Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

TheZohanS

Kess73 wrote: »

She is right though. Kate McCann has not been convicted of anything thus far, and as such is not a criminal.


Now not being convicted as being a criminal is not the same as knowing for sure that a person is truly innocent, but unless Kate McCann gets convicted AH is correct in what she said.

I never said she was a criminal, I called the "and you know it" bit crap because that's what Audrey uses to troll and flame posters, she was warned a few pages ago by a mod to stop.

Kess73

TheZohan wrote: »

I never said she was a criminal, I called the "and you know it" bit crap because that's what Audrey uses to troll and flame posters, she was warned a few pages ago by a mod to stop.

Never said that you said anyone was a criminal, I was just saying that AH is correct when she says that Kate is not a criminal, because she technically is not a criminal at this time and that may be the case in the future as well.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

I never said she was a criminal, I called the "and you know it" bit crap because that's what Audrey uses to troll and flame posters, she was warned a few pages ago by a mod to stop.

Oh come off it, you're as guilty of that as I am.

Anyway going on about it will only derail the thread.

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And this is a man who drinks on the job and was put off a case for being involved in beating confessions out of people.

Link please?

He will be making a profit from his book now the ban is lifted.

You.do.realise.the.ban.was.lifted.nearly.a.year.ago? You.do.realise.he.still.has.his.book.available.free.of.charge.on.the.net? And.always.has.had.it.available.free.of.charge.on.the.net?Even.when.it.wasn't.banned?

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why is Amaral repeatedly peddled out as the Knight in Shining Armour in all this? His book and program are as much his own opinions, not facts, as Kate's is.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There is no evidence Kate is a criminal and you know it.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I so agree about Kates book being facts ! Kate says it so it must be true ! How silly of anyone to beleive that . Gerry says the Tapas restaurant was like sitting in your back garden , so he says it it must be true .Well well .!!

.





I wasn't saying Kate's book is fact at all. I was pointing out that Amaral's is as much an opinion piece as hers is. Reread my post.

Amaral's profession does not make him infallible, whether you like it or not.

I do happen to believe Kate and Gerry, but that is my own personal feeling on the case.

And please refrain from telling me how I should post things.

Well , your post could have been read either way and I read it that Kates book was fact .If I am wrong I am sorry I got it wrong ,I have read it a few times now and only beginning to see what you meant

But where please did I ever tell you how to post things ???? I can dispute your points or argue them , that doesnt mean I tell you what or how to post .Where on earth did that come from ???Can you quote me where I told you how to post please as a matter of interest .

KeithM89_old

TheZohan wrote: »

... she was warned a few pages ago by a mod to stop.

Yup

TheZohan wrote: »

"and you know it"? Are you starting this crap again?:rolleyes:

And you were also warned to stop baiting her.

There wont be any more warnings.

Kess73

KeithM89 wrote: »

Yup



And you were also warned to stop baiting her.

There wont be any more warnings.

A superhuman Israeli counter-terrorist army commando against the Counter Terrorist Unit's finest operative?


This could be worth watching.

TheZohanS

Kess73 wrote: »

A superhuman Israeli counter-terrorist army commando against the Counter Terrorist Unit's finest operative?


This could be worth watching.

I haz no ban-hammer no more...not a fair contest.

Kess73

TheZohan wrote: »

I haz no ban-hammer no more...not a fair contest.

Jack Bauer would not use that excuse.

DexyDrain

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No it is not more reliable, it is Amaral's opinions based his own interpretation of the evidence nothing more.

And this is a man who drinks on the job and was put off a case for being involved in beating confessions out of people.

He will be making a profit from his book now the ban is lifted.

I think it is time to lay off on Amaral, it isn't his sole opinion:

“She died in the apartment as a result of a tragic accident and the parents simulated an abduction after failing to care of their children,” Tavares de Almeida, former chief inspector at Portimao police station during the initial months of the investigation, told the court in Lisbon.
“These were the conclusions of a police report signed by me on September 10 2007,” he added.
The allegations against Kate and Gerry McCann, both 41, were presented in court on the first day of a hearing to challenge the publication of a book written by Algarve detective Goncalo Amaral.

Mr de Almeida told the court: “We have always spoken of a tragic accidental death – not homicide. The McCanns did not kill her but they concealed the body,”
Mr de Almeida, who worked under Amaral and was also taken off the case in September 2007, said the decision to designate the McCanns 'arguidos' was made by police after sniffer dogs brought to Portugal from England had carried out their searches.

Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts. “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,” he said.
But later he said that the theory that the parents had covered up Madeleine’s death as outlined in Amaral’s book was one reached by British police on the ground in Portugal too.
“This wasn’t something invented by Amaral,” he insisted. “It was a conclusion reached by the team of Portuguese investigators as well as British police.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

maebee

=AudreyHepburn;72935386]Kate McCann, Chapter 5; Missing, Page 72

My heart lurched as I saw that now, behind them, the window was wide open and the shutters on the outside was raised all the way up

(GM statement to police, 10 May, 2007): 'Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room.'

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You read what you wanted to see I think, not what I really said.

My apologies Audrey. I had to read your sentence a few times before the lightbulb went on for me. I think you meant "His book and program are as much his own opinions, not facts. The same applies to Kate's book. They are her opinions, not facts".

sunflower27

maebee wrote: »

(GM statement to police, 10 May, 2007): 'Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room.'

So which one is lying? If they suspected their daughter abducted, the BIG QUESTION is how did the intruder get in? - and you would hardly forget the state of windows.

I knew there was something amiss. Christ, they can't even agree on the state of the room their child was 'abducted' from.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

My apologies Audrey. I had to read your sentence a few times before the lightbulb went on for me. I think you meant "His book and program are as much his own opinions, not facts. The same applies to Kate's book. They are her opinions, not facts".

Yes that's what I meant. I don't think it was that hard to understand tbh.

Both books are just statements of opinions, nothing more.

AudreyHepburn

DexyDrain wrote: »

I think it is time to lay off on Amaral, it isn't his sole opinion:

“She died in the apartment as a result of a tragic accident and the parents simulated an abduction after failing to care of their children,” Tavares de Almeida, former chief inspector at Portimao police station during the initial months of the investigation, told the court in Lisbon.
“These were the conclusions of a police report signed by me on September 10 2007,” he added.
The allegations against Kate and Gerry McCann, both 41, were presented in court on the first day of a hearing to challenge the publication of a book written by Algarve detective Goncalo Amaral.

Mr de Almeida told the court: “We have always spoken of a tragic accidental death – not homicide. The McCanns did not kill her but they concealed the body,”
Mr de Almeida, who worked under Amaral and was also taken off the case in September 2007, said the decision to designate the McCanns 'arguidos' was made by police after sniffer dogs brought to Portugal from England had carried out their searches.

Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts. “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,” he said.
But later he said that the theory that the parents had covered up Madeleine’s death as outlined in Amaral’s book was one reached by British police on the ground in Portugal too.
“This wasn’t something invented by Amaral,” he insisted. “It was a conclusion reached by the team of Portuguese investigators as well as British police.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

Amaral is the one most quoted by the anti-McCann side and so he is the one I was focusing on.

But fair enough if others have said the same thing. But that doesn't make him anymore correct.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes that's what I meant. I don't think it was that hard to understand tbh.

Well it was difficult for me to understand because of the way it was worded but I'm glad you cleared it up for me. Thank you.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But fair enough if others have said the same thing. But that doesn't make him anymore correct.

:eek: I would imagine that being supported by others (two joint police forces) WOULD make him all the more correct.

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

:eek: I would imagine that being supported by others (two joint police forces) WOULD make him all the more correct.

There are plenty that support the McCanns' version of events too, is it not therefore possible they are correct?

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There are plenty that support the McCanns' version of events too, is it not therefore possible they are correct?

Where are they? They are few and far between on here.

What do you make of the not searching for Madeleine, AH? I am really curious as to what you make of that link I posted.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There are plenty that support the McCanns' version of events too, is it not therefore possible they are correct?

I would prefer to support the beliefs of the police who investigated the case and therefore know more about it than supporters of the McCanns who were not there and only take their word for it.

iamwhoiam

I wonder if I could ask you again please Audrey to show me a post where I told you how to post things .,As you accused me of that I would be glad to sort out any misunderstanding .

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

I would prefer to support the beliefs of the police who investigated the case and therefore know more about it than supporters of the McCanns who were not there and only take their word for it.

Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The police weren't actually there when she was taken/killed/died though.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I wonder if I could ask you again please Audrey to show me a post where I told you how to post things .,As you accused me of that I would be glad to sort out any misunderstanding .

I don't think it was you. But some-one said I should have added imo to a post and I just didn't like the tone. But I may have taken it wrong.

