Sceptics beliefs ?

[jassi]

That's assuming they don't really know what happened to Maddie.

We can't be certain that they don't.

Their outlook appears pretty bleak whatever they know or don't know - IMO

[Venturi Swirl]

I agree with your first sentence.

One can fantasise about an abduction for starters, one abductor or maybe even 2, hell why stop at 2?
Perhaps there was a whole coach party of abductors, 'watchers' keeping look out, getaway cars warmed in waiting, abductors making practice runs in the apartment the night before, bloodlines, paedophile rings....It's entertaining if nothing else.

Silly billy.

[Venturi Swirl]

Are they looking in on this?

Yes they are.

[Brietta]

That's assuming they don't really know what happened to Maddie.

We can't be certain that they don't.

There is always "benefit of the doubt" to be considered ... rather akin I think to "innocent until proven guilty" ... that isn't something most sceptics seem to attach any importance to if they ever take time out to examine their consciences.

[faithlilly]

in your opinion...where is the proof  you are talking about...show me the proof and your post has some validity ...without it its just your opinion presented as fact and therefore basically worthless imo

The proof is in every denial you make in the wake of overwhelming evidence.

[faithlilly]

The thing about fantasising is that it is the gift that keeps on giving irrespective of of probability or veracity.  I don't believe even Amaral suggested that Kate was an MI5 operative yet in the run up to another year of Madeleine's absence, a highly noted Portuguese journalist and author has made the allegation.

I find that quite remarkable ... and I will not be too surprised to see it adopted as the latest factoid on #mccann et al.

I agree...it’s absolutely ridiculous...not sure why it’s in answer to one of my posts though.

[Mr Gray]

The proof is in every denial you make in the wake of overwhelming evidence.

I haven't seen any overwhelming evidence.... Your original post claimed denial in the face of proof... You are backtracking at speed and stating your opinion as fact... It isnt

[Wonderfulspam]

There is always "benefit of the doubt" to be considered ... rather akin I think to "innocent until proven guilty" ... that isn't something most sceptics seem to attach any importance to if they ever take time out to examine their consciences.

The McCanns lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence, as the I believe the AG once said.

[Mr Gray]

But it does matter. Even when faced with proof of something you deny it. This proves that your belief in the parent’s innocence is not based on a dispassionate, object consideration of the evidence but on blind faith.

Again... What proof do you have that I'm denying.. You seem to think your opinions are facts... They are not

[faithlilly]

I haven't seen any overwhelming evidence.... Your original post claimed denial in the face of proof... You are backtracking at speed and stating your opinion as fact... It isnt

The proof is in your denial of the evidence in Gerry’s statement....the translator put the word key in  .

[Venturi Swirl]

The McCanns lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence, as the I believe the AG once said.

And what a daft thing to say that was.

[Wonderfulspam]

And what a daft thing to say that was.

Not really. If they & their friends had taken part in a reconstruction, it would have demonstrated their innocence by way of willingness to cooperate. That b........ Amaral was off the case at that point, so no one was trying to stitch them up.
Instead, they opted to hide behind lawyers & spokesmen, like most innocent people do.
Things might have been quite different for the McCanns in the court of public opinion, had they taken part.
But it isn't, the McCanns will be trolled by people doubting their innocence for the rest of their lives, & they've got nobody to blame but themselves imo.

[Venturi Swirl]

Not really. If they & their friends had taken part in a reconstruction, it would have demonstrated their innocence by way of willingness to cooperate. That b........ Amaral was off the case at that point, so no one was trying to stitch them up.
Instead, they opted to hide behind lawyers & spokesmen, like most innocent people do.
Things might have been quite different for the McCanns in the court of public opinion, had they taken part.
But it isn't, the McCanns will be trolled by people doubting their innocence for the rest of their lives, & they've got nobody to blame but themselves imo.

What utter tripe IMO but thanks for sharing.

[Wonderfulspam]

What utter tripe IMO but thanks for sharing.

Which part, or parts, specifically do you disagree with?

[Venturi Swirl]

Which part, or parts, specifically do you disagree with?

Can you explain exactly how taking part in a reconstruction would have demonstrated innocence?  The McCanns agreed to take part but obviously agreeing to take part demonstrated nothing, so...over to you.