More propaganda from the Generalissima (merged)

Lamplighter wrote:

sadie wrote:A couple of years ago, I was translating comments in a PT newspaper about the 5 Arguidos Torture Case, IIRC

One contributor proudly proclaimed that the PT Police force was supreme because it was trained by the Nazis. Seems in a few places some of that mentality is stilll around

Like most states that embraced totalitarianism, whether nazi or commie, Portugal is finding it hard to throw off the past. Quite a few states where this was imposed, ie the Eastern Block, have managed to deal with it by revealing the past of members of state institutions as with the Stasi in the old DDR. Until Portugal purges the police who were in place under Salazar, or starts prosecuting such people for crimes committed during his regime, things will not change. These policemen are far from the main cities, they answer only to themselves. LL

Good post LL.

Some PT peeps still have that Salazar mind set too. I was talking to a PT friend, who wanted democracy, but couldn't see anything wrong with the suspect being tortured so long as they "confessed" and the case was "properly solved" . I just dont think that all PT peeps understand what democracy means.
Some just dont understand the concept of being considered innocent unless proven otherwise.



Seems to me that by popular public demand, Democracy has won the day, but some are still thinking in the old fascist ways, without even realising it. Guess it will take time for everyone to fully understand the differences.

That is horrific, Sadie. You can't argue with that sort of thinking. How do you explain the obvious if they can't already see it?

I have never forgotten Gonc sidekick Claudia being disparaging about the jury system - she really did think that State-appointed judges were more likely to give the 'correct' decision than a fair jury of one's peers.

It was a classic example of Fascist thinking.

There is no point at all in the likes of her and Morais spouting, Oh, we had a revolution, we're democratic now.


They don't think like citizens of a modern democracy; IMO, the roots of democracy are very fragile in some parts of Portugal - thankfully, they are in the minority.

This sort of thinking is actually an insult to integrity, and the human race. Such stupidity is unforgivable. It affords nothing to innocence, and completely destroys the concept of a fair trial.
You might just as well decide who is guilty and lock them up without further benefit.

It seems to me that far too many of The Judges in Portugal just take the word of The PJ, so why bother with a Trial at all. Is this what they want?

And judging by the lack of intelligent reasoning on all of the hate sites, Portugal isn't the only place where people like this exist. They decide who done it, and that is the end of the matter for them.

More has appeared; also, Morais has spattered the story with libellous remarks about Pinto.

I am going to remove those - if anyone wants to see her making a complete fool of herself, by inserting libellous remarks into a straight news story, they can do so here:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/blind-justice-maddie-case-review-is.html

AMP: **[interruption by Morais removed] Starting with Jack the Ripper, they never found who committed those murders.

RR: Now, I don't know if the Judiciary Police liaison with the English police was the best, I don't know if they were pressures or not - the fact is, there is something that has failed in the investigation...

AMF: Let me place you another question.

RR: Allow me to conclude this thought, Alberta. Something failed in the investigation, something failed in the justice, there is a child who disappears and is never seen again, and obviously...

FMF: There were preconceptions.

RR: ...under a juridical point of view, there is a fundamental issue, that I'll explain - technically, the re-opening of a process, that was subject to an archival by the Public Ministry, can only take place if new evidence is provided.

AMF: We're not talking about the re-opening of the process then?

RR: No, this is just a look at the case. What I've heard, and this was stated by the Judiciary Police Directorate from Oporto is that this is a “fresh look”, a more distant look that the Judiciary Police from Faro could have..

AMF: Does a “fresh look” lead to something?

RR: Evidently, a “fresh look” leads to nowhere. We must use rigorous juridical concepts, either there are new evidence that enables to counter the reasoning that has lead to the Public Ministry's decision to archive the process or not. If new evidence is provided, obviously, then the process can be re-opened. Now, this aspect, this particular sensitivity [referring to Moita Flores exposition] of the police clearly cannot be criticized because there is a case that continues to cast a shadow on the justice, on the Portuguese justice - and that is Maddie's disappearance, of that child. Obviously, every attempt, every step...

FMF: Every step taken is a good thing.

RR: ...that is carried out with the objective of finding the truth, of giving better explanations to what has happened it's a good measure - this is a case that was poorly explained here in Portugal. If you ask the Portuguese people...

