Madeleine McCann

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

eh right here, see the part in orange, with your name, where you ticked the box and voted "Accident happened, parents So any evidence, proof, etc to back up that theory would be amazing.Cheers

Do have you got a magnifying glass lol....

Nope wrong. No multi option choice option there I'm afraid - which is what I wanted and said so. You got a problem with that?

Now show me where I actually 'say' that I only back one theory? In my own words . Because thats what you were asked. Cant answer that can you.?

But then of course you must have changed your mind on the poll as there is clearly no Poll Option for your particular pet theory of (drumroll) and wait for it

• Amaral wot dud it!!!!

The explanation for this one should be astounding:pac: No one is in any rush ...

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Do have a magnifying glass lol....

Nope wrong. No multi option choice option there I'm afraid - which is what I wanted and said so. You got a problem with that?



Now show me where I actually 'say' that I only back one theory? In my own words . Because thats what you were asked. Can't answer that can you.?

But then of course you must have had a huge problem with this discussion as there is nothing in the poll you agree with and no Poll Option for your particular pet theory of (drumroll) and wait for it

• Amaral wot dud it!!!!

Once you set up your other thread- the explanation for this one should be astounding :pac: No one is in any rush btw ...

That's what you voted, your choice not mine. You could have voted for the last option "something else" but not only did you vote for the accidental death and hide body option, you were just posting about how the poll had changed and more people were coming around to voting in line with the same decision you made in an attempt to try and rub our noses in it that more people were agreeing with you, lol!

gozunda wrote: »

Anyone else keeping an eye on the Poll and its changes? I could be wrong but there appears to be a greater number of supporters for the theory that the parents were responsible than there was at the beginning. Its also interesting to note that the abduction theory and the other theories combined are currently on an approx 50/50 split. Anyone figure out which theory has lost some ground or has there been little change?

Theories
Poll:What do you believe happened Madeleine (679 voters)

•Abductor was watching and came in the open door 50.52%
•She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo) 6.04%
•The parents did it 10.01%
•Accident happened, parents hid body 30.93%
•Something Else 2.50%

"Anyone else figure out which theory has lost some ground" hint hint

Why are you getting annoyed at me for your voting choice?

chicorytip

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote:

Did they find a body at that said location?

Well, they found all of the parts that once constituted her body, yes.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

That's what you voted, your choice not mine. You could have voted for the last option "something else" but not only did you vote for the accidental death and hide body option, you were just posting about how the poll had changed and more people were coming around to voting in line with the same decision you made in an attempt to try and rub our noses in it that more people were agreeing with you,

Ticker - I'm concerned tbh that's a helluva lots of "you"s. It's a little bit obsessive no? ...

And where do I 'say' that's my theory in words as was asked?

Btw do posters have to ask permission what order of option they should vote in? lol. And none of rest is correct btw. Deary me but it's a bit like spoon feeding the baby all over again

I could be wrong but there appears to be a greater number of supporters for the theory that the parents were responsible* than there was at the beginning.

That obviously refers to the option that "*The parents did it" AND obviously not "Accident happened" Now how is that so difficult to understand?

And no I couldn't tick that particular option as I got stuck being only able to tick 1 of the 5. And yes that the ' Parents did it' option does appears to have a greater number of respondents than previously. Does that upset you for some reason?

But do explain why bother discusssing an issue where you don't accept any of the options whatsover. At least I allow the possibility that all of them are possible.

Oh and a timeline of that incredible theory of "Howz Amaral Dun It" would be delightful whenever. Thanks.

chicorytip

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

What were these lies exactly? The only person that I'm aware of who has been convicted of perjury is Amaral, so who it the liar exactly?

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Also, based on your logic. If Amaral wasn't involved in the disappearance of Joana Cipriano why he did he lie and cover up evidence for which he received a conviction?

