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: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 09:22:56 PM

Title: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 09:22:56 PM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 09:30:31 PM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range

In spite of ongoing investigations ? Do we know the nature of those investigations ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 02, 2019, 09:32:51 PM
Do we know the outcome of the investigations?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 09:45:17 PM
In spite of ongoing investigations ? Do we know the nature of those investigations ?

No.
But you seem to believe that in spite of all the investigations of both NSY and the Portuguese police which has to date resulted in no positive indication of her parents being involved in her disappearance, you do cling  to the belief that they are.
Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 02, 2019, 10:42:27 PM
No.
But you seem to believe that in spite of all the investigations of both NSY and the Portuguese police which has to date resulted in no positive indication of her parents being involved in her disappearance, you do cling  to the belief that they are.
Why?

Investigating isn't solving. When they tell us what happened and who did it nothing is impossible. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 02, 2019, 10:43:37 PM
Investigating isn't solving. When they tell us what happened and who did it nothing is impossible.
Nothing?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 10:43:49 PM
No.
But you seem to believe that in spite of all the investigations of both NSY and the Portuguese police which has to date resulted in no positive indication of her parents being involved in her disappearance, you do cling  to the belief that they are.
Why?

There’s been no indication of anything and judicial secrecy has made sure of that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 10:51:51 PM
There’s been no indication of anything and judicial secrecy has made sure of that.

But you do cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance in spite of no indication from either the  current NSY and the Portuguese investigation.
Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 02, 2019, 10:54:31 PM
But you do cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance in spite of no indication from either the  current NSY and the Portuguese investigation.
Why?
Too much face to lose after 12 years to start voicing any doubts that they may have got it all wrong, IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2019, 10:54:42 PM
No.
But you seem to believe that in spite of all the investigations of both NSY and the Portuguese police which has to date resulted in no positive indication of her parents being involved in her disappearance, you do cling  to the belief that they are.
Why?

12 million spent.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 10:54:57 PM
But you do cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance in spite of no indication from either the  current NSY and the Portuguese investigation.
Why?

And neither have either pointed to any other particular perpetrator being involved....and ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 02, 2019, 10:56:36 PM
And neither have either pointed to any other particular perpetrator being involved....and ?
They’ve pointed to quite a few actually, even made some of them arguidios which you have conveniently forgotten.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 02, 2019, 10:57:30 PM
12 million spent.
Are you suggesting that the amount of money spent is evidence that they think the McCanns dunnit?  Oh my days.  (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:01:27 PM
And neither have either pointed to any other particular perpetrator being involved....and ?

And what?
You really do believe that an investigation by NSY and the ongoing Portuguese investigation are still looking at Madeleine's parents as being suspects in her disappearance?
Really?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2019, 11:02:42 PM
Are you suggesting that the amount of money spent is evidence that they think the McCanns dunnit?  Oh my days.  (&^&

I think it's obvious they have been eliminating all possibilities. A large chunk was spent on an operation to find a body so that suggests what they think!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:05:45 PM
12 million spent.

Royal weddings cost much more than that.
I'm more  than happy to spend my tiny fraction of my tax to find a missing child.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 11:08:44 PM
And what?
You really do believe that an investigation by NSY and the ongoing Portuguese investigation are still looking at Madeleine's parents as being suspects in her disappearance?
Really?

Why is that so ridiculous.....ah I know, the investigating forces have answered direct questions from a journalists with the least contentious answer. Okaaaay.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:15:47 PM
Why is that so ridiculous.....ah I know, the investigating forces have answered direct questions from a journalists with the least contentious answer. Okaaaay.

Not answering my original question?
Why after so many years and the ongoing current  investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese police and without any shred of tangible evidence, do you still believe the parents of Madeleine are guilty of whatever the diverse views of sceptics believe?
You do obviously believe they are guilty of some part in their daughters disappearance?
I'm just wondering what keeps you so steadfast in your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 11:22:17 PM
Each claim from a police spokesman that the parents are not suspects , be it in the U.K. or Portugal, has been in reply to a direct question from a journalist. No police spokesman has ever in an interview proferred this information spontaneously. If I’m wrong perhaps someone could provide the evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 02, 2019, 11:24:03 PM
Not answering my original question?
Why after so many years and the ongoing current  investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese police and without any shred of tangible evidence, do you still believe the parents of Madeleine are guilty of whatever the diverse views of sceptics believe?
You do obviously believe they are guilty of some part in their daughters disappearance?
I'm just wondering what keeps you so steadfast in your belief?

I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Has there been any tangible evidence against anyone else ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2019, 11:26:17 PM
Royal weddings cost much more than that.
I'm more  than happy to spend my tiny fraction of my tax to find a missing child.

Name another missing child the UK government have spent 12 million to find?

In preparation for today’s announcement, senior officers from Operation Grange made 16 visits to Portugal in order to ensure that any potential difficulties were ironed out.

If a British suspect is ever charged with abduction or murder in the case, the law allows them to be tried at the Old Bailey in London, even if the alleged crime took place overseas.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10159992/Madeleine-McCann-How-the-British-led-investigation-will-operate-overseas.html

Less than a year later they were searching for a body.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 02, 2019, 11:30:20 PM
Each claim from a police spokesman that the parents are not suspects , be it in the U.K. or Portugal, has been in reply to a direct question from a journalist. No police spokesman has ever in an interview proferred this information spontaneously. If I’m wrong perhaps someone could provide the evidence?
Redwood’s statement.  He wasn’t asked if the polwere investigating the McCanns, he gave this information freely iirc.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 02, 2019, 11:30:54 PM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range

There are a myriad of 'beliefs' surrounding Madeleine's case very many of which emanate from the dark days when the Judicial police were scandalously feeding the Portuguese press and media systematically with one calumny hard on the heels of another. 
Resulting in what must surely rank as the character assassination of the century directed against the parents of a missing child and by association anyone with the slightest connection to them.

I think there has been a general desensitisation as a result which allows so called sceptics free rein to get the boot in whenever and wherever they can thinking they have the high ground; the indecency of it all is that the current police investigations into Madeleine's case don't seem to have had the slightest effect in giving them pause for thought.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:33:20 PM
I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Has there been any tangible evidence against anyone else ?

It's ok Faith Lilly, as expected no sceptic has explained why after many years of both  NSY  and the Portuguese police investigating Madeleine's disappearance  Sceptics still cling to the belief that her parents are involved in her disappearance.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 02, 2019, 11:33:25 PM
I think it's obvious they have been eliminating all possibilities. A large chunk was spent on an operation to find a body so that suggests what they think!
This is totally illogical.  Police do not start by investigating the least likely so as to eliminate them to work up to the most likely, nor does looking for a body in PdL mean they think the McCanns did it.  You may be much in demand for your opinion in another case but in this one your reasoning is painfully flawed imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:35:32 PM
Name another missing child the UK government have spent 12 million to find?

In preparation for today’s announcement, senior officers from Operation Grange made 16 visits to Portugal in order to ensure that any potential difficulties were ironed out.

If a British suspect is ever charged with abduction or murder in the case, the law allows them to be tried at the Old Bailey in London, even if the alleged crime took place overseas.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10159992/Madeleine-McCann-How-the-British-led-investigation-will-operate-overseas.html

Less than a year later they were searching for a body.


But yet after all the years of investigation by both  NSy and the Portuguese you do still be!ieve Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance.
Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 02, 2019, 11:39:39 PM
But yet after all the years of investigation by both  NSy and the Portuguese you do still be!ieve Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance.
Why?
Three words Erngarth:

Dogs Don’t Lie

 @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 02, 2019, 11:45:58 PM
But you do cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance in spite of no indication from either the  current NSY and the Portuguese investigation.
Why?
The current investigations by the Judicial police and Scotland Yard are undoubtedly taking place solely as a result of Madeleine's parent's unceasing efforts and lobbying of the powers that be on her behalf.
I think it is illogical to suppose that they agitated as hard as they did or as long as they did for Madeleine's case to be investigated if they were guilty of any involvement in her disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:46:45 PM
Three words Erngarth:

Dogs Don’t Lie

 @)(++(*

God help us all if a dog's sense of smell becomes the arbiter of guilt or innocence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 02, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
The current investigations by the Judicial police and Scotland Yard are undoubtedly taking place solely as a result of Madeleine's parent's unceasing efforts and lobbying of the powers that be on her behalf.
I think it is illogical to suppose that they agitated as hard as they did or as long as they did for Madeleine's case to be investigated if they were guilty of any involvement in her disappearance.

Undoubtedly true but the usual sceptic response is along the lines of  and fill in any missing words grab a tiger by the tail.
And why on earth would her parents iniate and continue a campaign to ask our government to  open and continue the investigation into her disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 12:10:23 AM
But yet after all the years of investigation by both  NSy and the Portuguese you do still be!ieve Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance.
Why?

Both countries are still co-operating on this case to get it solved.

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 03:14:03 AM
Both countries are still co-operating on this case to get it solved.

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police
Diplomatic gossip ?? which like the sceptic shibboleths means nothing with the passage of time as a fuller picture of events becomes apparent.
Wasn't Amaral sacked for saying the exact opposite on the occasion when he badmouthed the British cops saying they were hand in glove with the McCanns?

Snip
The cable does not specify what evidence British police are alleged to have gathered, or whether UK investigators were involved in the decision to formally name the McCanns as suspects.

They remained under official suspicion until July 2008 when Portuguese police shelved the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance and lifted the McCann's status as arguidos.

The three-year-old went missing from an apartment in the Algarve on May 3, 2007 while her parents dined with friends in a nearby restaurant.

Speaking at the time the suspect status was lifted, Mrs McCann said: "It is hard to describe how utterly despairing it was to be named arguidos and subsequently portrayed in the media as suspects in our own daughter's abduction."

A spokesman for the McCanns said: "This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old. Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever.

"To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/uk-built-evidence-against-mccanns-wikileaks
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 08:52:58 AM
This is truly the most pointless thread I have ever read on this board.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 09:09:15 AM
In my opinion there is more reliance on belief amongst those who are convinced that the McCanns are innocent. They believe that Madeleine was anducted by a stranger, but that's not a proven fact. Like the McCanns they quoted the archiving despatch for years to 'prove' they were cleared by the first investigation, but the Supreme Court Judges dispelled that belief.

I don't believe in the McCann's guilt or innocence, but I do think there are many aspects of their evidence and behaviour which require explanation. It may be that there are good reasons  for the things that puzzle me, but until I hear them one reason could be guilt.

In the meantime, I will continue to point out that there are questions because those who believe the McCanns are innocent often ignore them.  .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 09:11:00 AM
This is truly the most pointless thread I have ever read on this board.

 *%87
Not liking this thread?
Don't participate then .
Easily sorted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 09:14:13 AM
In my opinion there is more reliance on belief amongst those who are convinced that the McCanns are innocent. They believe that Madeleine was anducted by a stranger, but that's not a proven fact. Like the McCanns they quoted the archiving despatch for years to 'prove' they were cleared by the first investigation, but the Supreme Court Judges dispelled that belief.

I don't believe in the McCann's guilt or innocence, but I do think there are many aspects of their evidence and behaviour which require explanation. It may be that there are good reasons  for the things that puzzle me, but until I hear them one reason could be guilt.

In the meantime, I will continue to point out that there are questions because those who believe the McCanns are innocent often ignore them.  .

You think questions are being ignored... I don't agree...one if the main sceptics beliefs is their reliance on the dog alerts as evidence... You yourself said that it was Grimes opinion the alerts, were to cadaver odour... Two other sceptics have repeated the claim... It isn't true
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 09:15:01 AM
*%87
Not liking this thread?
Don't participate then .
Easily sorted.

It’s not that I don’t like it I just don’t see the point. Can I ask what you are trying to achieve?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 09:17:25 AM
You think questions are being ignored... I don't agree...one if the main sceptics beliefs is their reliance on the dog alerts as evidence... You yourself said that it was Grimes opinion the alerts, were to cadaver odour... Two other sceptics have repeated the claim... It isn't true

Until, or if, Madeleine turns up alive the alerts cannot be discounted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 09:22:47 AM
In my opinion there is more reliance on belief amongst those who are convinced that the McCanns are innocent. They believe that Madeleine was anducted by a stranger, but that's not a proven fact. Like the McCanns they quoted the archiving despatch for years to 'prove' they were cleared by the first investigation, but the Supreme Court Judges dispelled that belief.

I don't believe in the McCann's guilt or innocence, but I do think there are many aspects of their evidence and behaviour which require explanation. It may be that there are good reasons  for the things that puzzle me, but until I hear them one reason could be guilt.

In the meantime, I will continue to point out that there are questions because those who believe the McCanns are innocent often ignore them.  .

You miss the point completely.
It is a fact that after many years of investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese Police that Madeleine's parents are not suspects in her disappearance.
You may continue to express your doubts and concerns but it doesn't alter the above fact one iota.
I started the thread because from time to time I do wonder what sceptics are waiting for?
As you have liked Faiths post, you obviously agree that this is thee most pointless thread ever!
Don't contribute then, let it sink into oblivion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 09:24:48 AM
It’s not that I don’t like it I just don’t see the point. Can I ask what you are trying to achieve?

Has every thread to achieve anything?
Is there a purpose to every thread?
As I said don't contribute!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 09:28:08 AM
Until, or if, Madeleine turns up alive the alerts cannot be discounted.

I think you are totally wrong... The alerts can be discounted until corobborated
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 09:29:48 AM
Then ee have the sceptic belief that the non verbatim twice translated statements can be taken as an exact account of what the McCann's said and there is no room fir error
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 09:44:25 AM
Both countries are still co-operating on this case to get it solved.

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police


That article is nine years old!
Still working cooperatively?
Nine years and  still and as yet  no evidence against the McCanns.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 09:50:44 AM

There is evidence against the McCanns.

Witness statements are evidence.

A witness said they saw Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 09:54:19 AM
Yip, for blatantly obvious reasons, I'm one of those sceptics. Count me in on the that one. 
Count me in when your posting your proof that I'm wrong. 8(0(*
There was enough evidence against Barry George to convict him... That's why I always, say no real evidence against the mccanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 09:55:37 AM
Yip, for blatantly obvious reasons, I'm one of those sceptics. Count me in on the that one. 
Count me in when your posting your proof that I'm wrong. 8(0(*

If you are going to use them against the McCann's let me know when you have proof they are, accurate... We don't know
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 09:57:23 AM
There is evidence against the McCanns.

Witness statements are evidence.

A witness said they saw Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

Of course witness statements are evidence... Katecsaid the window was open and Maddie had been abducted... So there is evidence of abduction
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 10:08:51 AM
You think questions are being ignored... I don't agree...one if the main sceptics beliefs is their reliance on the dog alerts as evidence... You yourself said that it was Grimes opinion the alerts, were to cadaver odour... Two other sceptics have repeated the claim... It isn't true
Almost every belief held and promulgated by the sceptics for the past twelve years is based on the false information given to the Portuguese press by the investigators of the time.

Each as damaging as the next as they built on the narrative ... but none I think as clammy as the misrepresentation of the Grime dogs (despite the owner's factual synopsis  at the time) which gave the 'justification' to have Madeleine's parents declared as formal suspects.

Snip
The incomplete DNA information found its way into the press and, before long, unsubstantiated allegations started to circulate.

Tabloids splashed accusations against the McCanns across their front pages and the media frenzy became relentless. One particular newspaper, featured in the documentary, ran a front-page headline with the words: "We have found her blood in the boot of your hire car… Did you kill her by accident?"

There was no evidence to show that Madeleine was the source of the DNA. ~ Netflix Documentary 2019
___________________________________________________________________________________
Snip
"There never did emerge one single identical match for the DNA of Madeleine McCann," investigative reporter and researcher Robbyn Swan explains.

Expert dog handler Martin Grime says that an alert from the cadaver dogs was not enough on its own; it was only ever intended as an indicator for the investigators to look for possible corroborating evidence – which, in this case, they did not find. ~ Netflix Documentary 2019

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a26852825/disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-theories-speculation-fake-facts/

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 10:32:54 AM
You think questions are being ignored... I don't agree...one if the main sceptics beliefs is their reliance on the dog alerts as evidence... You yourself said that it was Grimes opinion the alerts, were to cadaver odour... Two other sceptics have repeated the claim... It isn't true

The  dog alerts aren't something I rely on, they're just one of the many puzzling features of the case. They seem to be one of your main interests though; they get dragged into every thread, relevant or not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 10:37:40 AM
Then there was the huge pool of suspicion made out of Kate's request to speak to a priest on the night Madeleine went missing.  Where did that nonsense come from?
But it remains one of the foundation of sceptic beliefs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:16:48 AM
You miss the point completely.
It is a fact that after many years of investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese Police that Madeleine's parents are not suspects in her disappearance.
You may continue to express your doubts and concerns but it doesn't alter the above fact one iota.
I started the thread because from time to time I do wonder what sceptics are waiting for?
As you have liked Faiths post, you obviously agree that this is thee most pointless thread ever!
Don't contribute then, let it sink into oblivion.

