Madeline Mccann

[ROCKGTASTAR]

I don't believe this for a single second, seems like blatant propaganda if you ask me. I mean if these accusations were true, then why was Goncola Amaral even allowed to lead the of Madeline McCann investigation in Portugal in the first place, since apparently these accusations date all the way to 1996? I find it all very coincidental that it wasn't until after Goncola Amaral wrote that book, that these accusations were raised?

 

Pulling out news articles out of your arse is not evidence, as you don't truly understand the journalists motive for writing them? For all you know they could have been personally hired for strategic domination for the McCann's, ensuring that people looked down on people who accused them and look up to them. You're going to have try better than this. I hope you know that most journalists earn their living by writing mostly false reports. It's how they earn money.

Edited October 28, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[ROCKGTASTAR]

 

 

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. It's an interesting conversation, to say the least. Learn to play nicely with others, please.

 

 

Interesting? Hardly, what's interesting about 2 individuals not being able to find their own daughter for 6 years, while making tons of money behind the scenes, having the most feared lawyers that money can buy as well as support from Gordon Brown? Most families don't get this kind of support so why do they get it?

Edited October 28, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Believe what you want. He was tried, convicted and received an 18 month suspended prison sentence for what was effectively perjury. If it makes you happier to claim it's all propaganda designed to befoul his good name then that's fine,but you've got f*ck all to substantiate that view whereas I can refer to the fact he was found guilty of impropriety by a jury of his peers. Which is a damn sight more than the McCanns, who are according to you so clearly guilty, have ever been subject to.

 

Similarly, you have no evidence to suggest that the papers were or are complicit in the whole saga so the allegation is baseless and libelous. Insisting that my evidence, which is open to scrutiny on numerous levels is somehow fundamentally flawed (ah, the classic "unreliable witness" defence-it tends to only work if you're evidence is better than mine, which it isn't otherwise why would you be resorting to ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well instead of actually addressing my points), whereas yours which is subject to no real oversight or analysis is superior, is the height of ignorance and does nothing more that portray you as deluded, querulous and possibly paranoid. Your assertion that the McCanns could have single-handedly orchestrated a mass media, political and judicial cover-up is totally absurd and a perfect example of how quickly alleging complicity in supposed conspiracies can snowball into making truly astonishingly absurd claims. It's cockwomblery of the highest order and utterly laughable.

Edited October 28, 2013 by sivispacem

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Believe what you want. He was tried, convicted and received an 18 month suspended prison sentence for what was effectively perjury. If it makes you happier to claim it's all propaganda designed to befoul his good name then that's fine,but you've got f*ck all to substantiate that view whereas I can refer to the fact he was found guilty of impropriety by a jury of his peers. Which is a damn sight more than the McCanns, who are according to you so clearly guilty, have ever been subject to.

 

Similarly, you have no evidence to suggest that the papers were or are complicit in the whole saga so the allegation is baseless and libelous. Insisting that my evidence, which is open to scrutiny on numerous levels is somehow fundamentally flawed (ah, the classic "unreliable witness" defence-it tends to only work if you're evidence is better than mine, which it isn't otherwise why would you be resorting to ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well instead of actually addressing my points), whereas yours which is subject to no real oversight or analysis is superior, is the height of ignorance and does nothing more that portray you as deluded, querulous and possibly paranoid. Your assertion that the McCanns could have single-handedly orchestrated a mass media, political and judicial cover-up is totally absurd and a perfect example of how quickly alleging complicity in supposed conspiracies can snowball into making truly astonishingly absurd claims. It's cockwomblery of the highest order and utterly laughable.

 

What do you mean could have? It's what they've been doing ever since the poor girl apparently went missing? Anyway either you've haven't kept up to date with the Goncola Amaral case or you are very ignorant of the situation in general.

 

http://www.zimbio.com/Politica+-+Portugal/articles/6Tow4MofUME/Leonor+Cipriano+sentenced+lying+torture+Portuguese

 

Leonor Cipriano sentenced for lying about torture by Portuguese (PJ) police officers

 

Yeah, I will believe what I want, after all I have that right don't I, at least I think I do? Unless that changes in the next 20 years where we will probably get thrown in the slammer for simply refusing to vote, you may laugh now, but believe me rules like that will be put into effect in future and when the population of the world is too big to handle? They'll cull the percentage by the only way they know best, war!