The most blatant concerned the children's bedroom window. It was the parents contention that the "abductor" had gained access from the street outside by first raising the shutter and opening the sliding window and then exiting with the child out through the same window. This scenario has been proven to be impossible as reconstructions have demonstrated it was possible to open the metal shutter from the inside only and not from the outside, such was it's design. So then, were there any fingerprints or any other type of evidence found on either the inside or outside of both the roller shutter and window. Yes, there was. One single fingerprint on the inside of the window belonging to Mrs. McCann.
Kate Mc Cann claimed that before entering the bedroom to check on the children a very strong gust of wind blown through the open bedroom window had caused the partially open door to almost slam in her face. She later participated in a reconstruction, recorded for television, where she enacted this exact event and provided her own commentary.
The problem with this explanation is that all the various weather reports for the region at the particular time stated that it was a perfectly calm evening with no wind blowing whatsoever.
To suggest that Amaral may have personally been involved in the disappearance and subsequent murder of Joana Cipriano seems bizarre. The only culprits were the pair who were eventually convicted. That conviction would have been declared unsafe had Amaral's actions in altering statements been deemed serious enough to alter the course of an investigation.

MonkieSocks

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

chicorytip wrote: »

Well, they found all of the parts that once constituted her body, yes.

Wha?

Who told you that?

Leonor Cipriano – the Algarve mother jailed in 2006 for the murder of her eight year old daughter Joana – has been released after serving five-sixths of her sentence.

Talking to TVI24 at the gates of Odemira jail this morning, she said she was leaving with her head held high.

“I am going to work. I have a little job. I don’t need to say anymore”.

But the questions remain.

What really happened to tragic Joana whose body has never been found?

Leonor and her now estranged brother Joadmitted in court that they had killed the little girl at her home in Figueira, midway between Portimand Mexilhoeira Grande.

Joclaims to have cut up her body and hidden it in a chest freezer. The child’s remains were later ‘fed to the pigs’.

“I didn’t hurt her, I just killed her”, Jotold the court which originally passed sentences on him of 19 years and two months, and on Leonor of 20 years and four months.

The prosecution’s case was based on the theory that Leonor and Jowere engaged in an incestuous relationship – and that they killed Joana for having walked in on them both in bed.




But there have always been those that doubted the story – neighbours particularly. And now Leonor has once again insisted that she had nothing to do with her daughter’s disappearance, least of all her death.

In the mists of this morning in the Alentejo she answered the question “what happened that night when Joana left to go shopping ?” with “she left and never came home. Anyone who says she came home is lying”.

Leonor claims the only reason she admitted to having killed the little girl was because she was tortured by agents of the investigating PJ police.

“They tortured me so much, they left me black and blue from so much punching that I reached the point where I didn’t know what I was saying…”

(Pic below)

This too is a sore point in the case: PJ inspectors Gono Amaral and Ant Nunes Cardoso were given suspended jail sentences for profering false testimonies over the beating.

But back to Joana, and fact that a body has never been found. Leonor told TVI this morning: “I was condemned without proof. I did not kill my daughter I would never have hurt her”.

Even more, she claims that she “will go everywhere” she can to look for Joana, who would now be 22 years old.

https://www.portugalresident.com/2019/02/07/mother-jailed-for-killing-tragic-joana-released-to-get-on-with-life/




Joana's body was never found and her murder trial was the first in Portuguese legal history to be conducted without a body being discovered.

.https://www.lawbreakingnews.com/2019/03/what-happened-to-joana-cipriano-in-portugal-and-why-has-it-been-compared-to-the-madeleine-mccann-case/

gozunda

Something Else

chicorytip wrote: »

...The only culprits were the pair who were eventually convicted. That conviction would have been declared unsafe had Amaral's actions in altering statements been deemed serious enough to alter the course of an investigation.

Interestingly Leonor Cipriano's brother confessed to having assaulted and killed Joana, and said "he had cut her body into small pieces and placed her inside a refrigerator, which was put inside an old car that was taken to Spain to be crushed and burned. He did not retract his confession." He was sentenced to 19 years and two months in Prison.

