation who have actually broke Portuguese law, some of whom have been convicted of doing so, are members of the Portuguese police.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Just because we have an absence of evidence doesn't mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

This thread reminds me of the Dara O'Bhrian skit about nutritionists. Part of the skits he says that he would put nutritionists, psychics and astrologists in a sack, close it with string and hit the sack with a stick. Anyone in answer to the McCann case that says "oh the parents are guilty, they must be involved, they're hiding something, "MI5 hid the body" "there's no evidence of an abductions", and when I ask, do you have any evidence for that and they say "look at Gerry McCann laughing in this 5 second video", or "their behaviour is very strange" or "I trust dogs over people any day" or "I'm just exploring a theory" - those people also need to get in the sack.

Tomw86

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Just because we have an absence of evidence doesn't mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

This thread reminds me of the Dara O'Bhrian skit about nutritionists. Part of the skits he says that he would put nutritionists, psychics and astrologists in a sack, close it with string and hit the sack with a stick. Anyone in answer to the McCann case that says "oh the parents are guilty, they must be involved, they're hiding something, "MI5 hid the body" "there's no evidence of an abductions", and when I ask, do you have any evidence for that and they say "look at Gerry McCann laughing in this 5 second video", or "their behaviour is very strange" or "I trust dogs over people any day" or "I'm just exploring a theory" - those people also need to get in the sack.

I see you skirted the issue of the definition of child neglect and that the McCanns were GUILTY of that earlier and have moved on.

I agree with above, there is no evidence of the parents being involved, the same way there is no evidence she was taken by a stranger from her bed.

It is very peculiar, but many people have given THEORIES on what they thing happened and why, and you keep attacking the ones you don't agree with. Please get a grip.

Spanish Eyes

Tomw86 wrote: »

I see you skirted the issue of the definition of child neglect and that the McCanns were GUILTY of that earlier and have moved on.

I agree with above, there is no evidence of the parents being involved, the same way there is no evidence she was taken by a stranger from her bed.

It is very peculiar, but many people have given THEORIES on what they thing happened and why, and you keep attacking the ones you don't agree with. Please get a grip.

It is binary now, either you have a brain and are open to theories, or you are dim and believe what you believe without any facts to back it up.

I think the thread will disappear in time anyway. We will never know, and no one has the right to say exactly what happened either. No one knows.

But we can all have our suspicions....

v638sg7k1a92bx

Tomw86 wrote: »

I see you skirted the issue of the definition of child neglect and that the McCanns were GUILTY of that earlier and have moved on.

No skirting involved, see what the mod posted below. Anyway, child neglect is defined as a failure to meet a child’s basic needs, leaving a child alone does not fall into this category so you can type the word in caps all you want, but your understanding of it is still wrong. In Ireland, there isn’t a set legal age for leaving children alone.
I still get surprised by people who make such strong assertions with little or no knowledge of the facts only to dig their heels in more when those facts are pointed out to them.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Just a reminder, we've been down this neglect avenue already and it looks like it's going done the same path again.
I don't want to see that on the thread as it causes a train wreck.

Tomw86 wrote: »

I agree with above, there is no evidence of the parents being involved, the same way there is no evidence she was taken by a stranger from her bed.
It is very peculiar, but many people have given THEORIES on what they thing happened and why, and you keep attacking the ones you don't agree with. Please get a grip.

Just because there is no evidence doesn’t mean you can fill the gaps with whatever fairy tale appeals to you the most.

MonkieSocks

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

There are a lot of Myths about this case.

A good read below



Madeleine McCann - Exposing the Myths

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main%20Page

v638sg7k1a92bx

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

It is binary now, either you have a brain and are open to theories, or you are dim and believe what you believe without any facts to back it up.

I think the thread will disappear in time anyway. We will never know, and no one has the right to say exactly what happened either. No one knows.

But we can all have our suspicions....

Exactly, there are those who have their "theories" about the McCann's that go into the bag along with nutritionists, psychics and astrologists and then there are the people who don't go in the bag that visit real doctors when they are sick, don't get their news from the position of the stars and accept that the McCann's had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Just because we have an absence of evidence doesn't mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you. ...

The same sentiment can be expressed by everyone else on this thread and could just as reliably be turned at anyone involved in the discussion. You are not immune. Btw.

If leaving 3 babies alone in an apartment isn't child neglect wtf is it?

