What Lee Rainbow ACTUALLY said.

And it has a hugely diferent slant to what cabrita tried to postulate.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/158018/-McCann-twins-may-hold-clues-says-criminal-profiler

‘MCCANN TWINS MAY HOLD CLUES’ SAYS CRIMINAL PROFILER

By James Murray

THE country’s most senior criminal profiler suggested Madeleine McCann’s brother and sister should have been interviewed about her disappearance.

Twins Sean and Amelie were aged just two years and three months when Madeleine was snatched from a holiday apartment on the Algarve in Portugal in May 2007 shortly before her fourth birthday.

A month later, Lee Rainbow, senior behavioural investigation consultant at the National Policing Improvement Agency, wrote a report for Portuguese detectives which may have altered the course of the inquiry.

Mr Rainbow urged them to “consider the possibility of exploring the potential of interviewing Sean and Amelie McCann”.

The children, now five, were sharing a bedroom with Madeleine when she was taken. As reported last year in the Sunday Express, the McCanns believe the kidnapper may have entered the apartment the evening before because Madeleine complained she had been woken by Sean crying.

The last time British police seriously interviewed such a young child was in 1992. Rachel Nickell was murdered in front of her two-year-old son, Alex Hanscombe, on Wimbledon Common, south-west London. Despite his age, Alex was able to give detectives valuable and credible information.

Child psychologists worked closely with police to draw information from Alex in a painstaking exercise which lasted months. Former Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral has presented Mr Rainbow’s report to a civil court in Lisbon as he attempts to lift a ban on selling his book about the case, The Truth Of The Lie.

In the summary of the 30-page report Mr Rainbow wrote: “The potential involvement of the family in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be discarded, and it can be considered that, when pondering the basis for research, this hypothesis deserves as much attention as the criminal with sexual motivations that has been previously prioritised.

“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.” At court last week, Mr Amaral’s lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, read out a section of 37-year-old Mr Rainbow’s report which said: “The family is a lead that should be followed.”

On Thursday the judge hearing the libel case is expected to rule on whether Mr Amaral’s book and a DVD should go back on sale.

Doctors Kate and Gerry McCann, both 41, from Rothley, Leicestershire, won an injunction to have them banned.

It was on the grounds that Mr Amaral’s theory that Madeleine died in the apartment was untrue and had damaged their global search for their daughter.

A spokesman for the couple said that any suggestion from Mr Rainbow would have been considered by investigating officers at the time.

It is not known whether Sean and Amelie were formally interviewed by police.T he children are thought to have slept through the kidnap. The McCanns have always insisted they had no involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.

The Judge will want to see the actual report.

Gonzalo has got no chance. Sheesh, what a cock up that investigation was.

No Sabot, the judge will not ask for the report. It was on the closing arguments that it was talked about.

Now, on the libel case that is another story. If Cabrita does not come back to this subject, I believe Isabel may well force him to that, I believe...

maria wrote:No Sabot, the judge will not ask for the report. It was on the closing arguments that it was talked about.

Now, on the libel case that is another story. If Cabrita does not come back to this subject, I believe Isabel may well force him to that, I believe...

Why would The Judge not want to know what the report actually says?

It doesn't accuse The McCanns in any way, which Cabrita suggested it does.

I think it's because it wasn't presented as evidence, just brought up in the closing arguments? That way there was no way it could be discussed at lenght, and what was really said discovered, rather than what cabrita spun it to say. I think.

Sabot wrote:

maria wrote:No Sabot, the judge will not ask for the report. It was on the closing arguments that it was talked about.

Now, on the libel case that is another story. If Cabrita does not come back to this subject, I believe Isabel may well force him to that, I believe...

Why would The Judge not want to know what the report actually says?

It doesn't accuse The McCanns in any way, which Cabrita suggested it does.

Sabot, I presume in Portugal, the closing arguments is closing the hearing on that case, until it is decided upon.

Right, Vee and Chris.

Okay, I understand that. But I would still want to know if I was The Judge.

I suppose she can always Google it like the rest of us.