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course we know people are capable of cover-ups. But I, and probably others, just find it hard to believe that two parents who killed their child accidentaly or otherwise could have kept the charade up for so long. I could believe they might manage it for a few days or weeks or maybe months but not for four years. Some-one involved would have slipped long ago.

It really is not that difficult to understand tbh.

Just reading back, you really think after all the publicity, which to be fair I don't think they ever could have imagined Sky News would be ensconced in Portugal for 2 weeks and the resultant coverage and worldwide publicity, they'd just come out now and say "sorry folks, she had an accident and we covered it up".

It would make the IMF Chiefs case look calm and reasoned.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don't think it was you. But some-one said I should have added imo to a post and I just didn't like the tone. But I may have taken it wrong.

Thats fine then , it was in answer to a post of mine so I took it to be aimed at me .

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwhoiam
I so agree about Kates book being facts ! Kate says it so it must be true ! How silly of anyone to beleive that . Gerry says the Tapas restaurant was like sitting in your back garden , so he says it it must be true .Well well .!!




Your reply was

I wasn't saying Kate's book is fact at all. I was pointing out that Amaral's is as much an opinion piece as hers is. Reread my post.

Amaral's profession does not make him infallible, whether you like it or not.

I do happen to believe Kate and Gerry, but that is my own personal feeling on the case.

And please refrain from telling me how I should post things.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The police weren't actually there when she was taken/killed/died though.

:eek: Eh, police are very rarely "there" when a crime takes place. They investigated it and therefore know a lot more about it than we do.

sunflower27

I must be on ignore.

Any pro-McCann's like to comment on this early interview? I'm genuinely curious as to how anyone could behave the way they did.

For all the talk of how can the parents eat while their daughter is dead, alternatively, how can they sit in and not look for their own child with everyone else?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YWCVSjIJk8

iamwhoiam

sunflower27 wrote: »

I must be on ignore.

Any pro-McCann's like to comment on this early interview? I'm genuinely curious as to how anyone could behave the way they did.

For all the talk of how can the parents eat while their daughter is dead, alternatively, how can they sit in and not look for their own child with everyone else?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YWCVSjIJk8

LOl at you feeling ignored . I am also gobsmacked at the lack of searching .I was a little afraid to answer at the peril of repeating myself !!
I personally I think would go out and dig till my nails fell off, look till my eyes gave up and walked till my shoes fell off to find my baby . I cant understand how you couldnt as every fibre in your being wants to find them and get out and bring them home .

sunflower27

iamwhoiam wrote: »

LOl at you feeling ignored . I am also gobsmacked at the lack of searching .I was a little afraid to answer at the peril of repeating myself !!
I personally I think would go out and dig till my nails fell off, look till my eyes gave up and walked till my shoes fell off to find my baby . I cant understand how you couldnt as every fibre in your being wants to find them and get out and bring them home .

Yeah, it is like being at highschool and being the last one picked for the basketball team

Yes, shocking interview. Says it all to me. They didn't look because they didn't see the point. They had to deal with their grief and pull themselves together for the abduction story.

maebee

sunflower27 wrote: »

I must be on ignore.

Any pro-McCann's like to comment on this early interview? I'm genuinely curious as to how anyone could behave the way they did.

For all the talk of how can the parents eat while their daughter is dead, alternatively, how can they sit in and not look for their own child with everyone else?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YWCVSjIJk8

I've seen that clip dozens of times and it still shocks me to hear KM say "We have, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard"

This is NOT the mother of an abducted child, imo. The Mother of an abducted child would be on her hands and knees day and night searching for her beautiful little daughter. She would not be able to stop herself from searching. They had a different agenda (Fund, Campaign, One Year anniversary, etc). They knew there was point in searching imo :mad:

sunflower27

maebee wrote: »

I've seen that clip dozens of times and it still shocks me to hear KM say "We have, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard"

This is NOT the mother of an abducted child, imo. The Mother of an abducted child would be on her hands and knees day and night searching for her beautiful little daughter. She would not be able to stop herself from searching. They had a different agenda (Fund, Campaign, One Year anniversary, etc). They knew there was point in searching imo :mad:

She is also incredibly quick to say 'we have been getting lots of support...' so totally changing the subject there.

Of course she knew there was no point looking. Surely if Madeleine was out on the streets, she would want to hear her parents' voices.

That was the first big red flag for me and remains so.