The only way to find out what the police are thinking is when they act. The Portuguese police have taken no actions afaik. Op Grange have done appeals, interviews and some digging. The appeals seemed to be attempts to identify certain people, the interviews were to gather more information or rule people out and the digging suggests they are open to the possibility that there was a death and disposal.

They have said the McCanns aren't suspects but not why. If they were relying on the archiving despatch they should have listened to the Supreme Court Judges who pointed out that it didn't 'clear' the McCanns. If they investigated them and found no evidence against them they remain in the same position as the first investigation; they don't know what the crime was or who committed it.

In my opinion the fact that there are continuing investigations doesn't allow conclusions to be drawn about the final outcome; if any.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 11:27:12 AM
The only way to find out what the police are thinking is when they act. The Portuguese police have taken no actions afaik. Op Grange have done appeals, interviews and some digging. The appeals seemed to be attempts to identify certain people, the interviews were to gather more information or rule people out and the digging suggests they are open to the possibility that there was a death and disposal.

They have said the McCanns aren't suspects but not why. If they were relying on the archiving despatch they should have listened to the Supreme Court Judges who pointed out that it didn't 'clear' the McCanns. If they investigated them and found no evidence against them they remain in the same position as the first investigation; they don't know what the crime was or who committed it.

In my opinion the fact that there are continuing investigations doesn't allow conclusions to be drawn about the final outcome; if any.

But the over riding conclusion at this time is that the McCanns are not suspects and all the perceivd evidence which sceptics believe to be important and incriminating has surely been discounted so far by two police investigations.
I'm intrigued as to why sceptics seem to ignore this fact!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:27:34 AM
Then there was the huge pool of suspicion made out of Kate's request to speak to a priest on the night Madeleine went missing.  Where did that nonsense come from?
But it remains one of the foundation of sceptic beliefs.

Please note that 'it remains one of the foundation of sceptic beliefs' in your opinion. I'm one of those you have named a sceptic and I accept that some people turn to religopn in times of trouble so it's definitely not a sifnificant matter in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 11:31:51 AM
I'm not one of those many people who find the request that important but the fact that priests preach about reincarnation may have been seen as relevant to some people.

Which is exactly what this thread is all about ... the eclectic nature of the system which sustains sceptic beliefs.  Which I think are of the Pick-and-Mix variety ... and all highly pejorative of absolutely everything McCann.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 11:33:52 AM

That article is nine years old!
Still working cooperatively?
Nine years and  still and as yet  no evidence against the McCanns.

That you know of.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:36:30 AM
But the over riding conclusion at this time is that the McCanns are not suspects and all the perceivd evidence which sceptics believe to be important and incriminating has surely been discounted so far by two police investigations.
I'm intrigued as to why sceptics seem to ignore this fact!

That conclusion isn't over riding though. If it was there would be nothing to discuss.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 11:43:28 AM
That you know of.

If there is, why are the police not acting on this evidence?
And as the years and years of police investigation continues without any indication that the McCanns are suspects, what does keep you and other sceptics so convinced that there is such evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 11:45:08 AM
That conclusion isn't over riding though. If it was there would be nothing to discuss.

It at the moment as far as the police are concerned.
Unless you know otherwise.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 11:45:37 AM
The  dog alerts aren't something I rely on, they're just one of the many puzzling features of the case. They seem to be one of your main interests though; they get dragged into every thread, relevant or not.
I never used the word rely....i think sceptics such as yourself put too much emphasis on them...the reason i see belief in the alerts being important is that according to Almeida ..at the libel trial...they were the main reason the mccanns were made arguidos...the MAIN reason...thats not me attaching importance to them its teh initial investigation. You yourself misquoted grime when you posted  Grime had said in his opinion the dog alerts were to cadaver.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 11:48:20 AM
There is evidence against the McCanns.

Witness statements are evidence.

A witness said they saw Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.
@)(++(*  Several witnesses saw Murat acting suspiciously on the night of the abduction.  Evidence against him too.  I guess he is not cleared then, and is still a suspect.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 11:48:47 AM
Please note that 'it remains one of the foundation of sceptic beliefs' in your opinion. I'm one of those you have named a sceptic and I accept that some people turn to religopn in times of trouble so it's definitely not a sifnificant matter in my opinion.
When not liking something ... for example, the subject of this thread ... the old deflection card is played as your post illustrates.

I don't recall 'naming' you as anything ... so that definitely requires a cite.

Even had I done so ... why would you object being called a sceptic?
_____________________________________________________________________

To the topic ...
Nothing which isn't true is of itself of any significance ... it is the sum of the whole which gives the lie significance enough to feature in a police interrogation.

Question 24: Did you ask for a priest?

Which suggests the the Portuguese police did indeed find it of significance as have a legion of sceptic believers in the twelve years since.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 11:57:29 AM
I'd have adopted the same system for anyone thrusting themselves into public life and who adopted a similar approach to having an evidence less based theory stuffed down my throat, at a cost to the public (me being one) of £12 million. Until they started spending my money, I didn't have a system. I didn't give a shit about them then.
I'm not entirely sure if you are aware of it but I think your posts illustrate in concise detail many of the shibboleths held dear in the sceptic belief system.

I also think it illustrates the belief that Madeleine isn't really worth looking for if it has and is costing the British taxpayer money.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 12:00:55 PM
@)(++(*  Several witnesses saw Murat acting suspiciously on the night of the abduction.  Evidence against him too.  I guess he is not cleared then, and is still a suspect.
The difference is that those witnesses appear in the files ... I think Amaral's book and documentary are polluted with those who are nought but a figment of his imagination.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 12:10:03 PM
there's lots of evidence that supports abduction....those with a closed mind cant see it....Redwood actually said ..based on teh evidence when he talked of abduction
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 03, 2019, 12:21:32 PM
If there is, why are the police not acting on this evidence?
And as the years and years of police investigation continues without any indication that the McCanns are suspects, what does keep you and other sceptics so convinced that there is such evidence?

I’m sorry but how do you know what they are acting on ? An answer to a question put to Rowley two years ago, an question that could not be answered in any other way if details of the investigation were to be kept confidential.

Do you agree that if the parents were being investigated that we wouldn’t be told about it until they were arrested or charged ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 12:26:32 PM
I’m sorry but how do you know what they are acting on ? An answer to a question put to Rowley two years ago, an question that could not be answered in any other way if details of the investigation were to be kept confidential.

Do you agree that if the parents were being investigated that we wouldn’t be told about it until they were arrested or charged ?

Well they've not acted so far!
I'm fairly sure that if the McCanns were being investigated, it would be very difficult to carry out that investigation without a hint of such a sensational move being leaked.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 12:37:28 PM
It at the moment as far as the police are concerned.
Unless you know otherwise.

You seem to believe that the police tell the public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is evidence that they don't even do that in a court of law. I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that things can change. What is true at one moment isn't necessarily true for evermore.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 12:47:26 PM
According to some Believers the McCanns have been under investigation for nigh on 9 years.  What aspects of the McCanns have the police been investigating in those 9 years I wonder...?  *%6^
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 12:53:25 PM
You seem to believe that the police tell the public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is evidence that they don't even do that in a court of law. I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that things can change. What is true at one moment isn't necessarily true for evermore.

No, I don't believe that the Police tell the public the truth at all times.
Why would the police conceal the truth about the McCanns?
Of course things can change!
I assume that is the thought which keeps sceptics hopeful?
It's taking a while to change though, in spite of both police Investigations.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 12:56:40 PM
I really wasn't interested in them before the investigation began, that's the truth. It's was only when they began to use my money I decided to look at the case at all.

Do the McCanns have access to your bank account now too?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:05:28 PM
When not liking something ... for example, the subject of this thread ... the old deflection card is played as your post illustrates.

I don't recall 'naming' you as anything ... so that definitely requires a cite.

Even had I done so ... why would you object being called a sceptic?
_____________________________________________________________________

To the topic ...
Nothing which isn't true is of itself of any significance ... it is the sum of the whole which gives the lie significance enough to feature in a police interrogation.

Question 24: Did you ask for a priest?

Which suggests the the Portuguese police did indeed find it of significance as have a legion of sceptic believers in the twelve years since.

How can you accuse me of deflecton when I replied to your post? You posted your opinion of 'sceptic' beliefs as if it was a fact. I pointed out that as one of those percieved as a sceptic that wasn't true of me.

(The 'you' referred to supporters in general, not you in particular btw. I appreciate it that you've refrained from labelling me as others have)

The reason for my dislike of labels is that they tend to group people together and ignore their differences. Then, as on this thread, they are all accused of holding similar opinions.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:07:46 PM
How can you accuse me of deflecton when I replied to your post? You posted your opinion of 'sceptic' beliefs as if it was a fact. I pointed out that as one of those percieved as a sceptic that wasn't true of me.

(The 'you' referred to supporters in general, not you in particular btw. I appreciate it that you've refrained from labelling me as others have)

The reason for my dislike of labels is that they tend to group people together and ignore their differences. Then, as on this thread, they are all accused of holding similar opinions.
Sceptics DO all hold the same position.  They are all sceptical of the McCanns' version of events and think they are hiding something. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:12:44 PM
I simply don't understand why some people are so determined to believe that The McCanns are guilty when two Police Forces have failed to do so.

This has to involve mindless hatred that is completely beyond me.  It totally lacks logic of any kind and only ever relies upon conspiracy theories, all absolutely unproven.  Where is the justice in this?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:15:41 PM
No, I don't believe that the Police tell the public the truth at all times.
Why would the police conceal the truth about the McCanns?
Of course things can change!
I assume that is the thought which keeps sceptics hopeful?
It's taking a while to change though, in spite of both police Investigations.

Thank you. Hopefully your future posts will acknowledge that what the police say can't be quoted as if it was evidence. I don't think I suggested that the police are concealing the truth about the McCanns, but if they were investigating them you can be sure they wouldn't tell them or the general public.

The only reason anyone remains interested in this case is to see if it ever reaches any conclusions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:18:10 PM
The old taxman does, that makes the McCann affair everyone's business whether people like it or not.
I don't even hate paying tax on the whole, but it does make me angry spending it to promote inequality in missing person's cases.
 &^&*%

If only.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 03, 2019, 01:20:38 PM
Thank you. Hopefully your future posts will acknowledge that what the police say can't be quoted as if it was evidence. I don't think I suggested that the police are concealing the truth about the McCanns, but if they were investigating them you can be sure they wouldn't tell them or the general public.

The only reason anyone remains interested in this case is to see if it ever reaches any conclusions.

And if it does, you won't see some people for dust  ?{)(**
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:24:06 PM
And if it does, you won't see some people for dust  ?{)(**

You will be here admitting that you were wrong, will you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:29:45 PM
Sceptics DO all hold the same position.  They are all sceptical of the McCanns' version of events and think they are hiding something.

In general terms perhaps, but not in every particular detail, which is what is being suggested.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 03, 2019, 01:30:49 PM
You will be here admitting that you were wrong, will you?

Unlikely that I'll find myself in that position. I expect no resolution.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 01:32:01 PM
I simply don't understand why some people are so determined to believe that The McCanns are guilty when two Police Forces have failed to do so.

This has to involve mindless hatred that is completely beyond me.  It totally lacks logic of any kind and only ever relies upon conspiracy theories, all absolutely unproven.  Where is the justice in this?

Mindless hatred   *%87 @)(++(* You should follow logic and then you will know who Smithman is, why the dogs alerted and why the timeline kept changing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 01:38:41 PM
I think the expensive police action being taken on Madeleine's behalf which is the object of much sceptic criticism confirms that those with access to the bigger picture of up-to-date information and evidence are pursuing the abduction theory.
Which is one reason why sceptics have taken such a dislike to it and criticise it at every possible opportunity.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:39:55 PM
And if it does, you won't see some people for dust  ?{)(**
Too right. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:40:18 PM
In general terms perhaps, but not in every particular detail, which is what is being suggested.
Cite?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:41:28 PM
Mindless hatred   *%87 @)(++(* You should follow logic and then you will know who Smithman is, why the dogs alerted and why the timeline kept changing.
Oh dear, if we followed your logic we’d be heading down the rabbit hole to Wonderland.  IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 01:42:20 PM
How can you be certain Smithman is evidence of an abduction? And how can you be certain he wasn't in fact Gerry like Mr Smith and his wife believe? Redwood said a lot of things and he showed us a lot of things too.
He showed us a photograph of an abductor who he claims never existed. Not exactly evidence for an abduction, is it now?
Cite for what Mr Smith and his wife believe, thank you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:42:59 PM
Unlikely that I'll find myself in that position. I expect no resolution.

Me neither but if there is and it doesn't involve the parents the fact remains that people found them unconvincing before the PJ moved against them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:44:57 PM
Can anyone seriously envisage a day when they wake up and the first words on the radio aren’t about Brexit but are “McCanns arrested for hiding a body?”. Does anyone actually believe this is on the cards? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 01:46:07 PM
When the government spends £12 million of our money on one missing person and ignores all the other missing people. You reckon I should be ashamed or apologise for that anger? Dream on, but I'm glad you took the time to reflect on your use of the term hate in the interests of accuracy.

I find anger such a negative,  non productive emotion.
But whatever floats your boat!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 01:46:38 PM
Did I say you did?

I think the expensive police action being taken on Madeleine's behalf which is the object of much sceptic criticism confirms that those with access to the bigger picture of up-to-date information and evidence are pursuing the abduction theory.
Which is one reason why sceptics have taken such a dislike to it and criticise it at every possible opportunity.

It's not connected to their remit then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 01:53:35 PM
Cite for what Mr Smith and his wife believe, thank you.

(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4136.jpg)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:53:49 PM
Unlikely that I'll find myself in that position. I expect no resolution.

By far the easiest option.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 01:54:04 PM
Can anyone seriously envisage a day when they wake up and the first words on the radio aren’t about Brexit but are “McCanns arrested for hiding a body?”. Does anyone actually believe this is on the cards?

No!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 03, 2019, 01:55:04 PM
Mindless hatred   *%87 @)(++(* You should follow logic and then you will know who Smithman is, why the dogs alerted and why the timeline kept changing.

Fortunately, I find most of your comments to be innocuous.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 01:56:26 PM
Ah well, it's not evidence of hate, it's evidence of the reader using terms to further their own agenda imo.
I really didn't give a shit about them before the investigation began, that's the truth. It's was only when they begun to use my money I decided to look at the case at all.
You perhaps may wish to revise your opinion of hatred in the interest of accuracy.
Anyhows, I'm out of here for today.

Discussion of "Sceptic Beliefs" apparently isn't easy.  Is that because it brings them under scrutiny?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 01:58:46 PM
Fortunately, I find most of your comments to be innocuous.
That's putting it kindly.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 03, 2019, 02:06:43 PM
Is that the same Kate that wrote in her book, "We'd never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice..."
How do we know they weren't in a tricky situation and lied about the window and whooshing curtain as well?
We don't is the answer.


The tricky situation was that the dogs were going to search their apartment,  as they weren't allowed to talk about the investigation they had to say that Gerry had a stomach bug,  which wasn't really a lie as he did have an upset stomach.


Now talking about lying,  Amaral lied about the DNA,   then lied that he didn't mention it to Sandra.   He also lied in court committing perjury.   So I wouldn't mention lying if I were you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 02:12:54 PM
When the government spends £12 million of our money on one missing person and ignores all the other missing people. You reckon I should be ashamed or apologise for that anger? Dream on, but I'm glad you took the time to reflect on your use of the term hate in the interests of accuracy.

Again this is a classic component of the sceptic mantra.  Why do people insist that "all the other missing people" are denied funding in favour of Madeleine?
That is really one which has been on the go for a while ... possibly even predating the present official search for Madeleine ... where is the justification for the claim?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 02:23:43 PM
Me neither but if there is and it doesn't involve the parents the fact remains that people found them unconvincing before the PJ moved against them.

Why would 'people' hold such an opinion in the very early and early stages of a police investigation?  They had no information of the ongoing investigation for a missing little girl.
Why was it therefore necessary to 'soften up' public opinion by working on spreading lies about the missing child's parents at the expense of investigating what had happened to the child?