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

You fail to acknowledge the behaviour of the Portuguese police and that of since convicted perjurer Goncalo Amaral and how their manhandling of the entire investigation lead to a complete breakdown in in the relationship between the McCann's and the Portuguese police. Why would they stay and expose themselves to the risk of a since convicted perjurer. Who knows what he would have said or done to implicate the McCann's, lest he might sell more books.
(My note: your timeline is wrong - none of this occured until 2008-2009.The McCcann left Portugal end of August 2007)

You also fail to acknowledge that it was the Portuguese police leaking to the media (illegal in Portugal afaik) and not the McCanns.

So the only people involved in this investigation who have actually broke Portuguese law, some of whom have been convicted of doing so, are members of the Portuguese police.

Much of the timeline etc you detail above is wrong btw.

As suggested you need to study the official files to get a grasp on what happened and when.

The facts are:

That Madeleine disappeared whilst supposedly under the care of her parents has nothing to do with Amaral Concalo.

The British poilice were working in conjunction with the Portuguese Police and Mr Concalo from the very start until the McCanns left and continued after that date afaik

Mr Concalo was on the case for only approx 3 months. He was removed after the Mcanns left portugal relating to another case. He was not a convicted perjuer' (sic) at that time. He was not sacked, nor was any book written or published by him at the time the McCanns left Portugal. His book was published much later in late 2008 after he retired from the Portuguese Police.

The investigation was taken over by other police and investigators and continued afterwards

In that timeframe between the Cipriano case with the alleged murder of the child by its parents and when separately the McCanns left Portugal - it is highly unlilkley the mccanns could have known or have been made party to anything regarding to what would have been an internal police matter.

From the records it would appear the McCanns were triggered to leave Portugal by virtue of being made Arguidos.

That much of what you describe above was played out in the media in the aftermath of what happened is evident from the public record.
Much of it is contradictory and nearly impossible to figure out with any reliability tbh.

It would appear that both the some of the McCanns party and some elements within Portugal leaked information to the Press. However there is little hard evidence WHO exactly was responsible for such leaks. Unfortunately we can only speculate.

If you know where Concalo admits to him divulging or leaking information whiostvthe case was ongoing could you provide an official link to the source eg UK police statements and not media speculation.

Afaik the issue of the case with the alleged murder and chopping up of a little Cipriano girl by her parents and what happened with the subsequent internal police matter was not made public until much later and not until after the McCanns left Portugal.

Amaral was not present during an alleged assault in the Cipriano case but was accused of having covered up for other officers which he denied; he was convicted of having falsified police documents in the case and received a suspended sentence in 2009.

This case involving Mr Concalo and the Ciprano case and the ruling on that was some two years after (2009) when the McCanns had already left Portugal and when they had been made arguidos in August 2007

The McCanns arguido status was only removed after their own case was shelved in 2008 due to an apparent lack of evidence and lack cooperation from the parties involved.

Mr Concalos role has been endlessly gone over again and again in this thread and tbh it is largely irrelevant to what I have detailed above.

Rampant speculation on what might or might not have happened is heresy is largely the stuff of the tabloids tbh. I do not use or bother with the largrly unreliable media reports in this case.

goat2

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

I believe the child was taken


Why would the McCannes be keeping this in the news if they had anything to do with her disappearance, they would know where she is and would be keeping quiet in the hope that all would be forgotten by the media,

But they are doing what any parent with a missing child would do, keeping it in the spotlight in hopes of finding her,

there are many children that have been abducted and found, some not found alive.
We really know nothing until she is found alive or dead, hopefully alive

gozunda

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

There are a lot of Myths about this case. A good read below
Madeleine McCann - Exposing the Myths
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main%20Page

Yeah I've seen it tbh. It's a blog disputing what is said on other blogs regarding the McCann case. Best give the whole lot a wide berth imo.

maebee

Accident happened, parents hid body

GM planning an anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance .

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id302.htm

"Gerry McCann, 38, said: "One of the ideas is maybe getting all the people who have publicly supported us to come together. I don't just mean from the UK but from different parts of the world. We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing.

"We would look at high-profile people who have already pledged support. It will be some sort of focus around an anniversary, to tell people that Madeleine's still missing. I think it would be later this year, once media attention has dropped, to bring it back up, hopefully, for a short period.

Later that year?

So he knew that Madeleine wasn't going to be found until at least later that year.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Much of the timeline etc you detail above is wrong btw.