Weird thing - the wiki article on this murder reads like it was written as a subplot to the disappearance of Madeliene McCann. Reading the entry It is more concerned in bashing Amaral in the McCann case than providing the full story of this tragic murder of the then 8 year old Joana Cipriano.

The rest of the wiki article doesn't even list the sentences given out to the childs mother and her Uncle following their conviction. Lots of other details just skipped over as well. Not hard to see where some conspiracy theory material has arisen from tbh.

Oh and a small point not very well detailed - the three officers accused of beating Ms Ciapriano were completly aquited of the charges brought against them....

See: "Prosecution unveils horror of girl's death". The Portugal News. 14 May 2005.

MonkieSocks

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

chicorytip wrote: »

The most blatant concerned the children's bedroom window. It was the parents contention that the "abductor" had gained access from the street outside by first raising the shutter and opening the sliding window and then exiting with the child out through the same window. This scenario has been proven to be impossible as reconstructions have demonstrated it was possible to open the metal shutter from the inside only and not from the outside, such was it's design. So then, were there any fingerprints or any other type of evidence found on either the inside or outside of both the roller shutter and window. Yes, there was.

Where did they say that in their statements?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CASE_FILES_INDEX.htm

chicorytip wrote: »

One single fingerprint on the inside of the window belonging to Mrs. McCann.……

Eh...her fingerprint might be there, because she had almost spent a week in the apartment

chicorytip wrote: »

Kate Mc Cann claimed that before entering the bedroom to check on the children a very strong gust of wind blown through the open bedroom window had caused the partially open door to almost slam in her face.

She later participated in a reconstruction, recorded for television, where she enacted this exact event and provided her own commentary.???
The problem with this explanation is that all the various weather reports for the region at the particular time stated that it was a perfectly calm evening with no wind blowing whatsoever.

Got a link for those weather reports

Policia Judiciaria
Date: 25 October 2007

To: The Institute of Meteorology
Lisbon

From: PJ Inspector Joao Carlos

Subject: Request for Information

Being necessary to the investigation NUIPC 201.070 GALGS I ask you to inform this police force about the requests noted below with regard to the following location: Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal on 3rd and 4th May 2007.

1. Time of sunset.
2. Direction and intensity of wind.
3. Cloudiness.
4. Rainfall
5. Daytime and nocturnal temperature.
6. Environmental humidity.
7. State of the sea.
With compliments
Chief Inspector
Tavares de Almeida

Reply

FAX dated 2007/11/07
from Commercial Division, Institute of Meteorology
to Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, PJ DIC Portimao
Ref: COME 324/07-062

Subject: Quotation for request of meteorological information

Pursuant to your request, whose reference is a Fax dated 07/10/25, we advise that the cost is 395,14 including VAT of 21%. This amount refers to the use of data/information for the purposes indicated.

The meteorological information refers to the days 3 and 4 May/07 - meteorological conditions.
- Analysis of synoptic situation.

- Results of numeric models.

- Result of observations.

- Certified copy of "State of the Weather and Sea in the Area of Praia da Luz" containing a description of wind, gusts, cloudiness, rainfall, temperature, humidity and the state of the sea.


Note: hour of sunset.

- Contact details of Astronomical Observatory of Lisbon (Help).

In order to proceed with your request, please confirm your acceptance of this quotation in writing, mentioning the above reference, as well as the tax number and exact address to be used for billing. Not giving this information will invalidate acceptance of the quotation and subsequent delivery of the meteorological information requested.

If we do not receive confirmation of acceptance of the quotation from yourselves within 30 days we reserve the right to cancel your request.

Your faithfully

Commercial Division Coordinator

Manuela Travassos M. Caldeira

Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Learning

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/WEATHER_CONDITIONS.htm

MonkieSocks

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

gozunda wrote: »

Not much point going down that road tbh.
I think we are into the realms of lulu land at the moment tbh.

And everyone else is with the conspiracy theorists? :pac:

Yeah

chicorytip wrote: »

British Intelligence (MI6) acting at the behest of it's political masters at the time i.e. senior cabinet members with the assistance of Leicstershire police and the Portuguese embassy in London.

gozunda

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Yeah

I believe one of those may have been serious ...