AMF: Each one has its own theory.

RR: Precisely, the case is poorly explained. If this [the reassessment] helps the clarification of certain matters, even if it doesn't reach as far as the realm of the truth, but if it does indeed help to explain, and if it allows for a technical reopening of the process - evidently, the reopening of the process in a case with this significant dimension, that has crossed the world - it's to be applauded.

FMF: Allow me to wrap up this reasoning with a bang - there is something that would have happened if it was done by Portuguese couples, they would have been accused of child abandonment.

AMP: No, no, there aren't the typical elements.

FMF: Abandonment of minors, toddlers with months, very young children, they were abandoned.

AMP: No, no, no.

RR: Let's clarify this, if the parents go to a party and if the child is left alone, at home, with her siblings that may very well fulfil the requirements typified in the crime of child abandonment.

FMF: In a foreign country, in a foreign land, leaving children alone, that is a crime.

AMP: No, no.

RR: Yes, it can.

AMP: ***[libellous remark by Morais removed - please note, she has failed to repeat what he actually said]***

RR: Our head of the bar is very British today.

AMF: Much was discussed about this case at the time, and we are renewing those arguments. Let's move on to the next segment.

------------

***Interruptions to narrative by Morais; libellous remarks by her removed**

You might just as well decide who is guilty and lock them up without further benefit.

That seems to be EXACTLY what bad elements of the Old Guard in Portugal want to do, Sabot - no wonder the likes of Morais are so scared of people like Pinto, who want to clean the mess up.

bb1 wrote:I have never forgotten Gonc sidekick Claudia being disparaging about the jury system - she really did think that State-appointed judges were more likely to give the 'correct' decision than a fair jury of one's peers.

It was a classic example of Fascist thinking.

There is no point at all in the likes of her and Morais spouting, Oh, we had a revolution, we're democratic now.


They don't think like citizens of a modern democracy; IMO, the roots of democracy are very fragile in some parts of Portugal - thankfully, they are in the minority.

That is what it seems Bonny. In most cases anyhow. A mind set that is caused by historical influences filtering through and a total lack of understanding about democracy. A kind of brain washing imo. and some powerful people are promoting the old fashioned fascist ways for their own benefit it seems .. and calling it democracy. Seems that often, the ordinary non-political guy does not even realise that some of the things like bullying and even torture are the opposite of democracy.

Quite clever really to have a State that is (partly) fascist, yet call it a democracy, so that everyone, in their ignorance, thinks they are in a full democracy and that is the way democracies work.

Smoke and mirrors!

It is a lack of understanding by people, imo. Not sure about Morais and Claudia tho.

I recall being more than a little annoyed with Morais when she took it upon herself to lecture her shrooms about WW2 being a war against Fascism.


She failed to mention the fact that while the parents and grandparents of UK readers were fighting and sometimes dying in the war, Portugal sat it out unscathed, protected by its very own Fascist government.

Thank God for the likes of Pinto, Bonny.

According to that last bit of Interview, The Old Guard want to explain their attitude more fully so they can influence the minds of The Portuguese People, and convince them that The McCanns are guilty because they said so.
They seem to have forgotten, or are unaware of the fact that too many Portuguese Citizens have lived in fear of their tactics for far too long.
There is still oppression in Portugal, and the common people know it.

bb1 wrote:I recall being more than a little annoyed with Morais when she took it upon herself to lecture her shrooms about WW2 being a war against Fascism.


She failed to mention the fact that while the parents and grandparents of UK readers were fighting and sometimes dying in the war, Portugal sat it out unscathed, protected by its very own Fascist government.

And a haven for Nazis, don't forget. The Nazis were strutting about all over Portugal.
I shall refrain from commenting on The Duke of Windsor because he isn't actually pertinent to this thread.

That whole translation is actually classic crude Fascist propaganda, Sabot.

Notice how Morais has repeatedly failed to honestly report a straight news story - instead, she has splattered it with her own 'interpretations', and nasty remarks about Pinto.

I wonder why Pinto has got her so rattled?

Have you noticed the dehumanising, Fascist trick Morais and a lot of the forkers use?