As suggested you need to study the official files to get a grasp on what happened and when.

The facts are:

That Madeleine disappeared whilst left alone with her siblings when supposedly under the care of her parents has nothing to do with Mr Concalo.

The British poilice were working in conjunction with the Portuguese Police with Mr Concalo from the very start until the McCanns left and the investigation continued after that date afaik

Mr Concalo was on the case for only approx 4 months in 2007. He was removed after the Mcanns left portugal relating to another case. He was not a convicted perjuer' (sic) at that time. He was not sacked, nor was any book written or published by him at the time the McCanns left Portugal. His book was published much later in late 2008 after he retired from the Portuguese Police.

The investigation was taken over by other police and investigators and continued afterwards

In that timeframe between the Cipriano case with the alleged murder of that child by her mother and uncle and up until the McCanns left Portugal - it is highly unlilkley the mccanns could have known or have been made party to anything regarding to what would have been an internal police matter unless that they were psychic.

From the records it would appear the McCanns were triggered to leave Portugal by virtue of being made Arguidos.

That much of what you describe above was played out in the media in the aftermath of what happened is evident from the public record. Much of that is tabloid rubbish tbh.

It would appear that both the some of the McCanns party and some elements within Portugal leaked information to the Press. However there is little hard evidence WHO exactly was responsible for such leaks. Unfortunately we can only speculate.

If you know where Concalo admits to him divulging or leaking information whilst the case was ongoing could you provide an official link to the source eg UK police statements and not media speculation.

Afaik the issue of the case with the alleged murder and chopping up of a little Cipriano girl and what happened with the subsequent internal police matter was not made public until much later and not until after the McCanns left Portugal.

Amaral was not present during an alleged assault in the Cipriano case but was accused of having covered up for other officers which he denied; he was convicted of having falsified police documents in the case and received a suspended sentence in 2009.

This case involving Mr Concalo and the Ciprianos and the ruling on that was some two years after (2009) when the McCanns had already left Portugal and when they had been made arguidos in August 2007

The McCanns arguido status was only removed after their own case was shelved in 2008 due to an apparent lack of evidence and lack cooperation from the parties involved.

Mr Concalos role has been endlessly gone over again and again in this thread and tbh it is largely irrelevant to what I have detailed above.

Rampant speculation on what might or might not have happened is heresay and is largely the stuff of the tabloids tbh. I do not use or bother with the largrly unreliable media reports in this case.

I haven't proposed a timeline and pointed out that he was "since" convicted or perjury. That is a fact which gives insight into his character. He was only out the door of the PJ and he had published a book which means he already had his ducks in a row, most likely before he left the PJ..

Too bad that the details of his involvement in the Cipriano case were not made public at the time as it would have brought him a lot more scrutiny and when you consider that he ultimately received a conviction, at the very least the PJ could have put another lead investigator on the case who didn't have the formal title of arguido hanging over them, especially when it was related to another case of a missing child.

v638sg7k1a92bx

maebee wrote: »

GM planning an anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance .

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id302.htm

"Gerry McCann, 38, said: "One of the ideas is maybe getting all the people who have publicly supported us to come together. I don't just mean from the UK but from different parts of the world. We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing.

"We would look at high-profile people who have already pledged support. It will be some sort of focus around an anniversary, to tell people that Madeleine's still missing. I think it would be later this year, once media attention has dropped, to bring it back up, hopefully, for a short period.

Later that year?

So he knew that Madeleine wasn't going to be found until at least later that year.

Yes he knew, and he was so stupid that he posted it on his blog.

Seriously.

maebee

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Yes he knew, and he was so stupid that he posted it on his blog.

Seriously.

Yes, he knew :mad:

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

I haven't proposed a timeline and pointed out that he was "since" convicted or perjury. That is a fact which gives insight into his character. He was only out the door of the PJ and he had published a book which means he already had his ducks in a row, most likely before he left the PJ..

Too bad that the details of his involvement in the Cipriano case were not made public at the time as it would have brought him a lot more scrutiny and when you consider that he ultimately received a conviction, at the very least the PJ could have put another lead investigator on the case who didn't have the formal title of arguido hanging over them, especially when it was related to another case of a missing child.

This is what I was referring to by the timeline

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Why would they stay and expose themselves to the risk of a since convicted perjurer. Who knows what he would have said or done to implicate the McCann's, lest he might sell more books. 

