UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Admin on March 16, 2016, 05:12:26 PM
-
I don't think we have ever asked this question on the forum previously so it is being put out to all members. Please answer honestly, your vote is completely anonymous and confidential.
Feel free to add comments below if you want.
Admin
44
-
Is a 'fence-sitter' not the same as a 'not sure'?
-
Is a 'fence-sitter' not the same as a 'not sure'?
you would have to define what "not sure " means...do you mean 50/50....or if I say I'm 99.99% certain does that mean I'm not sure
On that basis I see myself as a supporter of the Mccanns....but also of madeleine of course. I'm surprised this is an anonymous poll
-
I made it clear earlier on that if I had 40 votes to cast then around 2 would be for McCann involvement and 38 would be against.
This does not make me pro-McCann.
Technically, it does not make me a fence-sitter, though that is how I voted.
Perhaps unsure would have been a better choice. Who knows if we'll ever get more solid info to help clarify this.
-
None of us are really sure, we only think we are.
-
I am inclined to agree with that - having followed this case for some years, and on the basis of the available evidence, I cannot see the McCanns having been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.
If new evidence were to come to light I may change my stance in the light of that evidence - that is logical. But as things stand - Madeleine and her parents were very unlucky to fall foul of abductor(s) unknown.
-
What Jean-Pierre said ....
-
None of us are really sure, we only think we are.
has anyone said they are sure...you should speak for yourself and not others
-
It is the unknown element which renders this case so intriguing.
-
I am inclined to agree with that - having followed this case for some years, and on the basis of the available evidence, I cannot see the McCanns having been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.
If new evidence were to come to light I may change my stance in the light of that evidence - that is logical. But as things stand - Madeleine and her parents were very unlucky to fall foul of abductor(s) unknown.
my thoughts exactly
-
I was sceptical in the beginning but since studying the facts I am even more convinced. The parents actions following Maddie's disappearance were not consistent with the abduction story imo.
-
In reality a fence sitter does not believe the McCanns and is therefore a sceptic
-
I was sceptical in the beginning but since studying the facts I am even more convinced. The parents actions following Maddie's disappearance were not consistent with the abduction story imo.
It's interesting that IMO their actions are totally consistent with abduction
-
It's interesting that IMO their actions are totally consistent with abduction
Exactly.
-
In reality a fence sitter does not believe the McCanns and is therefore a sceptic
Yes, its all or nothing with a believer.
-
Yes, its all or nothing with a believer.
I think my description is better
-
In reality a fence sitter does not believe the McCanns and is therefore a sceptic
Hmmm. I have no problem with people who have genuinely become interested in the case after the initial media blitz.
I do, however, have a problem with numerous 10-post sock wonders who suddenly appear on certain forums. *roll eyes*
-
Hmmm. I have no problem with people who have genuinely become interested in the case after the initial media blitz.
I do, however, have a problem with numerous 10-post sock wonders who suddenly appear on certain forums. *roll eyes*
I agree with you again Carana.
8((()*/
-
Hmmm. I have no problem with people who have genuinely become interested in the case after the initial media blitz.
I do, however, have a problem with numerous 10-post sock wonders who suddenly appear on certain forums. *roll eyes*
I think we know who you mean
-
Hmmm. I have no problem with people who have genuinely become interested in the case after the initial media blitz.
I do, however, have a problem with numerous 10-post sock wonders who suddenly appear on certain forums. *roll eyes*
I would guess that most with definite opinions have been around for a long time, just posting under different monikers around the net.
-
I don't think we have ever asked this question on the forum previously so it is being put out to all members. Please answer honestly, your vote is completely anonymous and confidential.
Feel free to add comments below if you want.
Admin
This raises an interesting question for me. The Oxford Dictionary give a definition of a sceptic as a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. But what is accepted opinion in the Madeleine case because from what I can see the country is split right down the middle?
-
This raises an interesting question for me. The Oxford Dictionary give a definition of a sceptic as a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. But what is accepted opinion in the Madeleine case because from what I can see the country is split right down the middle?