This whole case is about false interpretation in every single possible way. And I swear to God that Amaral got most of his insane theories from 3As and the Portuguese Translators who were undoubtedly there to influence opinion by messing about with the leaks coming from inside The PJ.. Most of these translators disappeared when the Arguido Status was lifted, probably because they weren't getting paid anymore.

If only we had known that everything being spouted on 3As was the exact opposite to the truth.

So many of us tried to refute this garbage, but we didn't stand a chance really.

Eighteen months on it is a very different story. There are now far more Pro Truth Sites than there are Anti Sites.. I guess we just needed a minute to get our act together, not being of twisted mind in the first place.. It has come hard to some of us to get our heads around the inherent sickness of these people.

I for one, will never be the same again.

Never mind Sabot, you came good in the end.
At least you can be thankful you weren't as sick as the scum left from 3A's.

christabel wrote:Never mind Sabot, you came good in the end.
At least you can be thankful you weren't as sick as the scum left from 3A's.

Oh, I never was, Christa, but the minute we defended The McCanns personally, we got banned. It was like walking a tightrope from one post to the next, never knowing if you would log on to one of Brenda's ghastly "You've Been Banned" Avatars. But there was no where else to go in the beginning, so we all plodded on trying to be reasonable and just pointing out what was wrong about the little that we actually knew.

They, of course, are still spouting the same old long discredited rubbish.

Sabot wrote:

christabel wrote:Never mind Sabot, you came good in the end.
At least you can be thankful you weren't as sick as the scum left from 3A's.

Oh, I never was, Christa, but the minute we defended The McCanns personally, we got banned. It was like walking a tightrope from one post to the next, never knowing if you would log on to one of Brenda's ghastly "You've Been Banned" Avatars. But there was no where else to go in the beginning, so we all plodded on trying to be reasonable and just pointing out what was wrong about the little that we actually knew.

They, of course, are still spouting the same old long discredited rubbish.

We can vouch for this too Sabot, Chris and I were the subject of some bannings, especially me, the antis really hated me because I would not shut up, I was a thorn in their sides then and still am and they could never quite grasp why, so I was obviously part of "Team McCann". I regularly got banned from the DX, but they always reinstated me, because they knew I was telling the truth!

The antis would complain about me and report me, so I used to get a ban until the DX could assess the situation and then when they saw the antis were a lying bunch of morons, they used to reinstate me. Tellingly though, they banned Vile Viv permanently and she went berserk and deftly demonstrated that they were quite correct to ban her permanently! The twerp!

I think that when the files came out, a lot of sensible people started to realise that they had been lied to by the likes of Amaral and Bennett etc and the anti support started to drop right off from that moment.

It seems that support did drop off, Rosie. Some of the erm......Ar*eholes did disappear, never to be seen again. I think that some of them were quite traumatised. At least, I do hope so.
But they never sodding well apologised, did they.

Rosiepops wrote:

Sabot wrote:

christabel wrote:Never mind Sabot, you came good in the end.
At least you can be thankful you weren't as sick as the scum left from 3A's.

Oh, I never was, Christa, but the minute we defended The McCanns personally, we got banned. It was like walking a tightrope from one post to the next, never knowing if you would log on to one of Brenda's ghastly "You've Been Banned" Avatars. But there was no where else to go in the beginning, so we all plodded on trying to be reasonable and just pointing out what was wrong about the little that we actually knew.

They, of course, are still spouting the same old long discredited rubbish.

We can vouch for this too Sabot, Chris and I were the subject of some bannings, especially me, the antis really hated me because I would not shut up, I was a thorn in their sides then and still am and they could never quite grasp why, so I was obviously part of "Team McCann". I regularly got banned from the DX, but they always reinstated me, because they knew I was telling the truth!

The antis would complain about me and report me, so I used to get a ban until the DX could assess the situation and then when they saw the antis were a lying bunch of morons, they used to reinstate me. Tellingly though, they banned Vile Viv permanently and she went berserk and deftly demonstrated that they were quite correct to ban her permanently! The twerp!

I think that when the files came out, a lot of sensible people started to realise that they had been lied to by the likes of Amaral and Bennett etc and the anti support started to drop right off from that moment.