I noted your use of the word 'since' however that statement makes no sense whatsoever unless the McCanns were psychic and knew all this at the time.

They McCanns left directly after they were made arguidos (which is not quite the same thing as a formal suspect btw) and returned to the UK. And that was the end of that for good or bad.

And no I don't believe at that time it did give any "insight" into his character. Anymore than the same arguido status gives us any insight into the McCanbs characters at the time. It what happened afterwards which is relevant.

Amaral was an Arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law. For some reason his superiors didn't believe his arguido status in this matter warranted his removal from the job at hand and that's all we have to go on. The only scrutiny such a disclosure would have made imo would have been even more rabid tabloid headlines if that was possible.

It was only in 2009 he was handed a suspended sentence for covering up for other police officers. A charge interestingly which he strongly denies.

Tomw86

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

No skirting involved, see what the mod posted below. Anyway, child neglect is defined as a failure to meet a child’s basic needs, leaving a child alone does not fall into this category so you can type the word in caps all you want, but your understanding of it is still wrong. In Ireland, there isn’t a set legal age for leaving children alone.
I still get surprised by people who make such strong assertions with little or no knowledge of the facts only to dig their heels in more when those facts are pointed out to them.




Just because there is no evidence doesn’t mean you can fill the gaps with whatever fairy tale appeals to you the most.

I quoted the UK definition of child neglect, and they were very much guilty of that!

You are just grasping this and only quoting part of what is defined (legally) as child neglect, it is not just 'failure to meet the childs needs', failing to provide adequate supervision and meeting their safety needs is categorised as child neglect too - they are guilty and that is fact, unlike most other theories in this case.

Tomw86

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Exactly, there are those who have their "theories" about the McCann's that go into the bag along with nutritionists, psychics and astrologists and then there are the people who don't go in the bag that visit real doctors when they are sick, don't get their news from the position of the stars and accept that the McCann's had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter.

If ever there was an oxymoron, this is it :rolleyes:

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

STOP. POSTING. ABOUT. NEGLECT.


It's been done to death and has trainwrecked the thread on multiple occasions now.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

This is what I was referring to by the timeline

I noted your use of the word 'since' however that statement makes no sense whatsoever unless the McCanns were psychic and knew all this at the time.

They McCanns left directly after they were made arguidos (which is not quite the same thing as a formal suspect here btw*) and returned to the UK. And that was the end of that for good or bad.

And no I don't believe at that time his arguido status gave any "insight" into Amaral's character. Anymore than the same arguido status gives us any insight into the McCanns characters at the time. It's what happened afterwards which is relevant.

Amaral was an Arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law. For some reason his superiors didn't believe his arguido status in this matter warranted his removal from the job at hand and that's all we have to go on. The only scrutiny such a disclosure would have made imo would have been even more rabid tabloid headlines if that was possible.

It was only in 2009 he was handed a suspended sentence for covering up for other police officers. A charge interestingly which he strongly denies for what that's worth. He later stated that his desire to write his book was to set some of the false media stories straight and detail what happened in the investigation. It is what it is. Kate McCann also wrote a book doing much the same. I've quoted from both.

*https://www.definitions.net/definition/arguido[

How do you know the McCann's weren't aware that Amaral had Arguido status, it's highly likely someone made them aware of this information.

This is just a rambling distraction from the fact that Amaral has received a conviction, the McCann's have not. Why do you hold him in such high regard?

Amaral = conviction
McCann's = no conviction

Your posts is just a distraction to try and hide one of the few facts that have been established, ironically about Amaral.

Falsifying documents in relation to a child abduction case, WTF!!! Where they came up with an almost identical theory as Madeline McCann case, where the body has never been found, where the mother has retracted her confession and said it was coerced, where Amaral falsified documents, where they maintained the body was kept in a fridge and subsequently moved, where Amaral received arguido status the day after Madeline McCann went missing, does none of that seem even slightly bizarre to anyone on here?

v638sg7k1a92bx

maebee wrote: »

Yes, he knew :mad:

So why do you think he posted about it on his blog, do you think he just forgot or that nobody would notice?

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Amaral was an arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law.....

It was only in 2009 he was handed a suspended sentence for covering up for other police officers. A charge interestingly which he strongly denies for what that's worth.

Both of these also to the McCanns but you don't seem to be willing to give them the same benefit of doubt that you are applying to Amaral. Not withstanding the fact that the McCanns have never been charged or convicted whereas Amaral has.