Do you also believe it was Amaral Wot Dun it?

MonkieSocks

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

gozunda wrote: »

Do you also believe it was Amaral Wot Dun it?

You are the only one this thread who have used that expression.

Amaral got a suspended sentence in Portugal for lying in a criminal case





Bye Bye

B_ecke_r

Something Else

this thread is wrote off.

please close it.

gozunda

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

You are the only one this thread who have used that expression.Amaral got a suspended sentence in Portugal for lying in a criminal case He also wrote lies in his booke

Incorrect. That is the summary of another poster claims that not only did Amaral cover up the abduction of Madeliene. He is also was also apparently involved in the disappearance of Joana Cipriano. So as asked - do you believe the Amaral wot dun it theory as well?

Amarals one conviction and suspended sentence is well documented and also a matter of public record. As is the fact he was involved with the Madeliene case for only 4-5 months - and was moved to another division having criticised the British police. He later retired in 2008.

In 2017 Portugals Supreme Court upheld the decision that Amaral's book had not libiled the parents of Madeleine McCann

So what were these lies exactly? Please detail the actual page numbers and identify the "lies" which you claim Amaral 'wrote' in his book.

Thanks.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Incorrect. That is the summary of another poster claims that not only did Amaral cover up the abduction of Madeliene. He is also was also apparently involved in the disappearance of Joana Cipriano. So as asked - do you believe the Amaral wot dun it theory as well?

Amarals one conviction and suspended sentence is well documented and also a matter of public record. As is the fact he was involved with the Madeliene case for only 4-5 months - and was moved to another division having criticised the British police. He later retired in 2008.

In 2017 Portugals Supreme Court upheld the decision that Amaral's book had not libiled the parents of Madeleine McCann
what were these lies exactly? Please detail the actual page numbers and identify the "lies" which you claim Amaral 'wrote' in his book.

Thanks.

Incorrect. Unlike the unfounded accusations against the McCann's, particularly the one that Madeline McCann died accidentally and her body was subsequently hidden by the parents, a theory that you advocate. Nobody on here has surmised that Amaral was involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Be that as it may, there are some very disturbing similarities between the disappearance of Madeline McCann and the disappearance of Joana Cipriano, these are compounded even more by the fact that the lead investigator in those cases is Goncalo Amaral. So when you put that in the context of this thread where people are bending over backwards coming up with wild conspiracy theories to point fingers at the McCann's and taking every word and action they took out of context, but when it comes to Goncaloa Amaral it's radio silence.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Do we really have to do this all over again?

Here goes

chicorytip wrote: »

The most blatant concerned the children's bedroom window. It was the parents contention that the "abductor" had gained access from the street outside by first raising the shutter and opening the sliding window and then exiting with the child out through the same window. This scenario has been proven to be impossible as reconstructions have demonstrated it was possible to open the metal shutter from the inside only and not from the outside, such was it's design.

First off, nothing has been "proven". It could easily have been the case that somebody entered the room, opened the window and considered getting out the window, looked out the window. Maybe the window was open the whole time. This is what I'm talking about, Kate McCann describes the scene as she remembered it and you attempt to wrench this out of context because it doesn't fit exactly with the sequence of events that you perceive them.

chicorytip wrote: »

So then, were there any fingerprints or any other type of evidence found on either the inside or outside of both the roller shutter and window. Yes, there was. One single fingerprint on the inside of the window belonging to Mrs. McCann.

Even a child in senior infants knows that police can trace fingerprint but "oh gosh, Kate McCann's finger prints were on the window in the apartment where she was staying and nobody else's finger prints were on the window so she must be lying". Anybody who is capable of tying their own shoes understands that a kidnapper will not intentionally leave their fingerprints all over a crime scene.

chicorytip wrote: »

Kate Mc Cann claimed that before entering the bedroom to check on the children a very strong gust of wind blown through the open bedroom window had caused the partially open door to almost slam in her face. She later participated in a reconstruction, recorded for television, where she enacted this exact event and provided her own commentary.
The problem with this explanation is that all the various weather reports for the region at the particular time stated that it was a perfectly calm evening with no wind blowing whatsoever.