They always refer to 'The McCann couple' - it's done on purpose and is a classic police state trick to remove humanity from their target/s; helps them stop regarding their victims as human beings.

It's a real givaway as to their mindset.

Justiça Cega [Blind Justice] is a current events debate television program, hosted by Alberta Marques Fernandes with High Court judge Dr. Rui Rangel, Criminologist Dr. Francisco Moita Flores and the ever ranting, populist demagogue head of the Portuguese Lawyers Order Dr. António Marinho e Pinto. The latter is also a witness for the McCann couple in the forthcoming libel action against the first coordinator of the investigation to Maddie's disappearance, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, where the couple is seeking 1,2 million euros for alleged damages. The program is divided in three segments and is broadcast live showing twitter [hash tag #justiçacega] comments from the public. On the 12th of March the second segment was dedicated to the recent news regarding the cooperation of a special Judiciary Police unit from Oporto with Cameron's appointed Scotland Yard review of the Maddie Case and the alleged “reopening” of the process by the Portuguese Public Ministry. Transcript and translation of that segment from 31:28 to 45:25 follows, with added screenshots of the twitter comments.

Justiça Cega, broadcast by RTP Informação on March 12, 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqdVOMNZWn4&feature=player_embedded

Transcript

Alberta Marques Fernandes [AMF]:A good time to move on to the next issue, the Maddie case, which is being re-evaluated by the Judiciary Police[PJ] from Oporto and by the Scotland Yard. The investigation team was created several months ago but so far nothing new was detected that could help the discovery of Madeleine McCann whereabouts. If the situation continues as such the case will not be re-opened. The PJ's re-evaluation was requested by the English police, almost four years since the Public Ministry decided to archive the process. Marinho Pinto, can we expect something to come out of this?

António Marinho e Pinto [AMP]: No, I believe this is a decision to please the English.

AMF: A mendacity for the sake of the English1?

AMP: A mendacity for the sake of the English, just to please the English. The process is reopened when there are new elements, it's not opened for the sake of a reappreciation by others of those who archived or did the first investigation. Unless there are new data or data ex novo2 that has emerged meanwhile in the sense of putting in doubt that investigation, the previous investigation. I am highly critical of the options taken by the Judiciary Police officers, namely of Dr. Gonçalo Amaral ****. I believe that it is absurd to attribute... first of all to conclude that the child died, secondly to attribute to the parents that death. I believe that an English couple that is holidaying in the Algarve did not come here to murder their daughter. And if she indeed died, due to an accidental death, the first thing they would do, obviously, wouldn't be hiding the cadaver, it would be to try to save her, to take her to an hospital. A couple that sees their daughter in that situation, in that situation...

AMF: Moita Flores is looking a slightly annoyed.

Francisco Moita Flores [FMF]: Because what he says...

AMP: Moita Flores has a tendency 3 to corporatism.

[FMF]: No, not all. If they were Portuguese parents, just like a case that happened last week...

AMP: Are the English parents any different?

FMF: No, not all. If they were Portuguese parents, just like a case that happened last week...

AMP: Are the English parents any different?

FMF: No, it is you who is making that distinction.

Rui Rangel [RR]: The manner in which you're placing that problem makes that distinction. As if because they are an English couple that wouldn't be feasible.

AMP: How?

FMF: The way in which you are formulating the problem is making a distinction.

AMP: No, no... English or French... They come to Portugal to spent their holidays....

RR: But that is not the issue.

AMP: What I was trying to say...

RR: What you said wasn't clear.

AMP: All right then, they're in Portugal spending their holidays...

FMF: In fact, that possibility of parents coming to Portugal to murder their child was never placed.

AMP: Was never placed. They either came in here to murder her during their holidays....

AMF: But the accidental death hypothesis was placed.

AMP: Of an accident, and the first thing before an accident is to hide the cadaver?! For God's sake they don't even know if the child is dead or not. The first thing when a parent sees an accident, is to take her to an hospital...

FMF: His argumentation made some furore at the time. [speaking to the rest of the panel]

AMP: Hu?

FMF: Your argumentation made some furore at the time.

AMP: No, no, no. This argumentation is a common sense thing.

AMF: Why did it made furore?