Your post justifies and condones the PJ using that unprofessional and illegal tactic ... why would you do that?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 03:16:04 PM
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4136.jpg)
Your post epitomises the sceptic propensity to dwell in the comfort zone of past belief while totally ignoring any evidence which proves the contrary.

The final police report records that Mr Smith's statement was mistaken because it was impossible for the man he saw to be Gerry McCann ... and considering that Mr Smith asserts in his statement to the police that he would be unable to identify the man he saw anyway ... don't you think it odd you are repeating a misidentification which was proved to be false?
Proving sceptic belief defies evidence which contradicts it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 03, 2019, 03:50:11 PM
There have been a number of complaints about the language being used by some posters so kindly moderate your responses and above all keep replies civil.

I have removed or edited a number of previous posts.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 04:03:19 PM
The only way to find out what the police are thinking is when they act. The Portuguese police have taken no actions afaik. Op Grange have done appeals, interviews and some digging. The appeals seemed to be attempts to identify certain people, the interviews were to gather more information or rule people out and the digging suggests they are open to the possibility that there was a death and disposal.

They have said the McCanns aren't suspects but not why. If they were relying on the archiving despatch they should have listened to the Supreme Court Judges who pointed out that it didn't 'clear' the McCanns. If they investigated them and found no evidence against them they remain in the same position as the first investigation; they don't know what the crime was or who committed it.

In my opinion the fact that there are continuing investigations doesn't allow conclusions to be drawn about the final outcome; if any.

The Portuguese police have said there is no evidence against the McCann's.. That explains why they are not suspects
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
Mindless hatred   *%87 @)(++(* You should follow logic and then you will know who Smithman is, why the dogs alerted and why the timeline kept changing.

You refer to the alerts... Uncorroborated.... No evidential value.. The timeline statements... No confirmation of accuracy.... Precisely why sceptics have reached the wrong conclusions.. Imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 03, 2019, 04:57:16 PM
You refer to the alerts... Uncorroborated.... No evidential value.. The timeline statements... No confirmation of accuracy.... Precisely why sceptics have reached the wrong conclusions.. Imo

Is there any refuteble evidence either the SY or more importantly the PJ have reached a different conclusion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 04:58:13 PM
The  dog alerts aren't something I rely on, they're just one of the many puzzling features of the case. They seem to be one of your main interests though; they get dragged into every thread, relevant or not.

I don't see anything  puzzling about the alerts... Particularly the one to cuddlecat
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 05:11:29 PM
Why would 'people' hold such an opinion in the very early and early stages of a police investigation?  They had no information of the ongoing investigation for a missing little girl.
Why was it therefore necessary to 'soften up' public opinion by working on spreading lies about the missing child's parents at the expense of investigating what had happened to the child?

Your post justifies and condones the PJ using that unprofessional and illegal tactic ... why would you do that?

It's nothing to do with the PJ at all. Sometimes a story just doesn't ring true. Were people really expected to believe that that a couple wemt out and left their kids home alone five nights in succession? That they didn't even lock the doors? How on earth are they going to live with the guilt and sorrow? Quite well, apparently.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/K-G/4thbirthdaypdl%20(2).jpg)

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 05:21:37 PM
Is there any refuteble evidence either the SY or more importantly the PJ have reached a different conclusion.

I believe both have said Maddie may still be alive... So that doesn't say much Re the alerts.. The PJ have said no evidence against the McCann's so again that negatesboth of the above as being evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 05:27:26 PM
It's nothing to do with the PJ at all. Sometimes a story just doesn't ring true. Were people really expected to believe that that a couple wemt out and left their kids home alone five nights in succession? That they didn't even lock the doors? How on earth are they going to live with the guilt and sorrow? Quite well, apparently.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/K-G/4thbirthdaypdl%20(2).jpg)
Oh For God’s Sake.  This is a perfect example of hateful propaganda.  Well done for illustrating the point perfectly.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 03, 2019, 05:40:05 PM
I believe both have said Maddie may still be alive... So that doesn't say much Re the alerts.. The PJ have said no evidence against the McCann's so again that negatesboth of the above as being evidence

There again they have both said they have no evidence she may be alive,so that may say a lot about the alerts.
The most important person to offer a comment recently and that was in 2017.

Pedro Do Carmo:We don't know what happened and have to be prepared for different scenarios.




Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 06:32:44 PM
Oh For God’s Sake.  This is a perfect example of hateful propaganda.  Well done for illustrating the point perfectly.

My purpose in showing that photograph is not to persuade but to explain. I accept that some are of the opinion that they were seeing a couple hiding desperation, guilt, overwhelming despair and broken hearts behind a brave smile,  but ithers were astonished and began to wonder. Wondering isn't hateful it's a natural reaction to something the viewer finds inexplicable.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 07:07:48 PM
My purpose in showing that photograph is not to persuade but to explain. I accept that some are of the opinion that they were seeing a couple hiding desperation, guilt, overwhelming despair and broken hearts behind a brave smile,  but ithers were astonished and began to wonder. Wondering isn't hateful it's a natural reaction to something the viewer finds inexplicable.
What is quite wrong and hateful (IMO) about the photo is not the McCanns smiling broadly in it but the fact that it represents one fleeting moment of probably no more than 2 seconds of their time outside that church that has been used by people like you trying to make out that the McCanns were happy an completely carefree in the face of their child's disappearance.  How else could you describe the actions of those (like yourself) who keep using this picture as evidence when it shows nothing more than a second in time taken completely out of context?  Why do you do it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 07:28:36 PM
It's nothing to do with the PJ at all. Sometimes a story just doesn't ring true. Were people really expected to believe that that a couple wemt out and left their kids home alone five nights in succession? That they didn't even lock the doors? How on earth are they going to live with the guilt and sorrow? Quite well, apparently.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/K-G/4thbirthdaypdl%20(2).jpg)

If this makes you disbelieve the McCann's I think your logic is poor.  I posted two photos a year a two ago of a young lady.. Teenager I think.... At her family's funeral.  Bothe her parents and three siblings had been murdered the week before... One photo showed her smiling broadly and another showed her in absolute bits... The McCann's being captured smiling is nothing unusual in the circumstances


cassidy stay........     www.google.com/search?q=cassidy+stay+funeral&oq=cassidy+stay+funeral&aqs=chrome..69i57.7935j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

have  alook at the images...does your explanation for her smiling broadly mean we should doubt her account of the murder

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 07:43:32 PM
cassidy at her families funeral
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 07:49:39 PM
My purpose in showing that photograph is not to persuade but to explain. I accept that some are of the opinion that they were seeing a couple hiding desperation, guilt, overwhelming despair and broken hearts behind a brave smile,  but ithers were astonished and began to wonder. Wondering isn't hateful it's a natural reaction to something the viewer finds inexplicable.
I doubt very much if there could be a clearer example of belief propped up of necessity by propaganda as sceptics leapt on a frame from a video and promoted it.  Very much as it continues to be promoted twelve years down the line.

It is a perfect example showing the actual fragility of the sceptic beliefs that they exist and work only through avid proselyting however meaningless and trivial.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 07:53:37 PM
Your post epitomises the sceptic propensity to dwell in the comfort zone of past belief while totally ignoring any evidence which proves the contrary.

The final police report records that Mr Smith's statement was mistaken because it was impossible for the man he saw to be Gerry McCann ... and considering that Mr Smith asserts in his statement to the police that he would be unable to identify the man he saw anyway ... don't you think it odd you are repeating a misidentification which was proved to be false?
Proving sceptic belief defies evidence which contradicts it.

Things have moved on since 2008.

"The last at 21:51, when Kate, Madeleine's mother goes to the apartment, before alerting to the disappearance."

Smith family left Kelly's bar at 22:00

What was impossible?

(https://i.ibb.co/dMFfc75/2151.png)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 07:59:42 PM
Things have moved on since 2008.

"The last at 21:51, when Kate, Madeleine's mother goes to the apartment, before alerting to the disappearance."

Smith family left Kelly's bar at 22:00

What was impossible?

If you haven't already ... allow me to recommend you read the PJ Final Report and the Archiving Dispatch.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 08:06:15 PM
Things have moved on since 2008.

DCI Redwood said: “The timeline we have now established has given new significance to sightings and movements of people in and around Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance.

“Our work to date has significantly changed the timeline and the accepted version of events that has been in the public domain to date.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-reconstruction-police-2368670
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 08:51:37 PM
What is quite wrong and hateful (IMO) about the photo is not the McCanns smiling broadly in it but the fact that it represents one fleeting moment of probably no more than 2 seconds of their time outside that church that has been used by people like you trying to make out that the McCanns were happy an completely carefree in the face of their child's disappearance.  How else could you describe the actions of those (like yourself) who keep using this picture as evidence when it shows nothing more than a second in time taken completely out of context?  Why do you do it?

I'm attempting to demonstrate why people began to wonder about the McCanns without any input by the PJ. I'm doing it because some people seem to believe that no-one would have doubted them if ir wasn't for the PJ. That isn't true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
I'm attempting to demonstrate why people began to wonder about the McCanns without any input by the PJ. I'm doing it because some people seem to believe that no-one would have doubted them if ir wasn't for the PJ. That isn't true.
Are you attempting to demonstrate how blatant anti McCann propaganda influenced people’s attitudes towards the McCanns, because if so you’ve certainly been successful doing that but that is all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 09:10:35 PM
I'm attempting to demonstrate why people began to wonder about the McCanns without any input by the PJ. I'm doing it because some people seem to believe that no-one would have doubted them if ir wasn't for the PJ. That isn't true.

I suspected the McCanns as far back as the evening of May 4th 2007 (before the PJ leaked or a dog had barked) when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. I remember watching & thinking 'they look iffy' . Then later, as the investigation progressed, I knew they dunnit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 09:20:28 PM
Are you attempting to demonstrate how blatant anti McCann propaganda influenced people’s attitudes towards the McCanns, because if so you’ve certainly been successful doing that but that is all.

Why do you see what I have posted as propaganda? By whom? Those reporting on the disappearance in the first 12 days after Madeleine's disappearance? People watched, listened and drew their own conclusions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:21:27 PM
I suspected the McCanns as far back as the evening of May 4th 2007 (before the PJ leaked or a dog had barked) when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. I remember watching & thinking 'they look iffy' . Then later, as the investigation progressed, I knew they dunnit.
It took you that long?   @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 09:25:04 PM
It took you that long?   @)(++(*

I remember vividly the news was on & I was saying to the TV, as one does, 'investigate the parents'.
Of course, that didn't happen straight away thanks to John Buck.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:26:21 PM
Why do you see what I have posted as propaganda? By whom? Those reporting on the disappearance in the first 12 days after Madeleine's disappearance? People watched, listened and drew their own conclusions.
I have made it clear why I see it as propaganda.  That picture does not show the McCanns typical behaviour after Madeleine disappeared.  They did not walk around PdL hand in hand laughing and smiling all day long.  That picture shows a brief moment of levity no longer than a second or two yet has become ubiquitous on anti McCann forums as evidence of the McCanns apparent lack of concern and their happiness in the face of their daughter’s disappearance.  There is nothing suspicious about smiling briefly in the face of terrible grief or adversity but you seem to think it’s significant enough to post this picture yet again for us to pore over.  Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:27:23 PM
I remember vividly the news was on & I was saying to the TV, as one does, 'investigate the parents'.
Of course, that didn't happen straight away thanks to John Buck.
Well aren’t you special.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 09:27:49 PM
I suspected the McCanns as far back as the evening of May 4th 2007 (before the PJ leaked or a dog had barked) when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. I remember watching & thinking 'they look iffy' . Then later, as the investigation progressed, I knew they dunnit.

Shocking  8(0(*

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xVoeOPRNOVw/WEctuiLaihI/AAAAAAAAMY8/Hoxel_ohnWEU5jhxgnPPHr7x0rSmhp_MACLcB/s1600/image003.jpg)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 09:37:44 PM
Shocking  8(0(*

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xVoeOPRNOVw/WEctuiLaihI/AAAAAAAAMY8/Hoxel_ohnWEU5jhxgnPPHr7x0rSmhp_MACLcB/s1600/image003.jpg)
Gosh don’t they look happy and carefree in that one.  What does this picture prove?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2019, 09:41:33 PM
Shocking  8(0(*

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xVoeOPRNOVw/WEctuiLaihI/AAAAAAAAMY8/Hoxel_ohnWEU5jhxgnPPHr7x0rSmhp_MACLcB/s1600/image003.jpg)
With raw grief writ large across their faces, the mum and dad of three stood side by side in the glare of television cameras as Gerry slowly read out a prepared statement.

They both looked devastated, according to journalists there.

Kate seemed to struggle to hold back tears.

And while public feeling was initially in support of the parents, it wasn't long before trolls started picking apart their body language, facial expressions and outfits.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/kate-gerry-mccanns-first-raw-14140776
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 09:49:20 PM
Si now we have

Look a bit iffy
Have smiled on camera
Alerts.. No evidential reliability
Changed stories about checking the chalet
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 09:51:52 PM
Si now we have

Look a bit iffy
Have smiled on camera
Alerts.. No evidential reliability
Changed stories about checking the chalet

Seen carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously
Knew of paedophile gangs operating in the area
The abductor resembled Gerry
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 09:58:20 PM
Seen carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously
Knew of paedophile gangs operating in the area
The abductor resembled Gerry

Going jogging
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 09:59:42 PM
I suspected the McCanns as far back as the evening of May 4th 2007 (before the PJ leaked or a dog had barked) when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes. I remember watching & thinking 'they look iffy' . Then later, as the investigation progressed, I knew they dunnit.

I wonder why this myth has been promoted that it was the PJ who mislead people into doubting the McCanns?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 10:00:42 PM
Anger is one of the most productive emotions known to man if channeled in the correct manner and is responsible for so much positive change imo. I've no boat to float, and on the subject of hatred, I suspect there are those on here who do not have a clue what real hatred is. There was a blood bath in Glasgow on Sunday that you may have heard about because of the hatred generated by the Old Firm. Two men are fighting for their life and scores more wounded because of hatred. I have lived with that hatred and the marching season for more years than I care to remember, so I know what hate is. If you and your friends want to go around accusing folk who disagree with you of posting hatred, I'd suggest you learn what hatred actually is first. I may have mistakenly used a wrong term because I thought it was allowed after i read it in a post addressed to me last week,, but to turn that into an accusation of me of posting hatred says far more about you and your friend than it does about me imo.
There's a lesson to be learned here and you can be sure I've learnt it. This is a case of once bite, twice shy.

Anger is certainly a destructive emotion.. Saturday being an example
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 03, 2019, 10:01:55 PM
I wonder why this myth has been promoted that it was the PJ who mislead people into doubting the McCanns?
It's no myth... It's a fact... Ask sandra
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 10:02:55 PM
Going jogging
Don’t forget Kate’s earrings.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:03:28 PM
Anger is one of the most productive emotions known to man if channeled in the correct manner and is responsible for so much positive change imo. I've no boat to float, and on the subject of hatred, I suspect there are those on here who do not have a clue what real hatred is. There was a blood bath in Glasgow on Sunday that you may have heard about because of the hatred generated by the Old Firm. Two men are fighting for their life and scores more wounded because of hatred. I have lived with that hatred and the marching season for more years than I care to remember, so I know what hate is. If you and your friends want to go around accusing folk who disagree with you of posting hatred, I'd suggest you learn what hatred actually is first. I may have mistakenly used a wrong term because I thought it was allowed after i read it in a post addressed to me last week,, but to turn that into an accusation of me of posting hatred says far more about you and your friend than it does about me imo.
There's a lesson to be learned here and you can be sure I've learnt it. This is a case of once bite, twice shy.

Save your sermonising for someone who needs it.
I don't!

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 10:03:40 PM
Poor Kate, she was punching & kicking walls in anger. (Propensity to violence)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 10:06:45 PM
Anger is one of the most productive emotions known to man if channeled in the correct manner and is responsible for so much positive change imo. I've no boat to float, and on the subject of hatred, I suspect there are those on here who do not have a clue what real hatred is. There was a blood bath in Glasgow on Sunday that you may have heard about because of the hatred generated by the Old Firm. Two men are fighting for their life and scores more wounded because of hatred. I have lived with that hatred and the marching season for more years than I care to remember, so I know what hate is. If you and your friends want to go around accusing folk who disagree with you of posting hatred, I'd suggest you learn what hatred actually is first. I may have mistakenly used a wrong term because I thought it was allowed after i read it in a post addressed to me last week,, but to turn that into an accusation of me of posting hatred says far more about you and your friend than it does about me imo.
There's a lesson to be learned here and you can be sure I've learnt it. This is a case of once bite, twice shy.
Why are you so angry about the police investigation into a little girl’s disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:07:25 PM
Si now we have

Look a bit iffy
Have smiled on camera
Alerts.. No evidential reliability
Changed stories about checking the chalet

Such overwhelming evidence of guilt.!
I hope both Investigations are aware of this evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 03, 2019, 10:07:47 PM
For me one of the most telling questions I've ever heard came from Peter Hyatt.
I ask the viewer who are they concerned about? Are they concerned about Madeleine or are they concerned about themselves.
Examples of their ongoing concern for Madeleine please?