Tiresome having to engage in these pointless details which you think are some indication of guilt. I suggest you carry our this experiment yourself and open the front and back door in your house on a clear day. I'm sure there are people no this thread who have had their front door close behind them unintentionally because the back door or window in their house was open.

chicorytip wrote: »

To suggest that Amaral may have personally been involved in the disappearance and subsequent murder of Joana Cipriano seems bizarre. The only culprits were the pair who were eventually convicted. That conviction would have been declared unsafe had Amaral's actions in altering statements been deemed serious enough to alter the course of an investigation.

What I'm asking is why don't you apply the same level of scepticism to Amaral as you do to the McCann's when we know that he is a convicted liar and he was the lead investigator in two very similar cases of missing children that have very disturbing similarities and where in both instances his methods were came under intense scrutiny. So for all the conspiracy theorists on here who think the McCann's are responsible suddenly go quiet when there are very disturbing allegations around Amaral some of which he has been found guilty of.

chicorytip

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

First off, nothing has been "proven". It could easily have been the case that somebody entered the room, opened the window and considered getting out the window, looked out the window. Maybe the window was open the whole time. This is what I'm talking about, Kate McCann describes the scene as she remembered it and you attempt to wrench this out of context because it doesn't fit exactly with the sequence of events that you perceive them, this is considered lying.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Even a child in senior infants knows that police can trace fingerprint but "oh gosh, Kate McCann's finger prints were on the window in the apartment where she was staying and nobody else's finger prints were on the window so she must be lying". Anybody who is capable of tying their own shoes understands that a kidnapper will not intentionally leave their fingerprints all over a crime scene.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

What I'm asking is why don't you apply the same level of scepticism to Amaral as you do to the McCann's when we know that he is a convicted liar and he was the lead investigator in two very similar cases of missing children that have very disturbing similarities and where in both instances his methods were came under intense scrutiny. So for all the conspiracy theorists on here who think the McCann's are responsible suddenly go quiet when there are very disturbing allegations around Amaral some of which he has been found guilty of.

She said the window had remained closed at all times during the vacation.
Forget about the fingerprint for a moment. There was no other evidence to indicate an intruder had been in the room - footprints, clothing fibres, nothing. Was this alleged kidnapper wearing some sort of anti-contaminating boiler suit?
If Amaral was a convicted perjurer why was he not dismissed from his job as a consequence? The entire Maddie investigation became skewed in favour of the McCann's once the involvement of the British Police began.

v638sg7k1a92bx

chicorytip wrote: »

She said the window had remained closed at all times during the vacation.
Forget about the fingerprint for a moment. There was no other evidence to indicate an intruder had been in the room - footprints, clothing fibres, nothing. Was this alleged kidnapper wearing some sort of anti-contaminating boiler suit?
If Amaral was a convicted perjurer why was he not dismissed from his job as a consequence? The entire Maddie investigation became skewed in favour of the McCann's once the involvement of the British Police began.

What type of evidence do you expect, people don't go around shedding blood and saliva to be picked up as DNA evidence???

Also, you forget that there were numerous people in and out of that room before the police arrived, the whole place was pandemonium. You seem to have this image in you mind of a perfectly preserved crime scene and forget that not just the parents but guests, hotel staff, neighbours were going around in a panic so any of the evidence that said you expected to find wouldn't be reliable because of the traffic in and out of the room. That was one of the police methods that came under scrutiny in that they didn't secure the area and so many people were trampling about the place.

Seriously, are you over the age of 16 because I can't understand how an adult wouldn't know this? This is just common sense, I can't believe that this needs to be pointed out to you especially at this stage in the thread.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

... Unlike the unfounded accusations against the McCann's, particularly the one that Madeline McCann died accidentally and her body was subsequently hidden by the parents, a theory that you advocate.