AMP: Wait. [speaking to AMF] Allow me to conclude what I have to say about this issue. So, it's an absurd. To attribute... in a previous case, also in the Algarve, with Joana [Cipriano] and her mother, because the mother is in jail... and that worked there because it was a person who didn't have a true defense4...

FMF: Because she was Portuguese. [sarcastic reply]

AMP:...has the Maddie had [not sure if he means Maddie or media], it was a person who belonged to a low social stratum...

AMF: However it was proven that she did indeed murder her own child.

AMP: No, it wasn't proven. She confessed under torture that she had murdered her child. But she never confessed where she hid the body, the cadaver was never found. The only thing they had was her confession. [Again look at Note 4 which clearly contradicts this statement] No one can say that lady is innocent or guilty, nor I can say that.

RR: He already said it.

AMP: What I can affirm is that in the process there isn't enough evidence to put her in jail. And in Portugal...

AMF: There are circumstantial evidence...

AMP: Precisely....

AMF: Last week we talking about that here, in the non-existance of a cadaver, where convictions can still be achieved.

AMP: Corpus delicti [body of crime]...

RR: It's not a decisive factor, obviously.

AMP: If there was presumption of innocence5 she wouldn't be in jail.

AMP: If there was presumption of innocence5 she wouldn't be in jail, regardless of being or not guilty of that fact. With those [McCann couple] they've tried the same thing, but it didn't work. It's, it's...This comes from a judicial culture, that is not exclusive to police but also of magistrates, of a headlong rush forward before the impossibility of finding a guilty person of crimes that are highly mediatic. They have to find someone guilty.*** They have to find someone. And that sometimes causes the worst injustices.

RR: But that is the denial of what you're saying. In the Maddie case they never found anyone.

AMP: They've tried to find someone, they tried to find the parents...

FMF: It wasn't like that, that's not true at all. Here the situation was different.

AMP:...of the child.

FMF: Marinho, it wasn't like that. I accompanied this case from the first minute.

AMF: How did it happen then?

FMF: What took place here was something very different. It was an investigation that started started off badly, and it started off badly with an immediate and huge media apparatus. Where it was dictated, imposed externally and internally, that there was only one solution for this case - that someone had abducted the child and then disappeared to the ends of the earth. Thus...

AMF: It started off badly because of that?

FMF: Yes, it did. The criminal investigation before a crime does not have the prejudices of Dr. Marinho. It cannot have any kind of prejudices.

AMF: All hypotheses are in the open.

FMF: Before a crime...

AMP: [interrupts] But there isn't any prejudice, Moita Flores, I'm talking about several years on from the events...

FMF: Excuse me, before a crime and the execution of that crime, regardless if they are English, French or Portuguese, independently of whoever they are, all hypotheses must be taken into account...

AMP: [interrupts again] But how do you know it's a crime? It could have been an accident, the child could have fallen in a hole...

FMF: I'm sorry, but the child was asleep in her bed.

AMP: So,?! She could have woken up and wondered out....

FMF: The parents were checking her, the friends went there to check on her, various persons went there to check on her. The girl and her siblings[twins] were asleep. They were in the bedroom sleeping. There was a crime. But what crime? We don't know. It could have been an abduction, it could have been homicide, it could have been an accident, even an accident.

AMP: But if it was an accident then it wasn't a crime.

FMF: It could also be true. But every hypothesis must be...

AMF: If it was an accident, there was also the hypothesis of a crime of concealment of the cadaver.

FMF: Alberta, there is a problem here that is pivotal to address. From the first minute, everything was limited so no other hypothesis besides the abduction could be investigated. An abduction made by a fantastic abductor, that no one could describe, of which there are not traces at all, there are no evidence of an abductor that allow to say this man or someone abducted [the girl].

AMF: Has that prevented the gathering of important evidence in the first hours?

FMF: That, in the first few hours, allowed for that place to become the biggest media circus in the world and for that place to be atypical regarding what is expected in a crime scene, as we know. Isolated, centred on the criminal investigation, searching for vestiges, searching for evidence, with conversations - I wouldn't say questionings - but interviews to all those who had access to that house, and methodical interviews without fear, without previous restrictions, without police being called [reprimanded], without that huge spectacle that transformed that case in the case of a definite abduction! Listen, I don't know if the girl...

AMF: Who was the responsible for that situation?