I think it refers more to the "official" positions, ie from "team mccann" the uk media (mainly) and the police to an extent, plus some other entities, not to mention the whole phenomenon of "everyone who doesnt believe the story is a villain of some sort or another"
-
I would say it is an objective statement that there is no evidence pointing to the guilt of the McCanns.
Some opinion flies in the face of objectivity.
Emergence of objective facts may swing the pendulum in the direction of subjective opinion.
But it is pure speculation that that may happen.
As things stand (at least with the state of knowledge in the public domain) it is clear that there are no sensible grounds for suspecting the McCanns ....
-
I would say it is an objective statement that there is no evidence pointing to the guilt of the McCanns.
Some opinion flies in the face of objectivity.
Emergence of objective facts may swing the pendulum in the direction of subjective opinion.
But it is pure speculation that that may happen.
As things stand (at least with the state of knowledge in the public domain) it is clear that there are no sensible grounds for suspecting the McCanns ....
and yet only 1/3 of this forum accept that...interesting
-
and yet only 1/3 of this forum accept that...interesting
I firmly believe in the right of the presumption of innocence which is enshrined in law. That makes me a supporter which will only change if evidence is found leading to due process and a fair trial proves guilt.
Right to a fair trial: New rules to guarantee presumption of innocence
Brussels, 12 February 2016
European Commission - Press release
Today, Ministers from the EU Member States have adopted new rules that will guarantee the presumption of innocence of anyone accused or suspected of a crime by the police or justice authorities.
**Snip
The new rules are based on EU fundamental rights laid down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. The rights set in the Directive will be part of EU law and will be enforced as such by the Member States.
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-291_en.pdf
-
This raises an interesting question for me. The Oxford Dictionary give a definition of a sceptic as a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. But what is accepted opinion in the Madeleine case because from what I can see the country is split right down the middle?
yes, it isn't that straight forward really. Who is accepting of these opinions? and since they are only opinions; do they count?
I mean some people accept they do not know what happened, but refuse to accept the McCanns various versions of accounts, their story just does not add up. So perhaps the poll should be more defined?
1. do you belive the parents and tapas account of what happened to Madeleine
yes
no
simples!
-
yes, it isn't that straight forward really. Who is accepting of these opinions? and since they are only opinions; do they count?
I mean some people accept they do not know what happened, but refuse to accept the McCanns various versions of accounts, their story just does not add up. So perhaps the poll should be more defined?
1. do you belive the parents and tapas account of what happened to Madeleine
yes
no
simples!
I'm not sure that I understand.
Could you explain what exactly you disagree with and substantiate your points with reliable sources?
-
I'm not sure that I understand.
Could you explain what exactly you disagree with and substantiate your points with reliable sources?
No, This is about opinions and what people believe or do not believe regarding the parents versions of account. it really is simples. Do you believe what they said or do you not.
-
No, This is about opinions and what people believe or do not believe regarding the parents versions of account. it really is simples. Do you believe what they said or do you not.
On this forum, people are expected to present factual elements, to the best of their understanding, to substantiate views.
What exactly are you disputing?
-
No, This is about opinions and what people believe or do not believe regarding the parents versions of account. it really is simples. Do you believe what they said or do you not.
What is "this"?
-
I don't understand the point of this poll? Could someone explain?
-
I don't understand the point of this poll? Could someone explain?
We run this poll periodically in order to check the moderation mix required. Currently about 50/50 so far.
-
From day one I have never believed the child was abducted and always believed the McCanns know more than they are telling. Having studied in depth the PJ files, lies were told and there can be no reason for lies to be told unless there is something to hide. Never in our history has so much taxpayers' money and so much government involvement been invested in one missing child and that in itself is suspicious. Why this child and no other? However, the McCanns have made a mistake by pursuing Goncalo Amaral because this man will spend the rest of his life proving his theory. They have left him with nothing better to do and I believe he will uncover the truth.
-
We run this poll periodically in order to check the moderation mix required. Currently about 50/50 so far.
Unless the poll is restricted to regular posters it may not give an accurate indication of the mix of views. Perhaps weight by number of posts, especially as it is the number of posts that affect the amount of moderation needed.