*Nobody on here has surmised that Amaral was involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann*.

Be that as it may, there are some very disturbing similarities between the disappearance of Madeline McCann and the disappearance of Joana Cipriano, these are compounded even more by the fact that the lead investigator in those cases is Goncalo Amaral. So when you put that in the context of this thread where people are bending over backwards coming up with wild conspiracy theories to point fingers at the McCann's and taking every word and action they took out of context, but when it comes to Goncaloa Amaral it's radio silence.

Nope - little of that makes any sense tbh. Especially the repetitive informing of others posters as to what they do or do not advocate? Exactly what has any of the above got to do with you highlighting the Portuguese police finding that it was an accident in the apartment, resulting in the death of the child and listed as just one of the options in the poll?

And this is what you have detailed which imo proposes the idea that it was Amaral Wot Dud it:

tickers wrote:

If anyone had the means to cover up a child abduction who better to do it than a high ranking police investigator

 

tickers wrote:

If Amaral wasn't involved in the disappearance of Joana Cipriano why he did he lie and cover up evidence

If that not your theory fine - it certainly reads that way.

Unfortunately the rest of the above is just a repeating of what you've said for the n+1 times about the big nasty Mr Mr Amaral. If you believe any of that - that's fine, but it would be great to stop continuously bashing other posters over the head with it , thanks.

And as you said it's important that everyone makes sure to apply the same level of scepticism to all the theories.

Your welcome.

chicorytip

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

What type of evidence do you expect, people don't go around shedding blood and saliva to be picked up as DNA evidence???

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Also, you forget that there were numerous people in and out of that room before the police arrived, the whole place was pandemonium. You seem to have this image in you mind of a perfectly preserved crime scene and forget that not just the parents but guests, hotel staff, neighbours were going around in a panic so any of the evidence that said you expected to find wouldn't be reliable because of the traffic in and out of the room. That was one of the police methods that came under scrutiny in that they didn't secure the area and so many people were trampling about the place.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Seriously, are you over the age of 16 because I can't understand how an adult wouldn't know this? This is just common sense, I can't believe that this needs to be pointed out to you especially at this stage in the thread.

How many entered the children's bedroom as opposed to the living areas of the apartment before the police arrived? Both parents, certainly. That's two people. Two friends, possibly. Not many more. There would have been no real sense of pandemonium throughout the complex because only the McCann group and certain members of the staff would have known exactly what was happening. Most of the other residents went to bed, slept soundly and were none the wiser until the following morning. There was no bedlam or panic about. Indeed, even the distraught parents of the missing little girl themselves felt it hardly necessary to actually go out and join the search party, only doing so for less than one hour before returning to the apartment for the rest of the night.

v638sg7k1a92bx

chicorytip wrote: »

How many entered the children's bedroom as opposed to the living areas of the apartment before the police arrived? Both parents, certainly. That's two people. Two friends, possibly. Not many more. There would have been no real sense of pandemonium throughout the complex because only the McCann group and certain members of the staff would have known exactly what was happening. Most of the other residents went to bed, slept soundly and were none the wiser until the following morning. There was no bedlam or panic about. Indeed, even the distraught parents of the missing little girl themselves felt it hardly necessary to actually go out and join the search party, only doing so for less than one hour before returning to the apartment for the rest of the night.

Absolute nonsense, you could not be more wrong even if you tried to. There are multiple accounts of people searching for Madeline. Hotel staff, other guests, there are accounts of Gerry McCann searching under cars, resort staff searching in bins.

You cannot get the most basic facts about this case correct.

v638sg7k1a92bx

chicorytip wrote: »

She said the window had remained closed at all times during the vacation.
Forget about the fingerprint for a moment. There was no other evidence to indicate an intruder had been in the room - footprints, clothing fibres, nothing. Was this alleged kidnapper wearing some sort of anti-contaminating boiler suit?
If Amaral was a convicted perjurer why was he not dismissed from his job as a consequence? The entire Maddie investigation became skewed in favour of the McCann's once the involvement of the British Police began.