KM: “We’re not the ones that has done something wrong here. It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”

Distancing language.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:10:11 PM
Save your baseless accussations for someone who deserves them.
Your on the permanent rubber ear list... Here endith the lesson.

 &^&*%
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:11:15 PM
KM: “We’re not the ones that has done something wrong here. It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.”

Distancing language.

Oh yes, of course !
Body language and speech analysis. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 03, 2019, 10:13:03 PM
Don’t forget Kate’s earrings.

The drivel that has been touted as evidence.
I'd forgotten that one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 10:15:11 PM
I'm not so angry about the police investigation. I was angry about being accused of posting hate by people who clearly haven't got a clue what hatred is. That won't happen again, I'm learning. They just aren't worth the bother IMHO.
You presume to know everyone else’s personal experience of hatred in their lives do you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 03, 2019, 10:39:47 PM
I find it difficult to believe personally that anyone who has experienced real hatred could accuse me of posting hatred because I said in slightly different terms that I didn't give a toss about the McCanns until they reopened the investigation. That's not hatred in anyone's book unless their deluded imo. That is the truth, it was so saturated in the papers I restricted myself to reading the headlines and listening briefly to the news bulletins.  I even believed they had been cleared until 2014.  I can cite examples of innocent young men having their throats slit and murdered merely for wearing the wrong colours on Old Firm day. That's hatred, something anyone who knows me, knows I'm not capable of.
But I've learnt my lesson, know those who to avoid at all costs and it's time to put it firmly behind me.
That's concludes all I have to say on that subject.
I wouldn’t call that hate, just common or garden contempt.  Hope you agree  that’s a more accurate reflection of your feelings vis-a-vis the McCanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 10:50:18 PM
Anger is one of the most productive emotions known to man if channeled in the correct manner and is responsible for so much positive change imo. I've no boat to float, and on the subject of hatred, I suspect there are those on here who do not have a clue what real hatred is. There was a blood bath in Glasgow on Sunday that you may have heard about because of the hatred generated by the Old Firm. Two men are fighting for their life and scores more wounded because of hatred. I have lived with that hatred and the marching season for more years than I care to remember, so I know what hate is. If you and your friends want to go around accusing folk who disagree with you of posting hatred, I'd suggest you learn what hatred actually is first. I may have mistakenly used a wrong term because I thought it was allowed after i read it in a post addressed to me last week,, but to turn that into an accusation of me of posting hatred says far more about you and your friend than it does about me imo.
There's a lesson to be learned here and you can be sure I've learnt it. This is a case of once bite, twice shy.

I knew that there were football teams in Glasgow which represented two different religions, but until I joined this forum I didn't know that sectarian hatred was rife there. I saw it in England as a child, but that was 60 years ago. It died out as relifgion lost it's importance and influence.

I was amazed to learn that some people suspected that those doubting the McCanns really just hated them because of their religion. As a non-religious person that idea had never crossed my mind. Siddenly the vitriol aimed at those who didn't accept the McCann's innocence made a bit more sense.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 03, 2019, 10:53:22 PM
Going jogging

Deleting call records within hours of their daughter's disappearance and not informing the police when handing over their mobiles.

27 April then nothing until 4 May  @)(++(* Gerry had no call records until 4 May. Not functioning  *%87

(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_83.jpg)

(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_84.jpg)

(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_85.jpg)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:04:47 PM
I would certainly agree that's a more accurate reflection. There are even a couple of interviews were I sensed a weak and broken women in Kate were I feel some empathy for her in a weird way when I see them. There was a bit in the Piers Morgan interview, but there is another I can't remember which one that leaves me with the same sense. I can't say that about Gerry and I'll leave it at that. I'm perfectly capable of not liking someone without resorting to hating anyone. 
Hate is for losers imo

Whether the McCanns were involved or not the whole affair was bound to be devastating.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:09:41 PM
That's what happens when your the doctor for Celtic, it would have been the exact same if he had worked for Rangers. Just the other side would have thrown the vitriol. The Old Firm can teach us all we need to know about hatred. On match day, it's absolutely poisonous.
I head for the hills on Old Firm day, it can be so bad.

Who was the doctor for Celtic?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2019, 11:36:11 PM
I'm pretty sure Gerry worked as their physio during the nineties.

Madeleine, from Rothley, Leicestershire, disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve. Her father, Gerry, had worked for Celtic before moving to England.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6649319.stm

I asked because I looked at it a while back and couldn't find a clear answer for some reason. Goodnight, CM,
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 01:22:29 AM
Very bottom of the page.
"I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me WAS MY WIFE."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

I haven't found a direct quote from Martin Smith.

ST:

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0


However, there is this from Mary Smith (MoS):
This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.

He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.

''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.

"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.

''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.

"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.msg310346#msg310346

There is also a tweet exchange between Xklamation and Jason Farrell from Sky:

Joana Morais
‏@JoanaAMorais
@JasonFarrellSky «I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerald McCann that I met that night carrying a child» Mr.Smith http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm …

Jason Farrell ‏@JasonFarrellSky 14 Oct 2013
@xklamation it was Peter Smith who I spoke to, who was in the group. That wasn't his take on it.
0 retweets 0 likes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.msg310346#msg310346
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 07:21:28 AM
There’s that word hatred again. Have you apologists really got so little imagination?
Why don’t you hate the McCanns?  According to you they abandoned their kids, let one of them die, chucked her body in a bin, lied about it, decided to go on a publicity tour to make themselves famous,  raked in millions, made the lives of many a misery especially the hard-working cop Amaral who was only doing his job, they live in a horrible house, speak with contemptible accents, have appallng dress sense, ingratiate themselves with the genuine parents of missing kids,  have supporters who cause dear old ladies to commit suicide, I mean are you some sort of saint for not hating them??!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 07:53:04 AM
Why don’t you hate the McCanns?  According to you they abandoned their kids, let one of them die, chucked her body in a bin, lied about it, decided to go on a publicity tour to make themselves famous,  raked in millions, made the lives of many a misery especially the hard-working cop Amaral who was only doing his job, they live in a horrible house, speak with contemptible accents, have appallng dress sense, ingratiate themselves with the genuine parents of missing kids,  have supporters who cause dear old ladies to commit suicide, I mean are you some sort of saint for not hating them??!

Are you sure those are not your words? Accents and dress sense?  8)-)))
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 07:56:02 AM
I haven't found a direct quote from Martin Smith.

ST:

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0


However, there is this from Mary Smith (MoS):
This weekend, Mr Smith's wife Mary told the Mail on Sunday her husband had no regrets about coming forward.

He [Martin] doesn't want to talk, said Mrs Smith. He said what he had to say. I was with him [that night]. We saw a man carrying a child and that's all we know. We told them all that and that's it.

''The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann. We felt we had to help. We're happy we did. We reported exactly what we saw.

"We only did what we thought was right for a missing girl and our hearts are breaking for her parents, as it would be if it were one of ours.

''I feel very much for them [the McCanns]. I have six grandchildren of my own and six children of my own.

"The poor McCann family must be heartbroken.''

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.msg310346#msg310346

There is also a tweet exchange between Xklamation and Jason Farrell from Sky:

Joana Morais
‏@JoanaAMorais
@JasonFarrellSky «I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerald McCann that I met that night carrying a child» Mr.Smith http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm …

Jason Farrell ‏@JasonFarrellSky 14 Oct 2013
@xklamation it was Peter Smith who I spoke to, who was in the group. That wasn't his take on it.
0 retweets 0 likes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.msg310346#msg310346

The BBC said Smith changed his mind didn't they? Then they had to change their programme because it wasn't true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 07:59:46 AM
Are you sure those are not your words? Accents and dress sense?  8)-)))
Are you not aware that Kate’s accent and clothes are mocked mercilessly?  No doubt Saint Faithlilly will deny it but I have been ineracting with her for long enough to know that she finds both beneath contempt.   Funny those were the only two aspects in my post you questioned though... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 08:05:54 AM
Its ironic...another characteristic of sceptics...they object to  what other posters say about them but continue by making endless vile comments towards the mccanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 08:16:03 AM
Are you not aware that Kate’s accent and clothes are mocked mercilessly?  No doubt Saint Faithlilly will deny it but I have been ineracting with her for long enough to know that she finds both beneath contempt.   Funny those were the only two aspects in my post you questioned though... @)(++(*

I'd never seen them mentioned on here or anywhere else, that's why. Do you have a cite?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 08:19:03 AM
I'd never seen them mentioned on here or anywhere else, that's why. Do you have a cite?
Not without upsetting the rules of the forum.  Tell you what to make you happy I will concede that Faithlilly has never once on this forum (to the best of my knowledge and brcause I can’t be bothered to go through all her thousands of barbed posts) criticised Kate’s accent or clothes.  The rest stands though.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 09:25:17 AM
Not without upsetting the rules of the forum.  Tell you what to make you happy I will concede that Faithlilly has never once on this forum (to the best of my knowledge and brcause I can’t be bothered to go through all her thousands of barbed posts) criticised Kate’s accent or clothes.  The rest stands though.

Just another example of your fondness for hyperbole then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 09:31:16 AM

I am finding this all a bit more difficult to cope with today than I normally do.  So please beware.  I will be implementing Forum Rules In Full.  So don't waste your time writing things that will be deleted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:15:15 AM
I am finding this all a bit more difficult to cope with today than I normally do.  So please beware.  I will be implementing Forum Rules In Full.  So don't waste your time writing things that will be deleted.

I hope you are OK Eleanor x
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 10:17:11 AM
Did the BBC bend the truth?
Gemma O’Doherty

A reward of €20,000 was Offered to anyone who could assist with the investigation. But then the Story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.


In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.


He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains "60-80 per cent" convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.


Last month. asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.


I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.


Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
https://gemmaodoherty.com/investigations/madeline-mccann/madeline-mccann-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/

Depends what he means by... Stands by everthing he said..
What he said was that based on the way the man held the child he was 60 to 80 % sure it was Gerry...

He may well stand by the fact he made that statement... In good faith... Doesn't mean he still believes the man he saw was Gerry... In fact as he has been so supportive of the McCann's I'm sure he doesnt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:36:49 AM
Did the BBC bend the truth?
Gemma O’Doherty

A reward of €20,000 was Offered to anyone who could assist with the investigation. But then the Story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.


In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.


He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains "60-80 per cent" convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.


Last month. asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.


I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.


Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
https://gemmaodoherty.com/investigations/madeline-mccann/madeline-mccann-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/

I wonder why Redwood opened the can of worms that was the Smith sighting? He must have known Smith's opinion of who it was.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 10:42:32 AM
Everything depends on something Davel. The entire abduction narrative depends on the bedroom door slamming, and Kate seeing the curtain go whoooooosh, imo.

Based on all the evidence I see no reason to doubt Kate
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 10:43:04 AM
I hope you are OK Eleanor x

Thank You, G.  Yes, I am fine.  Sometimes I find it hard and sometimes I find it more easy to deal with.  Phases of The Moon I suspect.  I am a Lunar Person.

I don't really like being in charge, but someone has to do it.  And I am inordinately fond of this Forum.  It is the only decent one left.  And Oh My God, I have seen a few.

So please all help me, all of you.  It isn't that difficult to cut the snide remarks, which only ever detract from what are mostly perfectly acceptable comments, even if I don't personally agree with some of them.



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:44:38 AM
Depends what he means by... Stands by everthing he said..
What he said was that based on the way the man held the child he was 60 to 80 % sure it was Gerry...

He may well stand by the fact he made that statement... In good faith... Doesn't mean he still believes the man he saw was Gerry... In fact as he has been so supportive of the McCann's I'm sure he doesnt

There never was any evidence that Smith had changed his mind; someone made that up in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 10:44:49 AM
The BBC said Smith changed his mind didn't they? Then they had to change their programme because it wasn't true.

Just as Mr Smith spoke on behalf of his wife ... Mrs Smith spoke on behalf of her husband.  One has to puzzle about why one is acceptable to sceptics while the other is studiously ignored.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 10:52:53 AM
Everything depends on something Davel. The entire abduction narrative depends on the bedroom door slamming, and Kate seeing the curtain go whoooooosh, imo.

That is a sceptic mantra I would say believed by them all.

I think the disappearance of a little girl from her bed in conjunction with the witness sighting of a man carrying a child away from the apartment block is of far more relevance.

Just because Goncalo had a theory doesn't mean it has to be followed hook line and sinker ... particularly as it lent nothing to the search for a missing child.  When you think about it ... make that X2 failures.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:55:39 AM
I wonder why Redwood opened the can of worms that was the Smith sighting? He must have known Smith's opinion of who it was.

Was that opinion shared by the other witnesses?
Perhaps Redwood took note of their opinions!

Back to my original point of this thread.

In spite of two ongoing investigations which have been lengthy and so far have resulted in no action against Madeleine's parents, and in spite of them being described as not suspects, and in spite of the Netflix documentary which in my opinion was generally supportive of the fact that Madeleine was abducted, do sceptics still believe the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance.
I've read the thread so far and see nothing new in your arguments.
What keeps you so steadfast in your beliefs?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:58:03 AM
Just as Mr Smith spoke on behalf of his wife ... Mrs Smith spoke on behalf of her husband.  One has to puzzle about why one is acceptable to sceptics while the other is studiously ignored.

Did she say he'd changed his mind?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 10:59:08 AM
There never was any evidence that Smith had changed his mind; someone made that up in my opinion.

There is a great deal of evidence that Martin Smith was entirely wrong.  The Judicial police accept that along with the judiciary ... why do sceptics continue to cling to their belief in something so well debunked?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:59:53 AM
Thank You, G.  Yes, I am fine.  Sometimes I find it hard and sometimes I find it more easy to deal with.  Phases of The Moon I suspect.  I am a Lunar Person.

I don't really like being in charge, but someone has to do it.  And I am inordinately fond of this Forum.  It is the only decent one left.  And Oh My God, I have seen a few.

So please all help me, all of you.  It isn't that difficult to cut the snide remarks, which only ever detract from what are mostly perfectly acceptable comments, even if I don't personally agree with some of them.

I firmly believe that we can be affected by the stages of the moon.
There would be days when the children in class were definitely more restless and less inclined to work.
I would check the stages of the moon and invariably it was a full moon.
Keep up the good work.x
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:01:13 AM
There is a great deal of evidence that Martin Smith was entirely wrong.  The Judicial police accept that along with the judiciary ... why do sceptics continue to cling to their belief in something so well debunked?

More succinctly put than my rambling effort.
Why indeed?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 11:03:41 AM
Based on the evidence in Kate's book, I see no reason why I should believe a word she says.

It isn't so much what is not believed ... which I think we can all have a pretty good guess at ... I think the topic is more concerned with the belief system which powers the sceptics and how that came about and developed over the years.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 11:15:07 AM
I wonder why Redwood opened the can of worms that was the Smith sighting? He must have known Smith's opinion of who it was.

Good question.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 11:17:28 AM
Based on the evidence in Kate's book, I see no reason why I should believe a word she says.

its clear to me SY and the portuguese disagree with you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 11:19:08 AM
There never was any evidence that Smith had changed his mind; someone made that up in my opinion.

smith and his wife are very supportive of the Mccanns...tahts evidence...I dont think Sith thinks it was Gerry he saw....at the time he thought it might be...but now im sure he knows it wasnt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 11:24:39 AM
Thank You, G.  Yes, I am fine.  Sometimes I find it hard and sometimes I find it more easy to deal with.  Phases of The Moon I suspect.  I am a Lunar Person.

I don't really like being in charge, but someone has to do it.  And I am inordinately fond of this Forum.  It is the only decent one left.  And Oh My God, I have seen a few.

So please all help me, all of you.  It isn't that difficult to cut the snide remarks, which only ever detract from what are mostly perfectly acceptable comments, even if I don't personally agree with some of them.

