The Anti forums are crowing that this Justice Forum has joined their side...

[debunker]

....of the McCann debate.

Is this the case or is it another anti myth?

Interesting that this section is still about the ABDUCTION of Madeleine- normally anathema to the [ censored word]!

[stephen25000]

....of the McCann debate.

Is this the case or is it another anti myth?

Interesting that this section is still about the ABDUCTION of Madeleine- normally anathema to the [ censored word]!

Trouble is, on that one, that the abduction is merely that, an unproven myth, without a shred of credible evidence to back it up. However, the Mccanns have displayed it as a fact, which is a blatant lie.

[debunker]

....of the McCann debate.

Is this the case or is it another anti myth?

Interesting that this section is still about the ABDUCTION of Madeleine- normally anathema to the [ censored word]!

Trouble is, on that one, that the abduction is merely that, an unproven myth, without a shred of credible evidence to back it up. However, the Mccanns have displayed it as a fact, which is a blatant lie.

I do wish people would use English correctly. Anyone is true to state their own beliefs. If they believe Madeleine was abducted,they have the right to say that. They may be right or wrong but they have a right to express their beliefs. Facts may later prove them wrong,but that would not make it a LIE, merely a mistake!

In order to prove that the McCanns "LIED" you would have to prove that they purposefully told an untruth with the intention to deceive. You have not done so. All you can claim is that you believe them to be lying- a very different matter.

Neither you nor anyone else has shown that the McCanns have LIED about anything.They may have been mistaken, but that is not sufficient to claim a lie has been spoken.

[HiDeHo]

McLIES: Why did Gerry McCann LIE about which door he used?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9UPOXdTMIs

[Admin]

Impartiality is the keyword.   

[debunker]

McLIES: Why did Gerry McCann LIE about which door he used?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9UPOXdTMIs

See my note about correct use of English. Only 3/10 for effort and 0/10 for truth and accuracy.

[debunker]

Impartiality is the keyword.   

Agreed. I have no firm views on most things aside from obviously false assertions. I post on no other forum and see both Pros and [ censored word] as engaged in a dialogue of the deaf, only rehearsing their own views and failing to consider alternative discourses.

[John]

Impartiality is the keyword.   

Agreed. I have no firm views on most things aside from obviously false assertions. I post on no other forum and see both Pros and [ censored word] as engaged in a dialogue of the deaf, only rehearsing their own views and failing to consider alternative discourses.

It is getting a bit like that with the Bamber case when nearly everyone who disagrees with Mike Tesko gets abused and banned eventually.

There is evidence in the Maddie McCann case but it must be sifted ever so carefully in my opinion.

[debunker]

Impartiality is the keyword.   

Agreed. I have no firm views on most things aside from obviously false assertions. I post on no other forum and see both Pros and [ censored word] as engaged in a dialogue of the deaf, only rehearsing their own views and failing to consider alternative discourses.

It is getting a bit like that with the Bamber case when nearly everyone who disagrees with Mike Tesko gets abused and banned eventually.




There is evidence in the Maddie McCann case but it must be sifted ever so carefully in my opinion.

The Portuguese Prosecutor was clear that there was no evidence to charge anyone with anything.

[stephen25000]

....of the McCann debate.

Is this the case or is it another anti myth?

Interesting that this section is still about the ABDUCTION of Madeleine- normally anathema to the [ censored word]!

Trouble is, on that one, that the abduction is merely that, an unproven myth, without a shred of credible evidence to back it up. However, the Mccanns have displayed it as a fact, which is a blatant lie.

I do wish people would use English correctly. Anyone is true to state their own beliefs. If they believe Madeleine was abducted,they have the right to say that. They may be right or wrong but they have a right to express their beliefs. Facts may later prove them wrong,but that would not make it a LIE, merely a mistake!

In order to prove that the McCanns "LIED" you would have to prove that they purposefully told an untruth with the intention to deceive. You have not done so. All you can claim is that you believe them to be lying- a very different matter.

Neither you nor anyone else has shown that the McCanns have LIED about anything.They may have been mistaken, but that is not sufficient to claim a lie has been spoken.

Example of a lie by kate mccann.

Stating in the book that only they were searching for Madeleine, after her disappearance.

A pure lie.

Stating abduction as fact, is also a lie.

[debunker]

....of the McCann debate.

Is this the case or is it another anti myth?

Interesting that this section is still about the ABDUCTION of Madeleine- normally anathema to the [ censored word]!

Trouble is, on that one, that the abduction is merely that, an unproven myth, without a shred of credible evidence to back it up. However,
the Mccanns have displayed it as a fact, which is a blatant lie.

I do wish people would use English correctly. Anyone is true to state their own beliefs. If they believe Madeleine was abducted,they have the right to say that. They may be right or wrong but they have a right to express their beliefs. Facts may later prove them wrong,but that
would not make it a LIE, merely a mistake!

In order to prove that the McCanns "LIED" you would have to prove that they purposefully told an untruth with the intention to deceive. You have not done so. All you can claim is that you believe them to be lying- a very different matter.

Neither you nor anyone else has shown that the McCanns have LIED about anything.They may have been mistaken, but that is not sufficient to claim a lie has been spoken.

Example of a lie by kate mccann.

Stating in the book that only they were searching for Madeleine, after her disappearance.


A pure lie.

Stating abduction as fact, is also a lie.

They may be mis-statements, but you would need to know her state of mind when she made those statements.

A statement is only a lie if an untruth is told, the person knowing it is untrue, and told by that person with the intention to deceive.

Quoting only partially and inaccurately does not help your case. What exactly were her words and in what context were they spoken. If she truly believes her words, she cannot be lying. ....................................