You obviously missed my sarcasm when I was posing the questions about Amaral in response to posters who make the same kind of unfounded accusations against the McCann's to point out that there is as much merit to to the allegations against Amaral as there is against the McCann's. The difference being that Amaral is a convicted perjurer whereas the McCaann's are not. So all those posters who accusing the McCann's of telling lies as an indication of their guilt, the same could also be applied to Amaral so why doesn't their conspiracy theory take them down that path especially when you consider that Amaral was a high ranking police office, whose methods have come under scrutiny in the past not to mention the similarities between the Cipriano and McCann disappearance. So to the theorists who think the McCann's have something to do with the disappearance, there is plenty of material to level the same accusations against Amaral but instead they choose not to and continue with the same old banal conspiracies.

This constant latching onto what Kate McCann said about the window being open and the Tapas 7 changing their stories has been covered so many times that it's ridiculously tiresome that people keep rotating back to the same discredited arguments that you wonder at what stage do facts and truth matter to some people anymore.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

You obviously missed my sarcasm when I was posing the questions about Amaral in response to posters who make the same kind of unfounded accusations against the McCann's to point out that there is as much merit to to the allegations against Amaral as there is against the McCann's. The difference being that Amaral is a convicted perjurer whereas the McCaann's are not. So all those posters who accusing the McCann's of telling lies as an indication of their guilt, the same could also be applied to Amaral so why doesn't their conspiracy theory take them down that path especially when you consider that Amaral was a high ranking police office, whose methods have come under scrutiny in the past not to mention the similarities between the Cipriano and McCann disappearance. So to the theorists who think the McCann's have something to do with the disappearance, there is plenty of material to level the same accusations against Amaral but instead they choose not to and continue with the same old banal conspiracies.

This constant latching onto what Kate McCann said about the window being open and the Tapas 7 changing their stories has been covered so many times that it's ridiculously tiresome that people keep rotating back to the same discredited arguments that you wonder at what stage do facts and truth matter to some people anymore.

So you do believe that Amaral did it!

Let me ask you a simple question - if Amaral is responsible for the disappearance of Madeliene - was he there on the night or did he have an accomplice(s)

How do you believe he abducted the child or ?

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

So you do believe that Amaral did it!

Let me ask you a simple question - if Amaral is responsible for the disappearance of Madeliene - was he there on the night or did he have an accomplice(s)

How do you believe he abducted the child or ?

"he could have had local help and then moved the body afterwards" lol


Any of this sounding familiar to you? Probably not as you're obviously completely missing the point.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

"he could have had local help and then moved the body afterwards" lol


Any of this sounding familiar to you? Probably not as you're obviously completely missing the point.

No I'm afraid not. ..

The fact is that your ruminations are so convoluted it's difficult to pick out what you are trying to say tbh. I'm not the only one either evidently

Let me ask you one simple question.

Your point is? - in one sentence please

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Your point is? - in one sentence please

The point is this. Did Gerry McCann have an accomplice?

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The point is this. Did Gerry McCann have an accomplice?

Eh? So you're saying Gerry McCann + accomplice are responsible?

In one line if possible....

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Eh? So you're saying Gerry McCann + accomplice are responsible?

In one line if possible....

Maybe Gerry's accomplice was Amaral, did you ever think of that? Local knowledge and all the rest. Who better than a police officer?

maebee

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The point is this. Did Gerry McCann have an accomplice?

His wife?

chicorytip

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Maybe Gerry's accomplice was Amaral, did you ever think of that? Local knowledge and all the rest. Who better than a police officer?

Ah now! At this stage it looks like you are indulging in a little bit of leg pulling purely for your own amusement. Good night!

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Maybe Gerry's accomplice was Amaral, did you ever think of that? Local knowledge and all the rest. Who better than a police officer?

Is that your theory? I had thought you said the parents were completely innocent. You didnt engage in the poll - is that because you now think Gerry and Amaral did it?

Interesting deductions btw. Could you tell us more ...