FMF: All those who intervened there. Starting with the director of the Judiciary Police of Faro [Guilhermino da Encarnação], or of the sub-director, by the man who sent orders to the site stating that certain people could not be talked with nor bothered.

AMF: What orders were those?

FMF: Orders to shield interests, because the “English parents are on holidays”!

AMF: The parents couldn't be talked with?!

FMF: “The friends are on holidays”, on holidays! It's “unthinkable”. A crime against a child is indeed something unthinkable, it's so abnormal that anything normal or not must be questioned. Specifically, that must be questioned at the site where this mystery is confined. The mystery is there, enclosed.

AMF: Was there a loss of important testimonials during those first hours?

FMF: Yes, important vestiges were lost, everything was lost due to the media, because what mattered was to transform that crime in a large scale English newscast [SkyNews, BBC, were doing 24 hours coverage and live broadcasts since the very night of Madeleine's disappearance, allegedly called by Tapas 9 members or by their families], and then the TV channels...

AMP: Moita Flores, the Judiciary Police wasn't working for the English news channels.

FMF: No, of course not. The Judiciary Police arrived on site 50 minutes later [GNR officers were already there], during those fifty minutes a situation unfolded and was inducted, where a panoply of alarms surrounding this issue were raised. And when the Judiciary Police arrived dozens of people had already been there [at the crime scene].

AMP: The Judiciary Police is not prepared to deal with that kind of reality [the media circus].

FMF: I'm not excusing the Judiciary Police. What I'm saying is, before a mystery, it's not possible to work in such conditions. I have heard the defence lawyer of the family [Rogério Alves] exorcize those possibilities. Nonetheless, the truth is: the mind of an investigator needs to have an absolute freedom, and has to be a man with an absolute freedom in order to place all the hypotheses, from the more reasonable ones to the most obscene ones. You, our judge and here our dear head of the bar, would never have thought - it never crossed your minds, our minds - that there was a man in Beja6 that would murder his granddaughter, that would murder his daughter, murder his wife, and then would have lunch and dinner with their cadavers hidden inside the bedroom, covering up the crime from the public and from the authorities. This would never have crossed our minds, because the reality often surpasses fiction. And this is something that takes place quite a lot in the life of crime, it's very often. So, prejudices, defences and prior preparations of defence, previous interdictions, all this just hampers the discovery of the truth.

AMP: [interrupts again] Moita Flores, you're constructing a worst scenario, from what...

AMF: [in simultaneous with AMP] But now it's Rui Rangel's turn to speak.

FMF: No, it was exactly like that. If there is something that I carry with me from my times at the Judiciary Police is a profound memory of having an absolute freedom, the utmost freedom to place all hypotheses...

AMF: And you, Rui Rangel, do you agree?

FMF: And then we have to demonstrate it with a proof of causation and evidence.

RR: I agree partially with what Moita Flores said.

FMF: Allow me to conclude, what Marinho e Pinto said, regarding the reopening of the process is also true... We seem to be involved in a situation...

AMF: Moita Flores, my apologies. I would like to read this twitter message from one of our viewers: “Wasn't the PJ excessively pressured by the Scotland Yard, and didn't that hampered the investigation?”

FMF: No, I don't think so, in fact I believe they had a good cooperation. But now to reopen the process it's not the same at all.

RR: I agree, it's not the same.

FMF: There isn't any reopening of the process, because new evidence needs to be presented for that to happen.

RR: Allow me to just add something to that thought.

FMF: Please, do. It's your birthday as well [***Rui Rangel's birthday was on the day of this broadcast***].

RR: It is true that the Judiciary Police wasn't prepared for that kind of situation. It is also true that due to the ineptitude and inability of the Judiciary Police regarding the media, I'm recalling that notorious press conference [with Olegário de Sousa/May 7, 2007] given at the headquarters of the Judiciary Police initially that was a complete and regrettable media circus, something that was allowed by the Judiciary Police directorate of that area[***PJ doesn't do press conferences unlike UK police] the excessive mediatization ended up hindering the investigation as well. Having said that, it should also be said that the English police have plenty of cases, in their history, of exactly the same type of crimes that were never solved, various failures...

FMF: Much more failures in solving cases than Portugal, we have two or three cases that were never solved.