[stephen25000]

....of the McCann debate.

Is this the case or is it another anti myth?

Interesting that this section is still about the ABDUCTION of Madeleine- normally anathema to the [ censored word]!

Trouble is, on that one, that the abduction is merely that, an unproven myth, without a shred of credible evidence to back it up. However,
the Mccanns have displayed it as a fact, which is a blatant lie.

I do wish people would use English correctly. Anyone is true to state their own beliefs. If they believe Madeleine was abducted,they have the right to say that. They may be right or wrong but they have a right to express their beliefs. Facts may later prove them wrong,but that
would not make it a LIE, merely a mistake!

In order to prove that the McCanns "LIED" you would have to prove that they purposefully told an untruth with the intention to deceive. You have not done so. All you can claim is that you believe them to be lying- a very different matter.

Neither you nor anyone else has shown that the McCanns have LIED about anything.They may have been mistaken, but that is not sufficient to claim a lie has been spoken.

Example of a lie by kate mccann.

Stating in the book that only they were searching for Madeleine, after her disappearance.


A pure lie.

Stating abduction as fact, is also a lie.

They may be mis-statements, but you would need to know her state of mind when she made those statements.

A statement is only a lie if an untruth is told, the person knowing it is untrue, and told by that person with the intention to deceive.

Quoting only partially and inaccurately does not help your case. What exactly were her words and in what context were they spoken. If she truly believes her words, she cannot be lying. Please use English correctly.

There is no need to be pedantic.

She clearly stated only they searched, a clear lie.

She had every opportunity to remove that from the revised version of the book.

A lie is still a lie

[debunker]

....of the McCann debate.

Is this the case or is it another anti myth?

Interesting that this section is still about the ABDUCTION of Madeleine- normally anathema to the [ censored word]!

Trouble is, on that one, that the abduction is merely that, an unproven myth, without a shred of credible evidence to back it up. However,
the Mccanns have displayed it as a fact, which is a blatant lie.

I do wish people would use English correctly. Anyone is true to state their own beliefs. If they believe Madeleine was abducted,they have the right to say that. They may be right or wrong but they have a right to express their beliefs. Facts may later prove them wrong,but that
would not make it a LIE, merely a mistake!
In order to prove that the McCanns "LIED" you would have to prove that they purposefully told an untruth with the intention to deceive. You have not done so. All you can claim is that you believe them to be lying- a very different matter.


Neither you nor anyone else has shown that the McCanns have LIED about anything.They may have been mistaken, but that is not sufficient to claim a lie has been spoken.

Example of a lie by kate mccann.

Stating in the book that only they were searching for Madeleine, after her disappearance.




A pure lie.

Stating abduction as fact, is also a lie.

They may be mis-statements, but you would need to know her state of mind when she made those statements.

A statement is only a lie if an untruth is told, the person knowing it is untrue, and told by that person with the intention to deceive.

Quoting only partially and inaccurately does not help your case. What exactly were her words and in what context were they spoken. If
she truly believes her words, she cannot be lying. Please use English correctly.

There is no need to be pedantic.

She clearly stated only they searched, a clear lie.



She had every opportunity to remove that from the revised version of the book.

A lie is still a lie

A lie is only a lie if the above conditions are met. You have not shown this to be the case. This is not pedantic-  a lie is only a lie if spoken intentionally to deceive, else it is mistaken or just an error. To be a lie the speaker must believe other than what they claim AND intend to deceive. As I said, please use words correctly.

[stephen25000]

....of the McCann debate.

Is this the case or is it another anti myth?

Interesting that this section is still about the ABDUCTION of Madeleine- normally anathema to the [ censored word]!

Trouble is, on that one, that the abduction is merely that, an unproven myth, without a shred of credible evidence to back it up. However,
the Mccanns have displayed it as a fact, which is a blatant lie.

I do wish people would use English correctly. Anyone is true to state their own beliefs. If they believe Madeleine was abducted,they have the right to say that. They may be right or wrong but they have a right to express their beliefs. Facts may later prove them wrong,but that
would not make it a LIE, merely a mistake!
In order to prove that the McCanns "LIED" you would have to prove that they purposefully told an untruth with the intention to deceive. You have not done so. All you can claim is that you believe them to be lying- a very different matter.


Neither you nor anyone else has shown that the McCanns have LIED about anything.They may have been mistaken, but that is not sufficient to claim a lie has been spoken.

Example of a lie by kate mccann.

Stating in the book that only they were searching for Madeleine, after her disappearance.




A pure lie.

Stating abduction as fact, is also a lie.

They may be mis-statements, but you would need to know her state of mind when she made those statements.

A statement is only a lie if an untruth is told, the person knowing it is untrue, and told by that person with the intention to deceive.

Quoting only partially and inaccurately does not help your case. What exactly were her words and in what context were they spoken. If
she truly believes her words, she cannot be lying. Please use English correctly.

There is no need to be pedantic.

She clearly stated only they searched, a clear lie.



She had every opportunity to remove that from the revised version of the book.

A lie is still a lie

A lie is only a lie if the above conditions are met. You have not shown this to be the case. This is not pedantic-  a lie is only a lie if spoken intentionally to deceive, else it is mistaken or just an error. To be a lie the speaker must believe other than what they claim AND intend to deceive. As I said, please use words correctly.

Such arrogance.

Kate Mccann know that statement to be a lie.

Also I suggest you watch the Jane Hill interview with the Mccanns for reference purposes.

[debunker]

What direct knowledge do you have about Kate McCann's state of mind when she made that statement. Are you telepathic?