And most of the forum, including myself, are inordinately fond of you. Pushing the hatred card though is simplistic and beneath you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 11:27:12 AM
I firmly believe that we can be affected by the stages of the moon.
There would be days when the children in class were definitely more restless and less inclined to work.
I would check the stages of the moon and invariably it was a full moon.
Keep up the good work.x

Thanks for that.  I have been aware of this in me for a very long time.  Sometimes I am much more positive than I am at other times, usually at New Moon.

I plant by The Moon, incidentally.  All Breton Farmers do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 11:34:38 AM
And most of the forum, including myself, are inordinately fond of you. Pushing the hatred card though is simplistic and beneath you.

Gosh.  Thanks for that.

But I don't think I push the hatred card.  I just don't understand it, even if it exists, which I am not sure it does.  But I do worry somewhat about unkindness.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:36:21 AM
And most of the forum, including myself, are inordinately fond of you. Pushing the hatred card though is simplistic and beneath you.

Calling supporters "apologists" is simplistic and beneath you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:37:40 AM
There is a great deal of evidence that Martin Smith was entirely wrong.  The Judicial police accept that along with the judiciary ... why do sceptics continue to cling to their belief in something so well debunked?

Indeed?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 12:03:50 PM
Calling supporters "apologists" is simplistic and beneath you.

It is indeed but I was making a point.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 12:14:00 PM
It is indeed but I was making a point.

Really?

That's  an excuse which is worth remembering. *%87
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 12:23:09 PM
Pedro Do Carmo is on record as saying he doesn't know what happened to Madeleine. That indicates to me there is absolutely nothing to verify Kate's account of a slamming door and whooshing curtain. They can disagree with me all they like, if they in fact do disagree with me in private.. but with no hard evidence to support Kate's allegation, they are hardly likely to prove Kate was telling the truth anytime soon imo.
It's hardly sceptics fault for the manner in which the McCanns chose to deal with their tricky situations.

I don't know what happened  to Maddie but I'm sure her parents, were not involved...it doesn't matter what a handful of people on forums think it's as clear as, day to me the mccanns are not being investigated  by either investigation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 12:25:21 PM
Really?

That's  an excuse which is worth remembering. *%87

Let’s hope you don’t need to remember it because we can but hope the debate here ceases to be driven by simplistic assumptions and pointless, childish name calling.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 12:32:54 PM
Let’s hope you don’t need to remember it because we can but hope the debate here ceases to be driven by simplistic assumptions and pointless, childish name calling.

Which I am sure you will equally appreciate your part in such behaviour.
Do you wish me to recall some of the names you have addressed to me.
I'm sure you don't.

Huge, huge family celebration to complete the final details for this weekend, so I bid you good afternoon.
May be back later.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 12:46:02 PM

No one is listening to me.  Okay.  Stand by.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 12:47:52 PM
Did the BBC bend the truth?
Gemma O’Doherty

A reward of €20,000 was Offered to anyone who could assist with the investigation. But then the Story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.


In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.


He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains "60-80 per cent" convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.


Last month. asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.


I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.


Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
https://gemmaodoherty.com/investigations/madeline-mccann/madeline-mccann-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/
Gemma O’Doherty ... wonder what happened to her.
Did she ever publish her analysis of the McCann case?  Or did that ubiquitous MI5 guy who figures largely in the sceptic belief system have a word in her ear?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 01:01:40 PM
I'm not disputing that, you may well be right about them not being investigated.. but if that's the case and the case closes without conclusion, they'll be condemned to a lifetime of suspicion imo all because Scotland Yard never bothered to find clear evidence to eliminate them. If they have found new clear evidence that does eliminate them then surely in fairness to the McCanns, the police will release it to the public. 
What a handful of people on forums think doesn't matter, I agree. It's not as if what you think will matter anymore than anyone else imo.

I think your assessment is far off the mark.  The sceptic belief that Scotland Yard and the Judicial police have not already eliminated Madeleine's parents from the doubts engineered about them by Amaral is not one I share.
It runs against protocol and is totally illogical.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 01:11:11 PM
I'm not disputing that, you may well be right about them not being investigated.. but if that's the case and the case closes without conclusion, they'll be condemned to a lifetime of suspicion imo all because Scotland Yard never bothered to find clear evidence to eliminate them. If they have found new clear evidence that does eliminate them then surely in fairness to the McCanns, the police will release it to the public. 
What a handful of people on forums think doesn't matter, I agree. It's not as if what you think will matter anymore than anyone else imo.

Your Comment has no logic and is contradictory.

A lifetime of suspicion won't matter to The McCanns.  And they certainly won't care about what you think of them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 01:18:23 PM
There is a great deal of evidence that Martin Smith was entirely wrong.  The Judicial police accept that along with the judiciary ... why do sceptics continue to cling to their belief in something so well debunked?

I wasn't discussing whether he was right or wrong. I was discussing whether he changed his mind or not. In my opinion there's no evidence that he did.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 01:19:07 PM
In the beginning I thought that The McCanns were probably involved, just because parents so often are.  What a mindless moron I must have been in those days.  I am still passing ashamed of myself.

But thereby hangs the tale of my latter day courage.  I was a wimp as well.  Nowadays I fight back when I see injustice.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 01:21:29 PM
I wasn't discussing whether he was right or wrong. I was discussing whether he changed his mind or not. In my opinion there's no evidence that he did.

So Mr. Smith identified a person whose face he admits he never saw.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 01:33:58 PM
It isn't so much what is not believed ... which I think we can all have a pretty good guess at ... I think the topic is more concerned with the belief system which powers the sceptics and how that came about and developed over the years.

I wouldn't call it a belief system; it's more of a non-belief reaction imo. It's not complicated; some believed them from the beginning and others didn't. Then those who believed them spent years castigating those who didn't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 01:40:23 PM
I wouldn't call it a belief system; it's more of a non-belief reaction imo. It's not complicated; some believed them from the beginning and others didn't. Then those who believed them spent years castigating those who didn't.

Call it what you like ... the thread topic refers to "sceptic beliefs ? " ... so as long as it falls within that, I think you will be on topic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 01:41:15 PM
I wouldn't call it a belief system; it's more of a non-belief reaction imo. It's not complicated; some believed them from the beginning and others didn't. Then those who believed them spent years castigating those who didn't.

I felt shame when I realised how unkind and illogically stupid I had been.  Sadly, shame doesn't sit well with some.

And should I so unlikely be wrong in the end, I will still like me better.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 01:43:39 PM
I wouldn't call it a belief system; it's more of a non-belief reaction imo. It's not complicated; some believed them from the beginning and others didn't. Then those who believed them spent years castigating those who didn't.

Have you not seen sceptical castigating supporters.. I've been told on this forum I'm in love with Kate... Been accused of being part if the family.. Been told I'm only here to support the mccanns... Been called a defender of a child murderers... And more
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 01:45:32 PM
So Mr. Smith identified a person whose face he admits he never saw.

Jane Tanner thought it was possible;

she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 04, 2019, 01:57:10 PM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range

I have already asked for an investigation of post disappearance goings on which involved criminality by several characters supposedly employed on behalf of the McCanns.  Only a full independent investigation will establish who exactly did what and when.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 04, 2019, 02:07:11 PM
Jane Tanner thought it was possible;

she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

Redwood never mentioned Totman by name,but was it likely that Tanner couldn't recognise him if itwas indeed Totman.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 02:12:09 PM
Jane Tanner thought it was possible;

she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

Have another look at Cristovao.  He looks good to me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 04, 2019, 02:27:47 PM
Eleanor I would cite the numerous libel actions the McCanns have instigated, rightly or wrongly, I don't care,  as evidence that them being suspected does matter to them. I would suggest the court actions contradict the logic of your claim imo.

Not anymore, Our Kid.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 02:34:45 PM
I have already asked for an investigation of post disappearance goings on which involved criminality by several characters supposedly employed on behalf of the McCanns.  Only a full independent investigation will establish who exactly did what and when.

I was surprised that Netflix gave so much air time to someone who freely admitted to breaking Portuguese law and intimidating and bribing witnesses. Had Malinka been tempted Murat could be in prison by now, and perverting the course of justice could be added to the list. The 'detective's' sympathy for the McCanns didn't extend to warning them that they were being conned, did it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 02:35:41 PM
Eleanor I would cite the numerous libel actions the McCanns have instigated, rightly or wrongly, I don't care,  as evidence that them being suspected does matter to them. I would suggest the court actions contradict the logic of your claim imo.

The McCanns have enough intelligence that some people will suspect and dislike them and enough sense to ignore it and realise it's of no consequence... Should those people publish libellous lies to try and convince others... Then that's a different case and those people should be subject to the laws of the land
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 02:37:22 PM
I have already asked for an investigation of post disappearance goings on which involved criminality by several characters supposedly employed on behalf of the McCanns.  Only a full independent investigation will establish who exactly did what and when.
Without a full investigation your claims Re the McCann's are pure, speculation and it looks like the PJ are simply not interested...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 02:40:00 PM
I was surprised that Netflix gave so much air time to someone who freely admitted to breaking Portuguese law and intimidating and bribing witnesses. Had Malinka been tempted Murat could be in prison by now, and perverting the course of justice could be added to the list. The 'detective's' sympathy for the McCanns didn't extend to warning them that they were being conned, did it?


What has this to do with the title thread?
Does this have any bearing on sceptic belief that the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 02:52:09 PM
There's been no libel actions raised against Mark Saunokonoko as far as I'm aware. I wonder if any will be raised after his next podcast that covers the deleted telephone calls. Just another example of typical parental behaviour when they claim they discover their child has been abducted by paedophiles.  &%%6

There is a thread devoted to the podcasts.
This thread is about sceptics continuing belief that the McCanns are culpable of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance and what evidence sustains that belief after many years of two police investigations with no indication that these investigations have found any evidence of such.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 04, 2019, 02:54:28 PM
My purpose in showing that photograph is not to persuade but to explain. I accept that some are of the opinion that they were seeing a couple hiding desperation, guilt, overwhelming despair and broken hearts behind a brave smile,  but ithers were astonished and began to wonder. Wondering isn't hateful it's a natural reaction to something the viewer finds inexplicable.

A burst of nervous laughter from Gerry would more or less prove he was hiding desperation, guilt,  overwhelming despair and broken hearts,  the effort of trying to keep it all in,  a balloon breaks free in front of his face and he  laughs,  a bodies natural way of releasing tension.   It really annoys me when people who are quite ignorant of the Psychological impact such a trauma has on the human brain will keep showing something like this to prove what?   The McCann's were laughing because their child was missing?   It really is disgusting. IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 02:56:37 PM
Have another look at Cristovao.  He looks good to me.

He doesn't appear to be in good shape or a bit on the thin side to me. That's how the Smiths described the man they saw. .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 02:57:16 PM
[Deleted]

What a pity you deleted it.... I missed it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 03:08:45 PM
A burst of nervous laughter from Gerry would more or less prove he was hiding desperation, guilt,  overwhelming despair and broken hearts,  the effort of trying to keep it all in,  a balloon breaks free in front of his face and he  laughs,  a bodies natural way of releasing tension.   It really annoys me when people who are quite ignorant of the Psychological impact such a trauma has on the human brain will keep showing something like this to prove what?   The McCann's were laughing because their child was missing?   It really is disgusting. IMO

That photo which I believe is a still from video footage , does play an important part in the sceptic belief  of MCann culpability.
I've never understood the significance of it and like you I do wonder what it is meant to prove.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 03:25:32 PM
A burst of nervous laughter from Gerry would more or less prove he was hiding desperation, guilt,  overwhelming despair and broken hearts,  the effort of trying to keep it all in,  a balloon breaks free in front of his face and he  laughs,  a bodies natural way of releasing tension.   It really annoys me when people who are quite ignorant of the Psychological impact such a trauma has on the human brain will keep showing something like this to prove what?   The McCann's were laughing because their child was missing?   It really is disgusting. IMO

The thread asks why people doubt the McCanns. That photo is one of the reasons whether you agree or not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 03:47:22 PM
Just trying to stop all the deflection away from the subject of the thread.

Threads do have a habit of wandering off, don't they. At least we're not deep in a discussion about dogs........yet....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 03:54:27 PM
The thread asks why people doubt the McCanns. That photo is one of the reasons whether you agree or not.

The photo is a reason why people doubt the McCann's yet I've shown a similar photo of a victim at, a funeral... So that puts doubt on the validity of drawing any conclusions from the photo... To do so... IMO... Is quite simplistic
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 04:06:04 PM

What has this to do with the title thread?
Does this have any bearing on sceptic belief that the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance?

That would depend on whether you think hiring a firm of inexperienced dodgy detectives who interfere with witnesses and 'compensate' people who talk to them is a perfectly normal way to behave.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 04:13:10 PM
The photo is a reason why people doubt the McCann's yet I've shown a similar photo of a victim at, a funeral... So that puts doubt on the validity of drawing any conclusions from the photo... To do so... IMO... Is quite simplistic

I agree. One photo isn't much. A list of strange stories, actions, photographs, interviews and videos is another matter.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 04:19:38 PM
The thread asks why people doubt the McCanns. That photo is one of the reasons whether you agree or not.

The thread doesn't ask why you doubt the McCanns.
It asks why you and others continue after so many years, and two investigations which have lasted many years and have not as yet given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance, sceptics cling to their original doubts and suspicions and use the same old arguments over and over.
That photo being one of the sceptics evidence for doubt?
Can you explain why the photo is significant?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 04:22:08 PM
That would depend on whether you think hiring a firm of inexperienced dodgy detectives who interfere with witnesses and 'compensate' people who talk to them is a perfectly normal way to behave.

Why does this add to your doubts about the McCanns?
Can you explain?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 05:32:07 PM
I agree. One photo isn't much. A list of strange stories, actions, photographs, interviews and videos is another matter.

In your opinion... You can support an argument fir many things by being selective with the evidence you choose
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 05:56:23 PM
In your opinion... You can support an argument fir many things by being selective with the evidence you choose

I absolutely agree...the Netflix documentary being a case in point.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 06:02:40 PM
Just another example of your fondness for hyperbole then.
Absolutely not, it’s true as far as I remember, but would likely be impossible to prove as most of Faith’s bitchier comments tend to be removed by the mods.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 06:11:53 PM
The thread asks why people doubt the McCanns. That photo is one of the reasons whether you agree or not.
It’s a pretty pathetic reason isn’t it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 07:01:16 PM
Why does this add to your doubts about the McCanns?
Can you explain?

Why a company which didn't have any experience of finding missing people?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 07:12:52 PM
Why a company which didn't have any experience of finding missing people?

It must be difficult when your daughter disappears to find just the right company.
Are they listed  in Yellow pages?
Why do you think they chose a dodgy and inexperienced company.?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 07:16:01 PM
Why a company which didn't have any experience of finding missing people?
Name the company they should have gone with.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 07:19:57 PM
It must be difficult when your daughter disappears to find just the right company.
Are they listed n Yellow pages?
Why do you think they chose a dodgy and inexperienced company.?

Didn’t the gentlemen from Metodo3 who appeared in the Netflix documentary warn the fund that Metodo were claiming money for work they didn’t do ? I believe he said he was surprised that the fund took no action.

From the Portugal Resident

“Meantime, adding to the sudden burst of new stories, came online furore over the translation into English of key sections of a book by former private eyes with the Spanish Metodo 3 detective agency, hired early on in the McCann’s private search for their daughter.

Reinforcing claims made in Diário de Notícias in 2013, authors Julián Peribañez and Antonio Tamarjit guaranteed that Metodo 3’s investigation was mired by corruption, and that the company had falsified receipts and charged for work by non-existent employees.

But when Peribañez claims he tried to bring this to Team McCann’s attention, he says he was met a “wall of silence”.

“I simply could not understand how they could fail to be alarmed by the discovery that they had been the victims of a financial fraud and had been charged for work which was not carried out”, he wrote in La Cortina de Humo (the Smokescreen).”
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 07:27:23 PM
Didn’t the gentlemen from Metodo3 who appeared in the Netflix documentary warn the fund that the Metodo wereclaiming money for work they didn’t do ? I believe he said he was surprised that the fund took no action.
Who was the Fund at that stage?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 07:39:59 PM
Didn’t the gentlemen from Metodo3 who appeared in the Netflix documentary warn the fund that Metodo were claiming money for work they didn’t do ? I believe he said he was surprised that the fund took no action.

From the Portugal Resident

“Meantime, adding to the sudden burst of new stories, came online furore over the translation into English of key sections of a book by former private eyes with the Spanish Metodo 3 detective agency, hired early on in the McCann’s private search for their daughter.