Oh yes we can lol. Pass the bucket.

How the great have fallen. . You did upset Viv/Felicity a few times though Rosie . Don't know who was the biggest liar on there Vile or the Notdoc.

I can remember all the names, not gonna give them any space here though, except this one.
Remember DCI Dunc, that was my best on the DX stitching him up like a kipper, over Sutcliffe's attacker in prison (I told him it was the arresting officer) and the berk agreed.

Well there's Tinks, Dianne, Calcite, Alroy and us two left from the DX (sorry if I missed anyone else)

Back to the original report, isn't that falsifying of evidence? Can cabrita be disbarred for that?

I came from The Mirror Forum. But I did make one memorable post on The Express Forum, my first ever on any Forum. I only said that people should take care of what they were saying, and then got the biggest load of abuse that you could begin imagine.

I ran away in horror. And then I though, "I'm not having that". So I went back, tore him to pieces and departed for fresh fields. That was the start of my fight for Madeleine. Who knows? I might not have gotten involved but for that piece of garbage.

vee8 wrote:Back to the original report, isn't that falsifying of evidence? Can cabrita be disbarred for that?

I shouldn't think so, Vee. He isn't lying, just quoting out of context. Leaving out other important bits. I don't think this is a crime, or even a misdemeanour. Just gross.

The judge will most likely take no notice of what Cabrita said because he didnt submit the report into evidence. Give the judge the benefit of the doubt here, she knows that since it was not submitted into evidence, that most likely what Cabrita said was not true. There was no other reason for not submitting it , as if it really said what Cabrita suggests, then it gives more support to Amaral's strange defence than any of the other witnesses. No, the judge is no fool.

dianeh wrote:The judge will most likely take no notice of what Cabrita said because he didnt submit the report into evidence. Give the judge the benefit of the doubt here, she knows that since it was not submitted into evidence, that most likely what Cabrita said was not true. There was no other reason for not submitting it , as if it really said what Cabrita suggests, then it gives more support to Amaral's strange defence than any of the other witnesses. No, the judge is no fool.

Good thinking, Dianeh. That has cheered me up.

The McCanns should have been investigated and Amaral likes to say he suspected them from the start, this being so why did he wait all that time and for someone like Rainbow to tell him how to do his job properly?

It is this type of contradiction that should be highlighting to the anti's that Amaral is lying to them. Because Rosie, you are 100% correct that he says he suspected them all along. So how then could he have had to read a report from a BRITISH profiler, that told him he should investigate the McCanns to rule out them out, before he even began investigating them.

Let me try to think for a moment (I know.....)
This isn't about if it was right or wrong to suspect the parents or to make them arguido's.
It's about what Amaral wrote in the book, what's been broadcasted by the documockery, what he's been stating in interviews, isn't it?
So does that report matter? I don't think so. This is a civil case. Not a criminal lawsuit.
Amaral's conclusions in the book do matter: The child is dead, the parents concealed the body.
There's been no proof either one of those accusations is true.
Appeal denied. Case closed. Next.

It could be said that Amaral is entitled to his opinion until Libel has been proved in a Court of Law.

But if Amaral does win against the injunction, I hope they keep his assets frozen, because he will undoubtedly try to dispose of them in some way.

Rosiepops wrote:His "vanished" wife has a lot of his assets already transferred into her name and so does his brother!

I don't think that will protect him, Rosie, if it can be proved that it was done on purpose. I am more concerned that he might move stuff out of the country.

And they can still take half of his house even if it is in Sofia's name. Presuming that it is paid for of course, which I don't think it is.

dianeh wrote:

The McCanns should have been investigated and Amaral likes to say he suspected them from the start, this being so why did he wait all that time and for someone like Rainbow to tell him how to do his job properly?

It is this type of contradiction that should be highlighting to the anti's that Amaral is lying to them. Because Rosie, you are 100% correct that he says he suspected them all along. So how then could he have had to read a report from a BRITISH profiler, that told him he should investigate the McCanns to rule out them out, before he even began investigating them.

Has anyone a link to show he said he suspected the parents all along? I'd love to use it to show some antis