Edited October 28, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Leonor Cipriano being sentenced for lying to the Portuguese police =/= Amaral being innocent. Two entirely separate things. Regardless of whether or not the instance of violence took place (and I only ever said that it was alleged), he still has a conviction for perjury. Now whether that will hold up when his appeal takes place I don't know, but as it stands currently he has a conviction for providing false testimony in a kidnapping/murder case less than ten miles away from where Madeline disappeared. That is a statement of categorical fact. As is the fact he was removed from the case by the Portuguese prosecutor. And fired as a detective.

 

The rest of your post vindicates my assessment of you as a querulous paranoid more than I could have dreamed to do myself.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

"conviction for providing false testimony in a kidnapping/murder case less than ten miles away from where Madeline disappeared."

 

Says who? The people who have taken everything from him, come on, he's lost everything! His family, his honor, his possessions, his money, yet he still lives on through the dedication of his book? He's losing his very rights to live a normal happy life, he's chosen to fight with no fear of losing everything that is dear to him? That's the will of honesty, plus let me remind you that Leonor Cipriano is a CONVICTED MURDERER, who has also been CONVICTED for telling LIES and presenting FAKE images!

 

You've presented no proof of this false testimony, all you've said is that he has been convicted, that's not evidence, that's hearsay?

 

He's not alone in this investigation on the McCanns, Criminal Profiler Pat Brown, who also written a book that was again banned by the McCann's, is not convinced by the McCann's claims?

Edited October 28, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Now you're not even making sense. Are you alleging that he doesn't have a criminal conviction for providing false testimony? Because that is utterly absurd given that I've supplied two sources saying he does? Or are you saying that he was convicted on improper grounds, which is simply moronic given that you've got no actual experience of the case and didn't even know about it until I told you about it, never mind the fact he was found guilty by a jury of his peers? Or are you claiming that it was all part of one big plot to smear his name so that the authorities, police, McCanns and prosecutors could all collaborate together to keep the truth concealed? Because that sounds like the paranoid delusions of someone suffering from mental illness.

 

It's like trying to have a discussion with a petulant toddler.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Now you're not even making sense. Are you alleging that he doesn't have a criminal conviction for providing false testimony? Because that is utterly absurd given that I've supplied two sources saying he does? Or are you saying that he was convicted on improper grounds, which is simply moronic given that you've got no actual experience of the case and didn't even know about it until I told you about it, never mind the fact he was found guilty by a jury of his peers? Or are you claiming that it was all part of one big plot to smear his name so that the authorities, police, McCanns and prosecutors could all collaborate together to keep the truth concealed? Because that sounds like the paranoid delusions of someone suffering from mental illness.

 

It's like trying to have a discussion with a petulant toddler.

 

You pretend like people won't do anything for money? Journalists are not reliable sources, that's twice I've had to say that? Look at the end of the day, we are both making assumptions out of stuff we've either read, watched or listened to, none of us really know what actually happened, we weren't the ones who have actually been investigating this, so I will stop pretending that I do as long as you stop pretending yourself? I don't know, you don't know, so why don't you leave it as that? We're as both as bad as each other, you're stating journalists are facts and I am stating that what Amaral is saying may be true!

 

Just because I'm cynical, that doesn't make me a toddler. We're both hypocrites and you should learn to accept this.

Edited October 28, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[Clem Fandango]

Yeah, I will believe what I want, after all I have that right don't I, at least I think I do? Unless that changes in the next 20 years where we will probably get thrown in the slammer for simply refusing to vote, you may laugh now, but believe me rules like that will be put into effect in future and when the population of the world is too big to handle? They'll cull the percentage by the only way they know best, war!

How did you jump from an apolitical conspiracy theory (which was admittedly a tad grandiose "this documentary was banned by the McCanns") to claiming we're headed towards a dystopian police state?

 

Also, making voting compulsory is a pretty effective strategy to make sure the entire population can vote for someone that represents their interests. We do it down here in Australia and the penalty is really just an inconvenient fine- no prison time.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Melchior

[ROCKGTASTAR]

How did you jump from an apolitical conspiracy theory (which was admittedly a tad grandiose "this documentary was banned by the McCanns") to claiming we're headed towards a dystopian police state?