Reinforcing claims made in Diário de Notícias in 2013, authors Julián Peribañez and Antonio Tamarjit guaranteed that Metodo 3’s investigation was mired by corruption, and that the company had falsified receipts and charged for work by non-existent employees.

But when Peribañez claims he tried to bring this to Team McCann’s attention, he says he was met a “wall of silence”.

“I simply could not understand how they could fail to be alarmed by the discovery that they had been the victims of a financial fraud and had been charged for work which was not carried out”, he wrote in La Cortina de Humo (the Smokescreen).”


Why did they choose a dodgy and inxperienced company?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 07:49:02 PM
When a missing child's father gives the police two completely different versions of the last time he claims he seen his daughter alive, that's a reason imo.... and when the father's best friend gives the police two completely different versions of the last time he seen her there's reason number two imo.
Two of the best reasons anyone would have to suspect the parents are involved imo.

Then there's the method they have employed when they get into tricky situations, reason number three.
How many reasons are you looking for?

I see you are relying on what may be totally unreliable statements...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 08:11:33 PM
I see you are relying on what may be totally unreliable statements...


I've always assumed that both current investigations have read the files and noted the unreliable, twice translated statements.
Clinging steadfastly to the same old, same old !!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 08:24:23 PM
Then Gerry McCann, who must have known Mr Smith and his wife were wrong about seeing him refused to publish the E-Fit of this possible abductor until SY done it for them, more than FIVE years later. Reason number 5.

Do you really think SY would have spent 12 million if it, was as simple as you think
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 08:29:19 PM
It must be difficult when your daughter disappears to find just the right company.
Are they listed  in Yellow pages?
Why do you think they chose a dodgy and inexperienced company.?

Why didn't they get advice from the company they were already involved with? In fact they seemed to have the expertise needed themselves. As an international operation they could surely have directed them into safe hands if they were too busy?

https://www.controlrisks.com/who-we-are/about-us
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 04, 2019, 08:32:44 PM
The thread as I have been reminded of previously, isn't about what SY think, it's about the reasons why we sceptics don't believe for a second there was any slamming door or whoooooooooooooshing curtain. I've given five very sensible reasons imo.


Add reason 6, the McCanns insight into who had taken Maddie.

Gerry talking of paedo gangs, Kate screaming "The f..king b........s have taken her".

Either they had prior knowledge or the abduction is BS.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 08:34:17 PM

Wandering Off Topic folks ... please be so kind as to stick with "Sceptics beliefs?"  Thank you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 08:36:07 PM
The thread as I have been reminded of previously, isn't about what SY think, it's about the reasons why we sceptics don't believe for a second there was any slamming door or whoooooooooooooshing curtain. I've given five very sensible reasons imo.

I don't think you've given one sensible reason.. IMO..
Reinforced by the fact the the McCann's are not being investigated bybeither investigation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 08:37:54 PM
The thread as I have been reminded of previously, isn't about what SY think, it's about the reasons why we sceptics don't believe for a second there was any slamming door or whoooooooooooooshing curtain. I've given five very sensible reasons imo.

No actually you are wrong.
It is about what both current investigations  seem to think and why in spite of the fact that both Investigations have not acted on  all the damning evidence that sceptics claim to be important,  sceptics cling steadfastly to their beliefs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 08:40:54 PM
Why didn't they get advice from the company they were already involved with? In fact they seemed to have the expertise needed themselves. As an international operation they could surely have directed them into safe hands if they were too busy?

https://www.controlrisks.com/who-we-are/about-us

But you do believe that their badly mistaken choice of company contributes to their culpability in Madeleine's disappearance.??
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 04, 2019, 08:44:07 PM
No actually you are wrong.
It is about what both current investigations  seem to think and why in spite of the fact that both Investigations have not acted on  all the damning evidence that sceptics claim to be important,  sceptics cling steadfastly to their beliefs.

The Yard seem willing to discount the gusty curtains scenario, in hypothesising that Maggie wandered out of the apartment.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6429815/Gerry-Kate-McCann-slam-claims-Madeleine-walked-aparment-says-kidnapped.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 08:44:40 PM
I see you are relying on what may be totally unreliable statements...

That's a theory not a fact.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 08:48:53 PM
That's a theory not a fact.
It's a fact the statements may not be accurate

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 08:55:22 PM
I fail to see how his theory can explain David Payne's two completely different versions of the last time he seen Madeleine alive. It was LP who recorded those versions, one in writing I believe.
At least one was not a direct quote... So is therefore hearsay
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 08:57:10 PM
I fail to see how his theory can explain David Payne's two completely different versions of the last time he seen Madeleine alive. It was LP who recorded those versions, one in writing I believe.

Again, both current investigations will have read the files.These discrepancies will have been noted.
To date there has been no indication that your beliefs are causing concern.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 09:04:55 PM
No actually you are wrong.
It is about what both current investigations  seem to think and why in spite of the fact that both Investigations have not acted on  all the damning evidence that sceptics claim to be important,  sceptics cling steadfastly to their beliefs.

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Why not just accept that opinions differ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 09:06:20 PM
I fail to see how his theory can explain David Payne's two completely different versions of the last time he seen Madeleine alive. It was LP who recorded those versions, one in writing I believe.
Completely different would be different location, different day, different circumstances.  What were the main points of difference?  Do you think David Payne is involved then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 04, 2019, 09:06:54 PM
SY seem quite content with believing those twice translated statements.

MADDIE QUIZ Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been quizzed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’
Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 09:06:58 PM
It was a direct quote from a questionnaire David Payne himself provided. Unless you are suggesting DC Marshal can't read. The other was also recorded verbatim. Hearsay? Dream on.

Only one recorded verbatim so the other is hearsay... Thanks fir confirming
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 09:07:18 PM

Why did they choose a dodgy and inxperienced company?

You’d have to ask them that but what is clear is that when the fund knew that it was being defrauded it did nothing. Why do you think that was ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 09:12:15 PM
SY seem quite content with believing those twice translated statements.

MADDIE QUIZ Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been quizzed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’
Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/

Looks like the article is confused and has confused some sceptics... It talks of not being interviewed as witnesses then changes to not formally interviewed.. Believe the rubbish in the confused dun if you wish.. I have enough sense to see their error
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 04, 2019, 09:13:08 PM
"I read carefully the WRITTEN document/questionnaire provided by David Payne."
but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate AND GERRY. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.

If you can't accept the truth, who am I to question you.

So you have confirmed it's hearsay
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:13:20 PM
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Why not just accept that opinions differ?

I have no doubt they do.
I'm just interested in why sceptics cling to their beliefs in spite of a lengthy police investigation by two police forces who will surely have noted all the obvious ( to sceptics) alarming doubts.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:14:31 PM
You’d have to ask them that but what is clear is that when the fund knew that it was being defrauded it did nothing. Why do you think that was ?

I've no idea.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 09:17:32 PM
I know he gave two completely different version of the last time he claims he seen the little angel alive.
Do you think he done that because his best friend's daughter had been abducted?
Could you please describe the main points of complete difference?  I asked you if you thought he was involved, you did not give me an answer.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:24:14 PM
Here's the best reason you'll ever get for why in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that people believe Madeleine's parents are guilty. It is because they are both doing a terrible job of proving anyone other than the last people to see the missing child alive are guilty.

Now the McCanns have to prove to " that people"  by doing other than a "terrible job"  that they are not guilty of what?
However let's just ignore that two lengthy investigations by two police forces have not yet accused them of anything.

So much for our justice system.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 04, 2019, 09:27:36 PM
Now the McCanns have to prove to " that people"  by doing other than a "terrible job"  that they are not guilty of what?
However let's just ignore that two lengthy investigations by two police forces have not yet accused them of anything.

So much for our justice system.

As they haven't produced anything conclusive, we might just as well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:28:49 PM
As they haven't produced anything conclusive, we might just as well.

Just as well do what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 04, 2019, 09:31:05 PM
Just as well do what?
might as well ignore the investigations.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 09:32:44 PM
It's a fact the statements may not be accurate

In my honest opinion that recurring mantra is purely an attempt to cast doubt on inexplicable anomalies. I rhink there's plenty to be found using other sources.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:36:04 PM
might as well ignore the investigations.

Very true, exactly what sceptics are doing.!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 09:36:23 PM
I did give you an answer, you might not have liked it but we can't get everything we want. Read my posts, the main point is in there. The name is Cheeky Monkey, not John Parrot.
You didn’t say what was “completely different” about David Payne’s statements, do you now refuse to say?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:39:41 PM
In my honest opinion that recurring mantra is purely an attempt to cast doubt on inexplicable anomalies. I rhink there's plenty to be found using other sources.

Do you believe that both investigating police forces have ignored these " inexplicable anomalies" ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 04, 2019, 09:40:20 PM
Very true, exactly what sceptics are doing.!!

When OG or PJ come forth with anything new and constructive will be the time to pay attention - if they ever do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:46:21 PM
When OG or PJ come forth with anything new and constructive will be the time to pay attention - if they ever do.

I agree.
But as yet in spite of years of investigation, and in spite of all the " evidence" which sceptics have such faith in,  as to date none of this "evidence" has resulted in any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
It's back to my original question, what does keep sceptics so grounded in their beliefs?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 09:46:48 PM
I have no doubt they do.
I'm just interested in why sceptics cling to their beliefs in spite of a lengthy police investigation by two police forces who will surely have noted all the obvious ( to sceptics) alarming doubts.

Why not? I don't know what happened and neither do these investigators you are pinning your hopes on.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 04, 2019, 09:49:52 PM
I agree.
But as yet in spite of years of investigation, and in spite of all the " evidence" which sceptics have such faith in,  as to date none of this "evidence" has resulted in any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
It's back to my original question, what does keep sceptics so grounded in their beliefs?

A conviction that they are correct.
I imagine that supporters are equally convinced it their opinion.
So it will remain, probably until the end of time  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 09:51:18 PM
How can I refuse to do something I have already done? Reply #277 Pay attention laddie.
Please don’t call me laddie.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 09:55:53 PM
A conviction that they are correct.
I imagine that supporters are equally convinced it their opinion.
So it will remain, probably until the end of time  @)(++(*

It's not about opinion.
It's about why sceptics continue to cling to their beliefs in spite of two current police Investigations which have as yet not found any of the sceptic "evidence" convincing and why sceptics steadfastly cling to their beliefs??
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:05:36 PM
Why not? I don't know what happened and neither do these investigators you are pinning your hopes on.

Exactly you have no idea of what happened but perhaps the two investigating police forces have a little more information than you do !
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 10:13:35 PM
I’d like to know what motivates the sceptics to keep endlessly poring over the files and repeating their suspicions o line day in, day out for 12 years.  Is it devotion to Madeleine?  Deep antipathy towards the parents?  Or simply a fervent belief that what they are doing is going to help solve the case?  Who do they hope to influence?  What difference are they making?  Have any of their suspicions proven to be correct after all this time?  How many more years are they in this for?  Until death or dementia stops them?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:16:02 PM
Do you believe that both investigating police forces have ignored these " inexplicable anomalies" ?

I haven't a clue. In my opinion neither have those who think they know what's going on.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:18:06 PM
I haven't a clue. In my opinion neither have those who think they know what's going on.

Is that a reference to both the current police Investigations?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 10:21:43 PM
What about the case gets solved, you forgot that didn't you? Or is that a sign of your confidence in
Operation Catch That Abductor is severely lacking?
I honestly don’t believe that the case being solved will silence the sceptics, whatever the outcome.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:33:11 PM
Does it trouble you that people debate an unsolved case of public interest? Don't you think in a missing person case, there is no such thing as bad publicity? For the missing person's benefit I mean.

Do you think Madeleine is a missing person?
I thought you believed she was the victim of her parents involvement in whatever you believe their involvement with is?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:36:14 PM
It's not about opinion.
It's about why sceptics continue to cling to their beliefs in spite of two current police Investigations which have as yet not found any of the sceptic "evidence" convincing and why sceptics steadfastly cling to their beliefs??

It seems to me it's about your opinion that you know what these investigations are doing. Now that's what I call a belief.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 10:41:06 PM
Is that a reference to both the current police Investigations?

Were you referring to both? Then so was my reply.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 10:46:53 PM
Does it trouble you that people debate an unsolved case of public interest? Don't you think in a missing person case, there is no such thing as bad publicity? For the missing person's benefit I mean.
I’m not troubled at all.  As for your second question, if the bad publicity or propaganda if you prefer convinces most people that the missing person is dead and was buried by their own parents I don’t really see that as good publicity tbh.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 10:47:04 PM
It seems to me it's about your opinion that you know what these investigations are doing. Now that's what I call a belief.

Not at all.
It's been a lengthy investigation.
I've no opinion at at all about where the investigation will end.
Just to reiterate that as to today  there is no indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance..
Its not difficult to believe that both investigating police forces have as yet  not found any indication that Madeleine's parents are suspects.

That's  just a belief in innocence until proved otherwise.
Not quite the belief sceptics have.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:07:35 PM
But don't you think the bad publicity for the McCanns is actually good publicity for their missing child, IF she is still alive. Can you think of any other missing child who has ever achieved the level of publicity Madeleine's face has? Don't you think Amaral's book and their court case has been a tremendous success in terms of achieving publicity for the missing child?  No one was physically searching for her when the case was closed anyway. SY's search consited of cadaver dogs and shovels.

But you don't believe she is missing?
Do you?
You believe her parents are complicit in her disappearance?
Or have I interpreted your posts wrongly?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 11:14:38 PM
But don't you think the bad publicity for the McCanns is actually good publicity for their missing child, IF she is still alive. Can you think of any other missing child who has ever achieved the level of publicity Madeleine's face has? Don't you think Amaral's book and their court case has been a tremendous success in terms of achieving publicity for the missing child?  No one was physically searching for her when the case was closed anyway. SY's search consited of cadaver dogs and shovels.
Well if your child was missing and she was world famous as the child that some not—very-bright ex cop had promoted as dead and hidden by your own hand would you consider that helpful for finding her?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 11:15:28 PM
Not at all.
It's been a lengthy investigation.
I've no opinion at at all about where the investigation will end.
Just to reiterate that as to today  there is no indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance..
Its not difficult to believe that both investigating police forces have as yet  not found any indication that Madeleine's parents are suspects.

That's  just a belief in innocence until proved otherwise.
Not quite the belief sceptics have.

You believe there are no indications that the McCanns are involved. That's fine, but others disagree.

You also believe the police have found no such indications either. That you cannot know.

Do you know, some people are still accusing Amaral of being guilty despite Portugal's Supreme Court clearing him? I think that's far worse than me saying I'm not convinced by the McCanns, don't you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 11:19:41 PM
I've no idea.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Let me put it another way. If you say paid for the tiles on your roof to be changed and the roof tilers only changed half but told you they had changed them all. A few days later one of the tilers, ashamed by the job that was done, comes and tells you what happened. What would you do ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:25:00 PM
You believe there are no indications that the McCanns are involved. That's fine, but others disagree.

You also believe the police have found no such indications either. That you cannot know.

Do you know, some people are still accusing Amaral of being guilty despite Portugal's Supreme Court clearing him? I think that's far worse than me saying I'm not convinced by the McCanns, don't you?


It's not not  just my belief that the McCann's are not suspects, it does seem so far that two investigating police forces have not found any evidence suggesting otherwise.

I'm unsure of why you felt the need to bring Amaral into our exchange of posts..
Guilty of what.
Perjury?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 11:25:27 PM
Well if your child was missing and she was world famous as the child that some not—very-bright ex cop had promoted as dead and hidden by your own hand would you consider that helpful for finding her?

No, and if a court said  ir wasn't proved that his actions had harned the seatch for her I would have appealed against that decision. It was ny main reason for suing him, after all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 11:32:13 PM
No, and if a court said  ir wasn't proved that his actions had harned the seatch for her I would have appealed against that decision. It was ny main reason for suing him, after all.
???
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 04, 2019, 11:33:25 PM
???

You took the ???s out of my mouth
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 11:36:42 PM
Who has stopped looking and when did they stop looking as a result of this ex cops claims? Can you name one single person? Where were they searching exactly before he wrote his book that made them stop?
IMO he has given the missing child huge and continuing publicity. Dead or alive - it's made no difference.
LOL. Well if and when Madeleine turns up alive she will no doubt be forever in Amaral’s debt for his sterling efforts in trying to convince the world she is dead..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 04, 2019, 11:37:40 PM

It's not not  just my belief that the McCann's are not suspects, it does seem so far that two investigating police forces have not found any evidence suggesting otherwise.

