Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?

[Robittybob1]

As you observed, direct accusations are not permitted on the forum, yet I have seen quite a few of them directed at Martin Grime.

If I say that I have proven on this forum that the PJ faked cadaver dog alerts do you take that as a direct accusation again Martin Grime?
Eddie finds faked alerts just the same as real ones.
Grime repeats that alerts themselves are not evidence unless corroborated by DNA etc.

I recall G-unit thought that the claim was disgusting, but that is purely an emotive response she never made any attempt at refuting the arguments I made, in fact it has only been John who has responded directly IIRC.
His response was some what supportive.

[Alice Purjorick]

It stands to reason that if you are sceptical of the McCanns' version of events you are also accusing them of faking evidence, now tell me where I am wrong there...?

More to the point old stick you tell us where it is right?

[Venturi Swirl]

More to the point old stick you tell us where it is right?

It’s self evident.

[G-Unit]

Then you thought wrong

I'll make a note of it.

[Venturi Swirl]

Again, that doesn’t follow for every sceptic.

So, how can you be sceptical of the McCanns whilst at the same time not believe they made anything up or faked any evidence? 

[Robittybob1]

In the file there are inconsistencies as to where and what happened at the alert given by Eddie to Cuddle Cat.  I provided all the cites for that. 
The PJ felt the alert was when CC was in the cupboard, yet I have shown that to be scientifically impossible.  No one has denied my claims.
The combination of not having a clear alert, and being unsure where it happened, and the position of Eddie when he is barking, clearly allows myself to say that the alert was faked. 
No attempt was made by the PJ to corroborate the alert on CC.
All the evidence points to a faked alert on Cuddle Cat.

This is not the same as faking evidence as the alerts are not evidence unless corroborated.  So that is not making any libellous remark at anyone for setting up a ruse to encourage a confession is a legitimate police tactic.

[Robittybob1]

So, how can you be sceptical of the McCanns whilst at the same time not believe they made anything up or faked any evidence?

I would say don't expect an answer any time soon.  Every sceptic may have a slightly different reason they don't support the McCanns.  It is the collective nature of that that adds up.  If you make a generalisation then it is a straw-man (so we are told).

[Mr Gray]

I would say don't expect an answer any time soon.  Every sceptic may have a slightly different reason they don't support the McCanns.  It is the collective nature of that that adds up.  If you make a generalisation then it is a straw-man (so we are told).

It isn't a matter  of not supporting them... Sceptics by definition don't believe  them.... And if they don't believe  them then they think they have lied

[Alice Purjorick]

It’s self evident.

To me it is not self evident.
Perhaps you would care to delineate?

[Robittybob1]

It isn't a matter  of not supporting them... Sceptics by definition don't believe  them.... And if they don't believe  them then they think they have lied

They can think it but as moderators we can't delete posts because of what a person thinks.  They have to say it, but they don't say it plainly they only imply it and other techniques like that.

[Robittybob1]

I might think Martin Grime was aware the PJ were faking alerts, so what?  The police are allowed to set up ruses.

[Venturi Swirl]

To me it is not self evident.
Perhaps you would care to delineate?

You’re clever, surely you can work it out yourself.  Start by asking yourself what is a sceptic and work on from there.

[barrier]

They can think it but as moderators we can't delete posts because of what a person thinks.  They have to say it, but they don't say it plainly they only imply it and other techniques like that.

Can you not see why there is some doubt,a blood relative would have no reason to lie would she?

Trish Cameron, Mr McCann’s sister, said she received a telephone call from her 39-year-old brother, a consultant cardiologist, who was "hysterical and crying his eyes out".
She said: "They had put the kids to bed at 7pm and checked on them every half an hour as they had dinner nearby with the rest of the party. Gerry said the window was open, the shutters broken and the door, which had been locked, hanging open.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1550667/Police-identify-Madeleine-suspect.html

[Mr Gray]

Can you not see why there is some doubt,a blood relative would have no reason to lie would she?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1550667/Police-identify-Madeleine-suspect.html

She didn't lie

[Robittybob1]

Can you not see why there is some doubt,a blood relative would have no reason to lie would she?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1550667/Police-identify-Madeleine-suspect.html

way off topic, but what Trish says Gerry says is hearsay if you are trying to claim or dispute the truthfulness of what was said.
Yet that confuses me because jailhouse confessions are allowed as evidence, and they are repetitions  of conversations just like Gerry talking to Trish.  I suppose the meaning and understanding of what is being said comes into play.
If Gerry said the door was open, which door was open? Your impression of which door was open could be different to what Gerry was meaning.