This is a reply by a friend (not on this group) to an anti who does like to write reams of rubbish on another forum.
Here is said friends reply and well done to him:
Are you deliberately trying to send people to sleep, vten? Another long, tedious diatribe, and once again totally bereft of a scrap of proof of your conjectures.
Let’s start with the innocence of the McCanns, and your inability or unwillingness to accept it. The Portuguese Attorney General’s words, in his summing up, were quite specific, as follows.
“Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for an average man, under the light of the criteria of logic, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment.
”
So, he accepts she was removed from the apartment. She did NOT die there.
Where does it say she was removed dead or alive?
Scotland Yard seem to believe there is a POSSIBILITY that Madeleine may have DIED in the apartment
Scotland Yard 'The McCann are not suspects. They are not persons of interest. We believe Madeleine is alive'
They are conducting an investigation in the same way they would for any other inquiry and 'keeping under the radar' regarding the details.
When I questioned the media comments with an OG detective I was told it is very easy to interpret words in various different ways.
'Not suspects' 'not persons of intrest' No-one is a suspect or person of interest until declared as such.
There are MANY lines of inquiry so WHICH line of inquiry do they refer to?
They are looking at EVERY piece of information and NOTHING is off limits so it stands to reason that ONE line of inquiry is looking into the detais that resulted in the McCanns being made arguidos (suspects). So far, there has not been proof of any involvement, and are therefore not suspects at this current time, but this does NOT mean the POSSIBILITY of their involvement is not being looked at!
“The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practice of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the penal process code.”
Hmm, no indications of a crime committed by the McCanns. Interesting.
“The non-involvement seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behavior that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics’ conclusions, namely the reports from the FSS and from the national institute for legal medicine. To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.”
I’m drawn to the words ‘non-involvement.’ If they were not involved, then they had nothing to do with her abduction. Straight forward so far, yes? But, further, none of the indications that lead to their being made suspects could be confirmed. Put simply, your hero amaral failed to prove his case, for the simple reason he found no evidence. [Of course not. He was removed from the case before he completed the investigation. How many diligences did Rebelo carry out? Compare].Not, as you claim, insufficient evidence, but no evidence. But here’s the clincher.
“The traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.”
Innocuous! Remember what I told you yesterday, what the dogs own handler said? “Without proper forensic corroboration, the dog’s indications are meaningless.” Now, I’m sorry if those words upset you, but if you have a problem with them, then take it up with Martin Grime. He said them, not me. Given all of the above, it staggers belief that any sane, intelligent person could read it and come to any other conclusion than that the PAG cleared them of any involvement. In other words, he declared them innocent. [No the Prosecutor stated that the investigation (5 months under Amaral's coordination, 9 months under Rebelo's coordination) failed to determine the crime that was committed, and all options remain open. The investigation failed to produce conclusive evidence. None other than a court of law can declare anyone's innocence. In Portugal and in many other civilised countries.]
Now, on to Scotland Yard.
“No clear, definitive proof that Madeleine is dead. I genuinely believe there is a possibility that she is alive.” Hardly the words of someone who, on reading the files, has found evidence that she died in the apartment.
“Neither Mr or Mrs McCann are either suspects or persons of interest.” Now, if there’s another interpretation other than that he too believes they are innocent, I’m blowed if I can see it.
Now then, some of your own words here. “The implication of the document is that should the case be brought out of the archive, the arguido status of the former suspects may be resumed.” But they are not arguidos, are they. No official declaration of such a move has ever been announced, here or in Portugal. They remain as they have been for the past seven years or so. Not suspects.
The files themselves. Incriminating. Thank you for your lesson in the use of the English language. And you prove my point perfectly. Consider the word 'incriminating'. It means 'make (someone) appear guilty of a crime or wrongdoing.' And as I said, there is nothing in the files that makes the McCanns appear guilty of a crime or wrongdoing, i.e. there is nothing ‘Incriminating’ in the files.
Your continual abject failure to produce a single, clear-cut example only underlines and highlights my point. So, the PAG has read the files, and declared the McCanns had nothing to do with any crime. Scotland Yard have read them, and stated, in numerous interviews, that the parents are not suspects. And two highly acclaimed investigative journalists, on the advice, as you so rightly pointed out, of Scotland Yard, have read them, and concluded the parents are innocent.
As for me trying to deceive anyone, first of all, look in the mirror. Secondly, don’t kid yourself. No member of the public is reading these posts. Your physically eye-wateringly dull posts would deter even a terminal insomniac. There’s only a smattering of Madeleine supporters such as myself and a few of your fellow trolls who bother reading our posts.
Finally I’d just like to clear one thing up. The McCanns are not my ‘friends,’ though I would be honoured to consider them as such. I have never met them, nor spoken to or communicated with them in any way, shape or form. I just have this innate sense of justice, and feel compelled to defend innocent victims of a terrible tragedy against the lies and smears spread around the internet by the likes of yourself.
[Although we treat him with respect, he doesn't need anyone to defend him against the way that he is insulted, ridiculed and libelled by a handful of people on the internet, because he is more interested in finding the material truth than in pointless internet discussions.]
I personally am convinced Madeleine is still alive, and as such she has the right to be searched for, unhindered by disingenuous speculation and rumour. You do her no favours, vten, so I suggest you leave it to the professionals to hunt down and apprehend her abductor/s. They pay you no attention.
|