-
From day one I have never believed the child was abducted and always believed the McCanns know more than they are telling. Having studied in depth the PJ files, lies were told and there can be no reason for lies to be told unless there is something to hide. Never in our history has so much taxpayers' money and so much government involvement been invested in one missing child and that in itself is suspicious. Why this child and no other? However, the McCanns have made a mistake by pursuing Goncalo Amaral because this man will spend the rest of his life proving his theory. They have left him with nothing better to do and I believe he will uncover the truth.
I look forward to reading Amaral's proof of his theory that Madeleine was disposed of by being hidden in the coffin of a dead stranger.
-
I look forward to reading Amaral's proof of his theory that Madeleine was disposed of by being hidden in the coffin of a dead stranger.
While others look forward to proof of abduction. 8**8:/:
-
I believe Madeleine was abducted, reading the files statements, there is no timeline for disposal of a body. There are bound to be inconsistencies between the memories of different individuals recalling the events of that week.
The facts lie in the files, the timeline is the most important thing.
Too many myths are being spread on line, such as, Madeleine's blood being found in the car, there was no DNA found of Madeleine's in the apartment etc. etc. unfortunately people who do not read the files believe these myths.
There is also the 'leaving the children alone' many just turn against the McCann's because of this and whether they are guilty or not of hiding Madeleine's body means nothing as they are fixed in their judgement of them.
-
I believe Madeleine was abducted, reading the files statements, there is no timeline for disposal of a body. There are bound to be inconsistencies between the memories of different individuals recalling the events of that week.
The facts lie in the files, the timeline is the most important thing.
Too many myths are being spread on line, such as, Madeleine's blood being found in the car, there was no DNA found of Madeleine's in the apartment etc. etc. unfortunately people who do not read the files believe these myths.
There is also the 'leaving the children alone' many just turn against the McCann's because of this and whether they are guilty or not of hiding Madeleine's body means nothing as they are fixed in their judgement of them.
No timeline ?
Really ?
Just your opinion.
If there was timeline for an abduction, there was timeline for other possibilities as well.
..and we know there is no evidence to show actually what happened.
-
No timeline ?
Really ?
Just your opinion.
If there was timeline for an abduction, there was timeline for other possibilities as well.
..and we know there is no evidence to show actually what happened.
Yes my opinion Stephen, no timeline.
-
Yes my opinion Stephen, no timeline.
Well, I say there was for other possibilities.
More than enough.
-
if the parents are telling the truth as SY seem to think then on circumstantial evidence abduction can be proved on the balance of probabilities
-
Well, I say there was for other possibilities.
More than enough.
That's your opinion.
-
That's your opinion.
Not just mine, by a long way.
-
I look forward to reading Amaral's proof of his theory that Madeleine was disposed of by being hidden in the coffin of a dead stranger.
Was that before, or after, being driven in the Renault Scenic?
I confess, I do lose track ....
-
The subject of this thread is, "Are you a supporter, a sceptic or a fence sitter?"
-
Supporter, full-square.
There is no excuse for being anything else.
-
Supporter, full-square.
There is no excuse for being anything else.
Too didactic dear?
-
On this forum, people are expected to present factual elements, to the best of their understanding, to substantiate views.
What exactly are you disputing?
Seriously hahahaha factual elements about opinions? sunstanciate opinions? too funny!
THIS= this poll...factually and substantially is about 'opinions' that is indeed a fact!
-
Seriously hahahaha factual elements about opinions? sunstanciate opinions? too funny!
THIS= this poll...factually and substantially is about 'opinions' that is indeed a fact!
I thnk carana got it wrong, afaiaw the forum prefers facts over speculation, not facts, as you say to justify your opinion
-
I thnk carana got it wrong, afaiaw the forum prefers facts over speculation, not facts, as you say to justify your opinion
Indeedie hi ho hum...
I am very sceptical about supporters who sit on fences, I also support people who sit in fences who are sceptical
I can't substantiate this, but it is a fact that this is my opinion. *&*%£
-
Indeedie hi ho hum...
I am very sceptical about supporters who sit on fences I also support people who sit in fences who are sceptical
I can't substantiate this, but it is a fact that this is my opinion. *&*%£
Classic!!
8)--))
Yes carana can be very very naughty at times lol