RR: The Judiciary Police is not inferior to the English police.

AMP: **Starting with Jack the Ripper, they never found who committed those murders.

RR: Now, I don't know if the Judiciary Police liaison with the English police was the best, I don't know if they were pressures or not - the fact is, there is something that has failed in the investigation...

AMF: Let me place you another question.

RR: Allow me to conclude this thought, Alberta. Something failed in the investigation, something failed in the justice, there is a child who disappears and is never seen again, and obviously...

FMF: There were preconceptions.

RR: ...under a juridical point of view, there is a fundamental issue, that I'll explain - technically, the re-opening of a process, that was subject to an archival by the Public Ministry, can only take place if new evidence is provided.

AMF: We're not talking about the re-opening of the process then?

RR: No, this is just a look at the case. What I've heard, and this was stated by the Judiciary Police Directorate from Oporto is that this is a “fresh look”, a more distant look that the Judiciary Police from Faro could have..

AMF: Does a “fresh look” lead to something?

RR: Evidently, a “fresh look” leads to nowhere. We must use rigorous juridical concepts, either there are new evidence that enables to counter the reasoning that has lead to the Public Ministry's decision to archive the process or not. If new evidence is provided, obviously, then the process can be re-opened. Now, this aspect, this particular sensitivity [referring to Moita Flores exposition] of the police clearly cannot be criticized because there is a case that continues to cast a shadow on the justice, on the Portuguese justice - and that is Maddie's disappearance, of that child. Obviously, every attempt, every step...

FMF: Every step taken is a good thing.

RR: ...that is carried out with the objective of finding the truth, of giving better explanations to what has happened it's a good measure - this is a case that was poorly explained here in Portugal. If you ask the Portuguese people...

AMF: Each one has its own theory.

RR: Precisely, the case is poorly explained. If this [the reassessment] helps the clarification of certain matters, even if it doesn't reach as far as the realm of the truth, but if it does indeed help to explain, and if it allows for a technical reopening of the process - evidently, the reopening of the process in a case with this significant dimension, that has crossed the world - it's to be applauded.

FMF: Allow me to wrap up this reasoning with a bang - there is something that would have happened if it was done by Portuguese couples, they would have been accused of child abandonment.

AMP: No, no, there aren't the typical elements.

FMF: Abandonment of minors, toddlers with months, very young children, they were abandoned.

AMP: No, no, no.

RR: Let's clarify this, if the parents go to a party and if the child is left alone, at home, with her siblings that may very well fulfil the requirements typified in the crime of child abandonment.

FMF: In a foreign country, in a foreign land, leaving children alone, that is a crime.

AMP: No, no.

RR: Yes, it can.

AMP: ***[libellous remark by Morais removed - please note, she has failed to repeat what he actually said]***

RR:Our head of the bar is very British today.

AMF: Much was discussed about this case at the time, and we are renewing those arguments

about moita:

you moita remove the stupid smile off your face, because this is not an amusing case.

you say that the investigation can not be prejudiced, but that was what exactly what gonçalo amaral did, with the purpose of write books of lies.

about circus, you moita talks about circus, but the true responsible for that circus was none other than gonçalo amaral.

you moita talks evidences lost inside the apartment, but, it was the police, namely GNR, that entered the apartment smoking, the ashes of GNR cigars were inside the apartment, another responsible for the mess was also gonçalo amaral that, due to his incompetence and corruption, jeopardize severly the search for the child.

about: "It started off badly because of that?", again, gonçalo amaral´s true and only guilt.

moita, know this, about "Abandonment", it was again gonçalo amaral, the true only guilty person, because it was amaral, following the moment during his dinner in the proximity of praia da luz, when received a phonecall telling about the abduction of a British child from the resort, he, gonçalo amaral followed to his home instead of showing his fat face immediately in praia da luz, following the phonecall, this is the real abandonment, and then, what is worst, which has no forgiveness at all: to launch smears, lies, defamation, sick unproven theories, without any shred of evidence, whit the despicable purpose of write books of lies, with the only concern of fame and fortune at the expenses of innocents betrayed by amaral hilself.

also moita, know this: there is a reliable evidence about this abduction: Jane Tanner´s sighting.