Also, you highlight how Amaral was an arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law but make a song and dance about the McCann's arguido status. So which is it, the arguido status has significance or it doesn't.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

How do you know the McCann's weren't aware that Amaral had Arguido status, it's highly likely someone made them aware of this information. This is just a rambling distraction from the fact that Amaral has received a conviction, the McCann's have not. Why do you hold him in such high regard?
Amaral = convictionMcCann's = no conviction
Your posts is just a distraction to try and hide one of the few facts that have been established, ironically about Amaral.Falsifying documents in relation to a child abduction case, Where they came up with an almost identical theory as Madeline McCann case, where the body has never been found, where the mother has retracted her confession and said it was coerced, where Amaral falsified documents, where they maintained the body was kept in a fridge and subsequently moved, where Amaral received arguido status the day after Madeline McCann went missing, does none of that seem even slightly bizarre to anyone on here?

Nope - not stated. I reckon the McCanns most likely did know tabout Amarals status through their police and most likley through their government and private investigator contacts. But strangely they at the time they didnt make an issue of it - why is that?

Btw If you wish to live in world where everything is black or white then that is up to you - but it does not show much use of logic tbh.

And yes once again your off on your standard adiatribe about Amaral Goncalo. Your absolutly obsessed with that guy and for sone strange reason he appears in nearly all your posting with the samething endlessly dragging on and on and on. It's been done to death at this stage and that's my point! It's like having a discussion with a talking clock :rolleyes:

The facts are that Amaral was only part of the investigation for a short time but before he was moved off the case for criticising the British police. But you dont seem to get that...

Also and this is very important for you to understand.

The McCanns have never been cleared of their involvement by the Portuguese investigation and that was after Goncalo left.

Secondly a single charge and conviction for covering up documentation does not compare to the issue of a young child who was left alone with her siblings whilst allegedly under the care of her parents and yet strangely those parents refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Very very bizarre indeed...

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Both of these also to the McCanns but you don't seem to be willing to give them the same benefit of doubt that you are applying to Amaral. Not withstanding the fact that the McCanns have never been charged or convicted whereas Amaral has.

Also, you highlight how Amaral was an arguido with no presumption of guilt under Portuguese law but make a song and dance about the McCann's arguido status. So which is it, the arguido status has significance or it doesn't.

You deliberatly missed bit then?

And no I don't believe at that time his arguido status gave any "insight" into Amaral's character. Anymore than the same arguido status gives us any insight into the McCanns characters at the time. It's what happened afterwards which is relevant.[/quite]

Now could we try and progress the discussion tonwhere it is not an endless rehash of the nasty mr Gongalo - which on the face of appears to be your answer to everything

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Btw the two quotes you abstracted are facts taken from the case - ie they happened. Not my opinion or 'benefit of the doubt (sic)

Anyway you've also obviously / deliberatly missed this bit then?

Ironically and bizarrely in the previous posts I was obliged to point out that you were demonising the investigator but not the the McCanns for being an arguido etc etc

But christ on a bike you managed to completely miss that and then bandwagon that very point despite evidence to the contrary as quoted above!

Now could we try and progress the discussion of the case to where it is not an endless rehash of the nasty Mr Amaral and the random fridge references - which on the face of appears to be your answer to everything. It's getting just a little bit repetitive tbh ...

As repetitive as the endless rehash of the nasty McCann's who killed their daughter and hid the body based on zero evidence with the random references DNA, cadaver dogs and MI5 etc etc??? Not to mention the timelines and logistics contradict one another but you managed to completely or deliberately miss those points.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

As repetitive as the endless rehash of the nasty McCann's who killed their daughter and hid the body based on zero evidence with the random references DNA, cadaver dogs and MI5 etc etc??? Not to mention the timelines and logistics contradict one another but you managed to completely or deliberately miss those points.

We are discussing the McCann case just in case its slipped your mind! So yeah different theories on the McCanns and the missing child will most likley be discussed

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

We are discussing the McCann case just in case its slipped your mind! So yeah different theories on the McCanns and the missing child will most likley be discussed

But there is a clear co-relation between the two cases!

1. Missing child
2. Never found
3. Same place
4. Same lead investigator
5. Same police theory implicating the parents based on dodgy DNA evidence, a fridge (and alleged coerced confession)
6. Lead investigator in the McCann case is made a formal suspect in relation to the Ciprano case, the day after the McCann child goes missing!!!