I'm unsure of why you felt the need to bring Amaral into our exchange of posts..
Guilty of what.
Perjury?

Repeating your opinions doesn't make them correct, imo. They remain opinions.
 
You mentioned presumption of innocence. I mentioned Amaral as an example of people assuming guilt even after the courts have ruled otherwise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 04, 2019, 11:44:24 PM
If, and that's a very big IF imo,  she ever turns up, it wasn't Amaral who had a duty of care to the child, and it wasn't Amaral that made her do a disappearing act. She'll have plenty of others to thank before she gets a chance to thank Amaral.
If she is found alive it will prove Amaral failed in his duty to investigate her disappearance properly.  Why would she thank him for being not very good at his job and determined to stitch up her parents instead?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 04, 2019, 11:46:17 PM
I have no doubt they do.
I'm just interested in why sceptics cling to their beliefs in spite of a lengthy police investigation by two police forces who will surely have noted all the obvious ( to sceptics) alarming doubts.

Here's the truth:

It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.

"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 04, 2019, 11:48:42 PM
Here's the truth:

It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.

"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/


Yesterday's news
Still two current police forces have not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
Do keep up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 04, 2019, 11:57:54 PM

Yesterday's news
Still two current police forces have not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
Do keep up.

And no official indication that anyone else is involved either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 12:02:39 AM
If, and that's a very big IF imo,  she ever turns up, it wasn't Amaral who had a duty of care to the child, and it wasn't Amaral that made her do a disappearing act. She'll have plenty of others to thank before she gets a chance to thank Amaral.

It was Amaral who declared her death ... in conjunction with many other core sceptic beliefs.

Snip

These are the final theses defended by Gonçalo Amaral
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id173.htm


There is no evidence for any of that ... it is opinion.  So why did Amaral's opinions become entrenched in the sceptic beliefs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:03:09 AM
And no official indication that anyone else is involved either.

True.
But still you cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved.
Why?

Do you believe that two current Investigations are ignoring the obvious truths sceptics hold so dearly?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:15:51 AM
True.
But still you cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved.
Why?

Do you believe that two current Investigations are ignoring the obvious truths sceptics hold so dearly?

We know that something happened to Madeleine.
There is no indication that her parents are suspected.
There is no indication that anyone else is suspected.
 But we know someone is involved and at this point it is just as likely to be the parents as AN Othet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:32:39 AM
We know that something happened to Madeleine.
There is no indication that her parents are suspected.
There is no indication that anyone else is suspected.
 But we know someone is involved and at this point it is just as likely to be the parents as AN Othet.

I do believe that proving her parents are involved in her disappearance would be a slightly easier task than ANOthet..
I assume you mean another.
But do appreciate that you accept there is no indication that her parents are suspected
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:42:00 AM
I do believe that proving her parents are involved in her disappearance would be a slightly easier task than ANOthet..

It’s so easy to believe something from a position of ignorance so be my guest.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:43:20 AM
It’s so easy to believe something from a position of ignorance so be my guest.

Is it my ignorance you are referring to?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 12:45:50 AM

Yesterday's news
Still two current police forces have not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
Do keep up.

The police can do it however they please. Their job is to gather enough evidence to solve it. They don't need to prewarn the suspect(s) or the public that would result in a media circus that could ruin an investigation!

28 January 2009 - Police confirm Prout is no longer suspected of murdering his wife.

10 March 2009 - Prout is arrested and charged with murder and appears at Cheltenham Magistrates' Court.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-15794829

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:50:59 AM
28 January 2009 - Police confirm Prout is no longer suspected of murdering his wife.

10 March 2009 - Prout is arrested and charged with murder and appears at Cheltenham Magistrates' Court.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-15794829

Ten years ago and absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance?
You do seem to bring random quotes and newspapers articles and historic criminal cases into the debate.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 12:52:34 AM
You haven't got a clue. Police can do it anyway they want. They don't need to prewarn anyone!

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:54:47 AM
You haven't got a clue. Police can do it anyway they want. They don't need to prewarn anyone!

Yes I'm sure they do.
It's possibly the way the best way to operate an investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 12:55:53 AM
They don't need to prewarn the suspect(s) or the public that would result in a media circus that could ruin an investigation!

Don't make the same mistake twice springs to mind!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 12:57:20 AM
They don't need to prewarn the suspect(s) or the public that would result in a media circus that could ruin an investigation!

And I agree again with you.
The police will know how best to run an investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:57:56 AM
Is it my ignorance you are referring to?

I believe that you are ignorant of the direction that the investigation is taking. Am I wrong ?

We have two examples of the police proclaiming that individuals were not suspects when we know they were being investigated, Prout ( thank you Pathfinder) above and the parents in August 2007. You are in denial if you don’t think this again could be the case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:59:55 AM
And I agree again with you.
The police will know how best to run an investigation.

Indeed. Quietly I’m sure would be their preferance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 01:00:12 AM
I believe that you are ignorant of the direction that the investigation is taking. Am I wrong ?

We have two examples of the police proclaiming that individuals were not suspects when we know they were being investigated, Prout ( thank you Pathfinder) above and the parents in August 2007. You are in denial if you don’t think this again could be the case.

Which investigation?
And which direction is this investigation taking?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 01:00:46 AM
Indeed. Quietly I’m sure would be their preferance.

Of course.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 01:00:57 AM
And I agree again with you.
The police will know how best to run an investigation.

Agreed and they use tactics just as smart and sneaky as the perp(s). Their job is to solve it and how they go about it is their call.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 01:04:49 AM
Which investigation?
And which direction is this investigation taking?

I thought you knew.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 01:07:02 AM
Agreed and they use tactics just as smart and sneaky as the perp(s). Their job is to solve it and how they go about it is their call.

Within the bounds of the law of course.
No intimidating or threatening or even beating suspects.
As long as the correct judicial guidelines are followed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 01:08:09 AM
I’ll leave you with this :

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/college-policing-says-forces-should-name-suspects-when-charged-not-when-arrested/

But at point of arrest, the ( College of Policing ) guidance says: "Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis but, save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public."

Why do supporters think that this would not apply to the parents ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 01:08:45 AM
I thought you knew.

No I believe that is your perogative.
You have indicated before that you know more than any of us on this forum.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 01:26:39 AM
No I believe that is your perogative.
You have indicated before that you know more than any of us on this forum.

I’m not sure where you got that idea from.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 07:15:00 AM
No sceptic has been able to explain exactly what aspect of the parents they think the police have been spending the last 8 years and £12 m investigating.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 08:01:13 AM
If there is all this evidence against the McCann's... Whyvare they not being investigated... Why have they not been interviewed under caution by either investigation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 08:32:38 AM
If there is all this evidence against the McCann's... Whyvare they not being investigated... Why have they not been interviewed under caution by either investigation

Using that logic theres no evidence against anyone,thats why there's supposed to be ongoing investigations.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 08:35:16 AM
No sceptic has been able to explain exactly what aspect of the parents they think the police have been spending the last 8 years and £12 m investigating.


Is that why you think the thread was set up for,if not why the apparent dissappointment in "sceptics" noy playing ball.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 08:37:24 AM
Using that logic theres no evidence against anyone,thats why there's supposed to be ongoing investigations.

But sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns, enough evidence for sceptics to believe the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's. disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 08:43:35 AM
But sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns, enough evidence for sceptics to believe the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's. disappearance.


I think from reading some post's on other threads at times  one or two others(Supporters) believe they have seen some supposed evidence of Madeleine being held elsewhere and SY are using surveillance to monitor them, if a sceptic view is wrong is the view of the others also wrong?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 08:45:44 AM
No sceptic has been able to explain exactly what aspect of the parents they think the police have been spending the last 8 years and £12 m investigating.

Why should we want to ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 08:52:48 AM
Using that logic theres no evidence against anyone,thats why there's supposed to be ongoing investigations.

Murat has been reinterviewed... The burglars have been interviewed.. The McCann's haven't.
I dint know what SY and the PJ are working on but despite the evidence sceptics think exists they have not been reinterviewed and there us talk of the investigation closing... So... If there is real evidence against the McCann's why are both investigations taking no action....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 08:53:40 AM

I think from reading some post's on other threads at times  one or two others(Supporters) believe they have seen some supposed evidence of Madeleine being held elsewhere and SY are using surveillance to monitor them, if a sceptic view is wrong is the view of the others also wrong?


Supporters have differing views on what may or may not have happened to Madeleine but  as far as I am aware , no supporter on this forum has accused a named person of being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance.
Sceptics seem to believe that there is enough evidence of the McCanns involvement in Madeleine's disappearance that they can quite comfortably point their finger at her parents.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 08:55:26 AM
I thought as much,there was a sceptic bashing thread before.
Still nowt else happening is there.


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.0
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:01:39 AM
I thought as much,there was a sceptic bashing thread before.
Still nowt else happening is there.


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.0

It's a pity you take that view of this thread.
It is more of an opportunity for sceptics to explain why they steadfastly hold to their belief that there is enough evidence for them to point the finger at Madeleine's parents when after years of two current police investigations , neither of these investigations have seen enough evidence to do a similar finger pointing exercise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 09:03:12 AM

Supporters have differing views on what may or may not have happened to Madeleine but  as far as I am aware , no supporter on this forum has accused a named person of being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance.
Sceptics seem to believe that there is enough evidence of the McCanns involvement in Madeleine's disappearance that they can quite comfortably point their finger at her parents.

I think you'll find "sceptics" have  differing view's on what happened to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 09:05:03 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I certain have no need to explain my views or reasons behind them to anyone.
 I am trying to persuade no one to my way of thinking.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:06:54 AM
I think you'll find "sceptics" have  differing view's on what happened to Madeleine.

I've never read any sceptic view which does not point the finger at Madeleine's parents being involved in some way in her disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 09:07:33 AM
It's a pity you take that view of this thread.


If you read both threads you'll understand or maybe not as the case may be.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 09:10:23 AM
I've never read any sceptic view which does not point the finger at Madeleine's parents being involved in some way in her disappearance.

I don't suppose you have. It's the details of the disappearance where differences arise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:11:07 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I certain have no need to explain my views or reasons behind them to anyone.
 I am trying to persuade no one to my way of thinking.

But you do believe that there is enough evidence to satisfy your reasoning and view that Madeleine's parents are complicit in some way in her disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 09:12:06 AM
Murat has been reinterviewed... The burglars have been interviewed.. The McCann's haven't.
I dint know what SY and the PJ are working on but despite the evidence sceptics think exists they have not been reinterviewed and there us talk of the investigation closing... So... If there is real evidence against the McCann's why are both investigations taking no action....

So despite your constant criticism of the original investigation it was exemplery in investigating and not finding any evidence in linking the parents to the girls dissappearence.
Why else would there be no need to reinterview the parents?
But there again you might just might have touched on why its still ongoing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:13:08 AM
I don't suppose you have. It's the details of the disappearance where differences arise.

But all sceptics believe that her parents are involved.
The manner of the involvement does differ among sceptics.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 09:14:13 AM
But you do believe that there is enough evidence to satisfy your reasoning and view that Madeleine's parents are complicit in some way in her disappearance?

I see no evidence to discount their involvement.
I see no evidence to support their abduction claim.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:15:28 AM
If you read both threads you'll understand or maybe not as the case may be.

If you find this thread to be a "sceptic bashing" thread, then just don't post on it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2019, 09:16:28 AM
If you find this thread to be a "sceptic bashing" thread, then just don't post on it.

What! and let you have all the fun.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:18:48 AM
I see no evidence to discount their involvement.
I see no evidence to support their abduction claim.

But you do see enough evidence to point the finger at them?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:20:42 AM
What! and let you have all the fun.

Unfortunately I'm signing off now.
A really busy day ahead.
I'll leave you to have "fun".
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 09:24:07 AM
But you do see enough evidence to point the finger at them?

Until I see compelling evidence of an alternative culprit, of course. Who else is there in the frame?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 05, 2019, 09:34:42 AM
Until I see compelling evidence of an alternative culprit, of course. Who else is there in the frame?


Fingers crossed and hopefully you are never called to do jury duty!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 11:27:14 AM
Until I see compelling evidence of an alternative culprit, of course. Who else is there in the frame?
OK ... burglars don't count.  An individual molesting children in their beds doesn't either.  Witness statements of men behaving oddly and on at least one occasion entering a property uninvited where there was a young child.

There seems to be a general belief among sceptics that none of this matters;  much as there is that Amaral's conduct of the Cipriano case was textbook excellence as was his conduct of the McCann case.

Only wee problem there is that no trace of either child has ever been found ... and the sceptic belief is that is entirely due to the parents.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 05, 2019, 11:31:54 AM
OK ... burglars don't count.  An individual molesting children in their beds doesn't either. Witness statements of men behaving oddly and on at least one occasion entering a property uninvited where there was a young child.

There seems to be a general belief among sceptics that none of this matters;  much as there is that Amaral's conduct of the Cipriano case was textbook excellence as was his conduct of the McCann case.

Only wee problem there is that no trace of either child has ever been found ... and the sceptic belief is that is entirely due to the parents.

All discarded - apparently.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 11:56:30 AM
It's a pity you take that view of this thread.
It is more of an opportunity for sceptics to explain why they steadfastly hold to their belief that there is enough evidence for them to point the finger at Madeleine's parents when after years of two current police investigations , neither of these investigations have seen enough evidence to do a similar finger pointing exercise.

What makes you think aceptics wanted or needed an opportunity ro explain anything? Should I start a thread giving you a similar opportunity?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 12:22:39 PM
What makes you think aceptics wanted or needed an opportunity ro explain anything? Should I start a thread giving you a similar opportunity?

That would certainly be a very short thread.....because the parents said so....the end !
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 01:14:58 PM
But all sceptics believe that her parents are involved.
The manner of the involvement does differ among sceptics.

But only to try to get around the obvious.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 01:25:46 PM
OK ... burglars don't count.  An individual molesting children in their beds doesn't either.  Witness statements of men behaving oddly and on at least one occasion entering a property uninvited where there was a young child.

There seems to be a general belief among sceptics that none of this matters;  much as there is that Amaral's conduct of the Cipriano case was textbook excellence as was his conduct of the McCann case.

Only wee problem there is that no trace of either child has ever been found ... and the sceptic belief is that is entirely due to the parents.

Is there any compelling evidence that any of these people were involved? If so it would be interesting to see it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 01:28:17 PM
Is there any compelling evidence that any of these people were involved? If so it would be interesting to see it.

Is there any compelling evidence that The McCanns are involved?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 01:43:52 PM
Is there any compelling evidence that The McCanns are involved?

So it’s as likely that it is the parents than AN Other.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 01:44:22 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 02:04:58 PM
So it’s as likely that it is the parents than AN Other.

And as likely not. 

These days I only hope I will live long enough to find out.

That one day I will hear that Madeleine has been found alive and unharmed.  Silly, I do know, although I always hope that she will.

Basically, we are all the same.  Mostly vaguely intelligent people with something lacking in our lives who come here nearly every day after twelve years in the hope of being proved right.

And we get a bit of craic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 02:05:48 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!

How utterly pathetic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 03:24:33 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!

A fine sceptic post
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 04:29:33 PM
A fine sceptic post

Indeed it is ... although not quite on a par with the horror who thought it a good idea to put Madeleine's profile on a dating site complete with photograph and accompanying offensive message.

What motivates these people?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 04:32:32 PM
Indeed it is ... although not quite on a par with the horror who thought it a good idea to put Madeleine's profile on a dating site complete with photograph and accompanying offensive message.

What motivates these people?

Hopefully we will never know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 05, 2019, 04:33:57 PM

What motivates these people?
Alcohol, a keyboard and a twisted sense of humour usually.
That's not a sceptic, that's an absolute tool.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 04:36:14 PM
Alcohol, a keyboard and a twisted sense of humour usually.
That's not a sceptic, that's an absolute tool.

If you say so.

For me I think it is deeper and darker than that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 04:51:25 PM
If you say so.

For me I think it is deeper and darker than that.

Of course it is.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 04:57:02 PM
Where there is a microphone there will very likely be a camera.
Anyone remember the SHOCK HORROR footage of Gerry laughing posted on the internet as part of the sceptic case?

It's all in the mindset when portrayed out of context as most of the of the sceptic beliefs invariably are.