Thank you, Pedro, I will merge with the other thread

You welcome bb1.

I am stunned that Morais couldn't post a simple news report without her own additions, Pedro - and as for insulting Marinho Pinto instead of posting what he said!

What value does she think that has? It just makes her look even more rattled, IMO.

The correct way of doing these things is to post the news story or report as it stands, and then make your own comments separately - not shove them in the middle.

Who can forget her inventing the entire 'book burning story' - some of the idiots believe that rubbish to this day.

I said it yesterday and I will repeat it tonight.

I do not see Joana Morais intention with these transcripts as simple assistance to those who read her blog.

If her aim was to assist people she would post both the Portuguese and English transcripts. She is not doing that. Why does she not do that? It is impossible for almost everyone to check her translated transcripts.

If her aim was truth, she would refrain from commenting till after presenting the information. She doesn't do that. Why?

morais aim of truth is the crap / lies / sick unproven fantasies from amaral´s dirty mouth.

If her aim was truth, she would refrain from commenting till after presenting the information. She doesn't do that. Why?

IMO, Greenink, the truth is the last thing she wants to promote. She is promoting propaganda.

The long-gone blogger Blackwatch caught on to her a long time ago; he urged everyone to read the Portuguese media for themselves via google.

He reasoned that the bizarre mistakes which occur in google translations are obvious; the subtle changes in Morais' translations are far harder to spot.

He also realized that she was 'gatekeeping' news she didn't want to get out, because she knew full well that it would never occur to her followers to find things out for themselves.

The arrogance of her!

Joana Morais said... 86
83@ The UK Home Office can't open anything, the process is out of their jurisdiction, Portugal is not a colony of England - even though certain Portuguese lawyers, head of the LO bars (former and current) and a hand full of PR's bow to English interests. Only the Portuguese Public Ministry can reopen the process, and then only the Portuguese Judiciary Police has the status to make a criminal investigation to the Maddie case.

So, it must be a colony of Germany then, as the Portuguese authorities seem to have no problem with Germany holding trials for alleged crimes committed on Portuguese soil.

On the other hand, maybe we had better not remind Morais of her homeland's previous admiration for all things German, especially when black uniforms were involved.

Hasn't it occurred to her yet that no one needs to reopen The Case. If Scotland Yard or The PJ find Madeleine and her Abductor they won't be asking permission before they do something about it. And The Abductor will be arrested and Madeleine will be returned to her family before we know anything about it.
And besides, The Case is as good as reopened both in Britain and Portugal. They are just keeping their findings under their hats for the moment.
But it will be interesting to see what they have to say about the original investigation under Goncalo Amaral. If anything.
And as far as The Abductor is concerned, Portugal can have him for all I care about that.

Have you noticed the contortions they are currently turning, Sabot?

They have convinced themselves that should the case be reopened, the McCanns would automatically become arguidos again - for some bizarre reason, Murat wouldn't...

They simply cannot face reality - that the McCanns are NOT suspects (and neither is Murat) so any reopening would be because of some completely new information, or old information Gonc chose to ignore because it didn't suit his agenda.

bb1 wrote:Have you noticed the contortions they are currently turning, Sabot?

They have convinced themselves that should the case be reopened, the McCanns would automatically become arguidos again - for some bizarre reason, Murat wouldn't...

They simply cannot face reality - that the McCanns are NOT suspects (and neither is Murat) so any reopening would be because of some completely new information, or old information Gonc chose to ignore because it didn't suit his agenda.

Of course you are right, Bonny. The McCanns and Robert Murat had their Arguido status lifted because no evidence against any of them was found. So if anyone is made an Arguido it will be someone else entirely. That is what New Evidence means.
In fact, The Legal Process would be reopened, and not The Case itself. Scotland Yard and Oporto PJ are already reviewing The Case which is as good as reopened.

Just how thick are these people? Or how nasty might be a better question. The McCanns will not be made Arguidos again. And no amount of stating it as fact is going to change that.

bb1, about: "I am stunned that Morais couldn't post a simple news report without her own additions, Pedro - and as for insulting Marinho Pinto instead of posting what he said!", morais has always to find something nasty to feed her sick ego, that's how morais delusional brain works.

morais needs therapy.