Don't you find this even the tiniest bit unusual, not even the slightest?

Imagine if these allegations and events were hanging over Gerry McCann instead of Goncalo Amaral's. Just imagine the field day you and others on this thread would have with that information. Would you and other posters just white wash over these allegations and say "oh well the timelines are different because Gerry McCann was made arguido on a Wednesday but that information wasn't relevant until the following Thursday at 7 minutes past 4pm so therefore it's not relevant"

But for some reason posters on this thread want to completely ignore the extremely serious allegations against Amaral and his involvement in two very similar cases of missing children, who has been convicted of perjury and yet everybody wants to sling mud at the McCann's based on zero evidence.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

As repetitive as the endless rehash of the nasty McCann's who killed their daughter and hid the body based on zero evidence with the random references DNA, cadaver dogs and MI5 etc etc??? Not to mention the timelines and logistics contradict one another but you managed to completely or deliberately miss those points.

gozunda wrote: »

We are discussing the McCann case just in case its slipped your mind! And nope - none of those things mentioned by me above - just yourself btw lol. But yeah different theories on the McCanns and the missing child will most likley be discussed

In that case how do you maintain your theory that the Madeline died accidentally and her parents hid the body considering that you never mentioned the DNA or cadaver dogs? What other proof of evidence do you have to support this theory?

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

But there is a clear co-relation between the two cases!1. Missing child
2. Never found
3. Same place
4. Same lead investigator
5. Same police theory implicating the parents based on dodgy DNA evidence, a fridge (and alleged coerced confession)
6. Lead investigator in the McCann case is made a formal suspect in relation to the Ciprano case, the day after the McCann child goes missing!!!
Don't you find this even the tiniest bit unusual, not even the slightest? Imagine if these allegations and events were hanging over Gerry McCann instead of Goncalo Amaral's Just imagine the field day you and others on this thread would have with that information. Would you and other posters just white wash over these allegations and say "oh well the timelines are different because Gerry McCann was made arguido on a Wednesday but that information wasn't relevant until the following Thursday at 7 minutes past 4pm so therefore it's not relevant"
But for some reason posters on this thread want to completely ignore the extremely serious allegations against Amaral and his involvement in two very similar cases of missing children, who has been convicted of perjury and yet everybody wants to sling mud at the McCann's based on zero evidence.

*very large face palm*

If you would like to set up a separate thread and full on discussion of the Amaral and / or Cipriano cases and random fridges case please feel free as the McCann one appears to be getting seriously derailed imo. There seems to be plenty of space in the forum for a new thread or two. Meanwhile back to the McCann case ...

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

*very large face palm*

If you would like to set up a separate thread and full on discussion of the Amaral and / or Cipriano cases and random fridges case please feel free as the McCann one appears to be getting seriously derailed imo. There seems to be plenty of space in the forum for a new thread or two. Meanwhile back to the McCann case ...

Deflecting away from the facts yet again.

If you haven't mentioned the DNA or cadaver dogs then on what basis do you support the theory that Madeline McCann died accidentally and that the parents hid the body?

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Seriously If you would like to set up a separate thread and full on discussion of the Amaral and / or Cipriano cases and random fridges case please feel free as the McCann one appears to be getting seriously derailed and I'm not going to help you. There seems to be plenty of space in the forum for a new thread or two. Meanwhile back to the McCann case ...

I'm discussing Amaral in the context of being a person of interest in her Madeline McCann's disappearance. If anyone had the means to cover up a child abduction who better to do it than a high ranking police investigator who we know has been proven to falsify evidence?

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

I'm discussing Amaral in the context of being a person of interest in her Madeline McCann's disappearance. If anyone had the means to cover up a child abduction who better to do it than a high ranking police investigator who we know has been proven to falsify evidence?

This thread reminds me of the Dara O'Bhrian skit about nutritionists. Part of the skits he says that he would put nutritionists, psychics and astrologists in a sack, close it with string and hit the sack with a stick.

Anyone in answer to the McCann case says that "it's all Mr Mr Amarals fault' "he's covering up the abduction" "he's guilty of beating up the Ciprianos" "he claims there was a fridge ffs" " He knows what did it" and when I ask, do you have any evidence for that and they say "look at Amaral he wrote a book!, "he covered up some files so hes definitely guilty of covering up this case" or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" that person also need to get in the sack.

End of discussion.....