 

 

Also, making voting compulsory is a pretty effective strategy to make sure the entire population can vote for someone that represents their interests. We do it down here in Australia and the penalty is really just an inconvenient fine- no prison time.

 

 

O.K, so essentially your government forces even MORE money out of people simply because, they refuse to be dictated into voting? That sounds just about right, the truth is not all votes are even counted anyway, there are many occasions where elections are rigged ensuring that one particular party gets in office. That's capitalism for you, we don't exactly live in a world that is fair unfortunately.

[sivispacem]

What you seem to be struggling to understand is that I'm not claiming anything about journalists integrity or anything else of that nature. I'm simply using news reports as evidence to support my assertion that Amaral received a 18 month suspended prison sentence for perjury in another kidnap/murder case involving a child. If you don't believe this is factually accurate then could you at least have the decency to disclose why, as I find it very surprising that you seem to continue maintaining it's all a work of fiction when Amaral's own f*cking blog refers to this criminal charge.

 

I'm not saying Amaral was definitively guilty; I'm rational enough to leave the final conclusion at the mercy of the Portuguese judicial system, but nothing I have said about him is factually incorrect. Ranting about how all journalists are shysters and dishonest beasts doesn't actually refute anything I've said.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

What you seem to be struggling to understand is that I'm not claiming anything about journalists integrity or anything else of that nature. I'm simply using news reports as evidence to support my assertion that Amaral received a 18 month suspended prison sentence for perjury in another kidnap/murder case involving a child. If you don't believe this is factually accurate then could you at least have the decency to disclose why, as I find it very surprising that you seem to continue maintaining it's all a work of fiction when Amaral's own f*cking blog refers to this criminal charge.

 

I'm not saying Amaral was definitively guilty; I'm rational enough to leave the final conclusion at the mercy of the Portuguese judicial system, but nothing I have said about him is factually incorrect. Ranting about how all journalists are shysters and dishonest beasts doesn't actually refute anything I've said.

 

Well, in which case I apologize, you could make yourself more clear though to be honest. Not all journalists tell lies of course, but that's where you have to distinguish whether one is or is not telling the full story, or perhaps his own interpretation of that story. Amaral was charged like you said, he's only right to put that in his blog, however being charged does not automatically mean that what has been said against him is true, again which you've already acknowledge.

 

Anyway, I'm sorry for being so aggressive towards you, I obviously got the wrong impression of you and for that I am very sorry.

Edited October 28, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Amaral wasn't just charged, he was convicted. He was charged with beating the woman but not found guilty, but was found guilty of perjury.

 

For the record I'm not making any statements to the effect that the McCanns did or did not murder her. I'm saying that there's no cohesive reasonable argument currently in place that they did; any statements to that effect are pure speculation. I think it will be interesting to see what comes of the recent additional attention given to it, and whether it's going to result in any further scrutiny of the couple themselves.

 

We'll see how things play out, but until I see some proper information from a reputable source that's open to real scrutiny that the family did it I'll continue to maintain that suggesting such is purely speculation.

[uzi 9mm]

Thought this was going slightly off topic for a moment, but it hasn't. The thing I've obviously gotten wrong from the start was that the theory of the dogs not actually being proof. There's a lot of speculation surrounding this case, but nothing considered as evidence to prove they actually killed her exists or is known to exist. So I guess the only thing I can say is that time will tell, I only started this to hear people's views on the subject, but there are people who'll refuse to give an opinion on whether they think the McCanns are guilty or not since they haven't lawfully been convicted, I, on the other hand choose to review what is already out there, watching interviews and making my judgement based on the speculation and theories but that's just me.

 

A lot of what's been said by the McCanns and their friends who were there just doesn't add up, and whilst we can agree that acting rational is something that's unlikely to happen in situations like this, I disagree that it can be accepted as the reason the McCanns and witnesses stories are contradictory, and ever changing.

 

And then there's the one thing that I'll always disagree with, and that's the law's leniency towards the neglect of leaving children aged 3 and under alone and unsupervised, for was it 6 nights in a row I think? Whether in a foreign country or anywhere at all, and all for the purpose of socialising with their friends, their child is gone because they wanted to laugh and joke and drink and eat whilst completely blanking out the fact that their children are vulnerable to all kinds of dangers, abduction being just one of many.