Snip
With the family around there was always the odd funny moment to alleviate the tension and keep us sane.
That last evening, Gerry’s mum was sitting outside on the patio giving it lots of granny chat (which our granny does exceptionally well) when we suddenly spotted a big, furry boom microphone hovering over the patio wall. Whether it was Eileen’s colourful outburst on finally noticing this fluffy intruder, or the thought that anyone would need a boom microphone around Granny McCann (she’s quite loud), we all collapsed into fits of belly-aching
laughter.
        Kate McCann: MADELEINE
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 05:03:23 PM
Where there is a microphone there will very likely be a camera.
Anyone remember the SHOCK HORROR footage of Gerry laughing posted on the internet as part of the sceptic case?

It's all in the mindset when portrayed out of context as most of the of the sceptic beliefs invariably are.

Snip
With the family around there was always the odd funny moment to alleviate the tension and keep us sane.
That last evening, Gerry’s mum was sitting outside on the patio giving it lots of granny chat (which our granny does exceptionally well) when we suddenly spotted a big, furry boom microphone hovering over the patio wall. Whether it was Eileen’s colourful outburst on finally noticing this fluffy intruder, or the thought that anyone would need a boom microphone around Granny McCann (she’s quite loud), we all collapsed into fits of belly-aching
laughter.
        Kate McCann: MADELEINE

No matter how you paint it, this behaviour is not natural when you have no idea whether your child is dead or with predators.

It appears that it is okay to suggest Madeleine is dead but not that she is with predators. Even stranger when you consider that much of the Netflix documentary was about Metodo 3 and their research into the sex trafficking of children and its connection, or not,  to Madeleine’s disappearance. I presume the parents supported this research.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 06:00:18 PM

Is that why you think the thread was set up for,if not why the apparent dissappointment in "sceptics" noy playing ball.
Nope, I would just like to know that’s all, I’m always curious about the thought processes of the seriously self-deluding conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 06:01:31 PM
Why should we want to ?
Of course you wouldn’t want to - that would have to involve some actual logical thinking.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 06:08:19 PM
No matter how you paint it, this behaviour is not natural when you have no idea whether your child is dead or with predators.

It appears that it is okay to suggest Madeleine is dead but not that she is with predators. Even stranger when you consider that much of the Netflix documentary was about Metodo 3 and their research into the sex trafficking of children and its connection, or not,  to Madeleine’s disappearance. I presume the parents supported this research.
Oh FFS I sometimes wonder if you are a human or a sceptic-bot.  There is nothing unnatural about that behaviour, nothing at all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 06:14:19 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!
yes you, by the looks of it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 06:47:11 PM
‘You are my Madeleine, my only Madeleine.

“’You make me happy, when skies are grey.

“‘You’ll never know, dear, how much I love you.

“‘Please don’t take my Madeleine away.’” *%87 Is somebody takin da piss!

Why has this post been allowed to stay... Why has the poster not been suspended
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 06:53:20 PM
Why has this post been allowed to stay... Why has the poster not been suspended

Suspended for what?  Writing the word 'piss'?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 07:05:00 PM
I think the word 'belief' is more applicable to supporters than to sceptics.

Supporters have a core belief they all share imo; there is an explanation for Madeleines's disappearance which doesn't involve her parents or friends or woke and wandered.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 07:08:40 PM
Why has this post been allowed to stay... Why has the poster not been suspended

If they are then anyone writing FFS should get the sane treatment. We know what those letters stand for, you know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 07:14:16 PM
I think the word 'belief' is more applicable to supporters than to sceptics.

Supporters have a core belief they all share imo; there is an explanation for Madeleines's disappearance which doesn't involve her parents or friends or woke and wandered.

You don't seem to realise that your conclusions are based on beliefs.. But there are also some hard facts... Statements by both investigations.. And the fact there is no evidence the mccanns are being investigated
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2019, 08:02:46 PM
You don't seem to realise that your conclusions are based on beliefs.. But there are also some hard facts... Statements by both investigations.. And the fact there is no evidence the mccanns are being investigated

And no evidence that anyone else is.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 08:24:59 PM
You don't seem to realise that your conclusions are based on beliefs.. But there are also some hard facts... Statements by both investigations.. And the fact there is no evidence the mccanns are being investigated

I have concluded that the McCann couple couldn't remember the words that their daughter uttered on 3rd May 2007. I reached that conclusion because they gave three different versions of her words. There's a cold hard fact for you.

Here's another. The PJ were accused of leaking Kate McCann's first statement to a journalist. It caused quite a stir when he reported what it said; that Madeleine told her parents that she and Sean woke up and cried on 2nd May. I don't know what document the journalist had, but it wasn't Kate McCann's first statement because that's not what she saud.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 08:34:21 PM
If they are then anyone writing FFS should get the sane treatment. We know what those letters stand for, you know.
Do you seriously think Davel was objecting to the word “piss”?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 08:49:26 PM
I have concluded that the McCann couple couldn't remember the words that their daughter uttered on 3rd May 2007. I reached that conclusion because they gave three different versions of her words. There's a cold hard fact for you.

Here's another. The PJ were accused of leaking Kate McCann's first statement to a journalist. It caused quite a stir when he reported what it said; that Madeleine told her parents that she and Sean woke up and cried on 2nd May. I don't know what document the journalist had, but it wasn't Kate McCann's first statement because that's not what she saud.

I actually lost all respect for you as someone who could evaluluate evidence when you claimed that smoking didn't cause lung cancer.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 09:04:25 PM
I actually lost all respect for you as someone who could evaluluate evidence when you claimed that smoking didn't cause lung cancer.

It's of no interest to me whether you respect my abilities or not. Aren't you going to refute my cold hard facts?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 09:07:50 PM
It's of no interest to me whether you respect my abilities or not. Aren't you going to refute my cold hard facts?

You don't have any hard cold facts... You just think you do..
If the deleted posts, were of any consequence the authorities would have acted on them

I dint think you realise, what cold hard facts are... Smoking causes lung cancer... Thats a cold hard fact...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 09:22:47 PM
No matter how you paint it, this behaviour is not natural when you have no idea whether your child is dead or with predators.
 
It’s interesting that this post has been changed twice by a moderator to remove the word predators and I have received a warning for reposting it. It appears that it is okay to suggest Madeleine is dead but not that she is with predators, even though it is not libellous or against forum rules. I will continue to repost it until it is fairly judged.

When you consider that much of the Netflix documentary was about Metodo3 and their research into the sex trafficking of children and its connection, or not,  to Madeleine’s disappearance, research I presume the parents supported, that it offends some mods to the point of deleting the same point is strange to say the least.

Gerry knew that paedophile gangs had taken Maddie & Kate too knew that "The f..king b........s" had taken her, immediately after the alarm had been raised. Indeed, I can't see how they could laugh, or even raise a smile while in possession of that certain knowledge.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 09:34:40 PM
You don't have any hard cold facts... You just think you do..
If the deleted posts, were of any consequence the authorities would have acted on them

I dint think you realise, what cold hard facts are... Smoking causes lung cancer... Thats a cold hard fact...

I smoked for 20 years & I don't have lung cancer.  ?>)()<
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 09:36:48 PM
Gerry knew that paedophile gangs had taken Maddie & Kate too knew that "The f....ing b......s" had taken her, immediately after the alarm had been raised. Indeed, I can't see how they could laugh, or even raise a smile while in possession of that certain knowledge.
Is you it your belief that no one whose child has disappeared without trace ever smiled or laughed again for the rest of their lives?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 09:46:57 PM
Is you it your belief that no one whose child has disappeared without trace ever smiled or laughed again for the rest of their lives?

No, but knowing, as the McCanns did, that Maddie was in the clutches of a paedophile gang, would surely make it difficult for them to find humour in anything for quite some time, I'd imagine.
This wasn't just a suspicion they had, they knew their precious child was in the clutches of child sex offenders. What would there be to smile about? Balloons & microphones?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 09:52:58 PM
You don't have any hard cold facts... You just think you do..
If the deleted posts, were of any consequence the authorities would have acted on them

I dint think you realise, what cold hard facts are... Smoking causes lung cancer... Thats a cold hard fact...

Why are my facts not facts in your opinion?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 09:58:31 PM
Why are my facts not facts in your opinion?

I have concluded that the McCann couple couldn't remember the words that their daughter uttered on 3rd May 2007. I reached that conclusion because they gave three different versions of her words. There's a cold hard fact for you.

Where are the three different versions... Are you relying on the statements... We don't know how accurate, they are...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 09:59:44 PM
I smoked for 20 years & I don't have lung cancer.  ?>)()<

Only twenty years?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:02:12 PM
I smoked for 20 years & I don't have lung cancer.  ?>)()<

Precisely... You dont realize the significance of your statement... Would you discourage your children from smoking.. More children as they grow older will die an horrific death from smoking and the effects of smoking than Wil come to harm from being left alone in a holiday apartment
 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:03:49 PM
Only twenty years?

Maybe 25 actually now I think about it.  Smoked like a trooper so I did, 20 plus a day, hand rolled strong tobacco. It never did me any harm.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:05:25 PM
Precisely... You dont realize the significance of your statement... Would you discourage your children from smoking

Nope, I think smoking is good for you. It suppresses the appetite, thus preventing obesity.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:06:46 PM
Nope, I think smoking is good for you. It suppresses the appetite, thus preventing obesity.

Great.. You show how well informed and educated skeptics are
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:07:56 PM
Great.. You show how well informed and educated sceotics are

I don't claim to represent sceptics on the whole. My views are my own & mine only.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:09:22 PM
I don't claim to represent sceptics on the whole. My views are my own & mine only.
Doesn't matter what you claim you are a sceptic and represent skeptics
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:11:18 PM
Doesn't matter what you claim you are a sceptic and represent skeptics

I don't recall being elected as a representative. I'd want paying for that responsibility, about 12 million squids should cover it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:12:40 PM
I don't recall being elected as a representative. I'd want paying for that responsibility, about 12 million squids should cover it.

You weren't elected... Your posts identify  you..I'd say 12 squid an hour us more representative
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:13:26 PM
I don't recall being elected as a representative. I'd want paying for that responsibility, about 12 million squids should cover it.

I'm on your side on this one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:16:01 PM
You weren't elected... Your posts identify  you..

No they don't. My identification is a closely guarded secret thank you very much.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:16:40 PM
I'm on your side on this one.

Yes... You seemed to have problems with me when I showed the link between smoking and lung cancer
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:17:22 PM
No they don't. My identification is a closely guarded secret thank you very much.
You are identified as a sceptic..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:18:14 PM
You weren't elected... Your posts identify  you..I'd say 12 squid an hour us more representative

Oh, do give over.  You aren't much fun are you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:19:20 PM
You are identified as a sceptic..

For a minute there I thought you said I was septic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 10:19:52 PM
I have concluded that the McCann couple couldn't remember the words that their daughter uttered on 3rd May 2007. I reached that conclusion because they gave three different versions of her words. There's a cold hard fact for you.

Where are the three different versions... Are you relying on the statements... We don't know how accurate, they are...

So your answer is just the same old mantra? OK. How did that journalist misread Kate McCann's first statement then? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 10:20:12 PM
I smoked for 20 years & I don't have lung cancer.  ?>)()<
I grew up in a tropical country, was exposed to equatorial sunrays for years without ever wearing suntan lotion and have never had skin cancer, therefore sun rays obviously don’t cause cancer.  8((()*/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:21:05 PM
Oh, do give over.  You aren't much fun are you.

Lung cancer isn't much fun and it's a disgrace to try and pretend smoking isn't a cause if it... In fact it's more irresponsible  than leaving children in an unlocked apartment
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:24:40 PM
I grew up in a tropical country, was exposed to equatorial sunrays for years without ever wearing suntan lotion and have never had skin cancer, therefore sun rays obviously don’t cause cancer.  8((()*/

It's a pertinent  point because it shows that some posters dint understand what evidence is
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:26:32 PM
Yes... You seemed to have problems with me when I showed the link between smoking and lung cancer

Oh for God's sake.  I am eighty years old and have smoked for all of my adult life.  No.  It isn't a good idea.  But I haven't got Lung Cancer.  Or any other Cancer that you might want to blame on smoking.  Okay?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 05, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
Precisely... You dont realize the significance of your statement... Would you discourage your children from smoking.. More children as they grow older will die an horrific death from smoking and the effects of smoking than Wil come to harm from being left alone in a holiday apartment

If you're so bothered you should have noticed the growing concern about traffic emmissons imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:29:46 PM
Oh for God's sake.  I am eighty years old and have smoked for all of my adult life.  No.  It isn't a good idea.  But I haven't got Lung Cancer.  Or any other Cancer that you might want to blame on smoking.  Okay?
Okay what... Smoking causes lung cancer and it's irresponsible to suggest it doesn't.. More irresponsible  than leaving the children in sn unlocked apartment.. I make no aplogy for my disgust at thosr who try to pretend smoking is acceptable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:31:19 PM
If you're so bothered you should have noticed the growing concern about traffic emmissons imo.

I have noticed and that's why there us a movement yo electric cars.. Have you not noticed that
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:32:02 PM
If you're so bothered you should have noticed the growing concern about traffic emmissons imo.

I drive a Prius hybrid, low emissions, doing my bit for the environment. I think traffic emissions & cars on the whole are more deadly than ciggies  ?>)()<
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:34:48 PM
I drive a Prius hybrid, low emissions, doing my bit for the environment. I think traffic emissions & cars on the whole are more deadly than ciggies  ?>)()<
Doesn't matter what you think.. It's what the evidence says
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 05, 2019, 10:34:57 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:36:17 PM
So your answer is just the same old mantra? OK. How did that journalist misread Kate McCann's first statement then?
Which first statement... The ine in Portuguese.. We don't know how accurate thst is
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:38:27 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.

Smoking causes lung cancer the evidence proves it... Based on your, argument how would you feel about your grandchildren  smoking.. Would you deter them
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:40:11 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.

It was epidemiology that proved the link.. So I think I understand it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:42:57 PM
Okay what... Smoking causes lung cancer and it's irresponsible to suggest it doesn't.. More irresponsible  than leaving the children in sn unlocked apartment.. I make no aplogy for my disgust at thosr who try to pretend smoking is acceptable

I did both.  So now what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 10:44:18 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.
Do you think it’s possible that the smoking contibuted in any way to the strokes and heart attacks?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:45:38 PM
I did both.  So now what?

So did I... But I would not recommend either
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:46:20 PM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.

I am not even going to die from that.  My blood pressure is always low.  I don't know why.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:46:50 PM
Do you think it’s possible that the smoking contibuted in any way to the strokes and heart attacks?

Of course it did
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 10:48:56 PM
So did I... But I would not recommend either

Well, there's good.  Thank Christ for that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 10:50:12 PM
Interesting.. I..like Eleanor ...left a baby sleeping in an apartment whilst I dined 50 metres, awa..nothing happened si it's obviously perfectly safe.. Why all the criticism of the mccanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 05, 2019, 10:57:08 PM
Interesting.. I..like Eleanor ...left a baby sleeping in an apartment whilst I dined 50 metres, awa..nothing happened si it's obviously perfectly safe.. Why all the criticism of the mccanns
Did you leave the baby some ciggies to smoke?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 05, 2019, 10:59:33 PM
Did you leave the baby some ciggies to smoke?
I blew smoke directly into my babies faces and they thrived on it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 11:02:29 PM
Did you leave the baby some ciggies to smoke?

According to you that would have been  quite, acceptable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 11:07:26 PM
Why has this post been allowed to stay... Why has the poster not been suspended

That was published today!

Friday 5 April 2019
Madeleine McCann: The heartbreaking 'ironic' song Kate recalls singing with her daughter
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1110159/madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-ironic-song-kate-mccann-recalls-spt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 11:13:40 PM
Interesting.. I..like Eleanor ...left a baby sleeping in an apartment whilst I dined 50 metres, awa..nothing happened si it's obviously perfectly safe.. Why all the criticism of the mccanns

I think I have briefly run out of steam.  Cheeky Monkey has wiped me out.  I am now a Wreck.  Back tomorrow.  Or maybe the next day.  But don't count on it.

Charlotte, the demented Pug has just pissed on the floor again, and so has Connor the Dachshund, but he's not demented, yet.  However, it is looking like an option for me.  Sorry, being demented, I meant, and not pissing on the floor.  Oh, for God's sake.  Time I went to bed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 05, 2019, 11:20:22 PM
Smoking causes lung cancer the evidence proves it... Based on your, argument how would you feel about your grandchildren  smoking.. Would you deter them
My grandchildren are not related to me by genetics.

However, my beloved's family also appears to be prone to deaths related to high blood pressure, not cancer.

I don't lecture my children about topics such as smoking or high blood pressure.  I put in a little gentle steerage from time to time, but otherwise they are the responsible authorities, not me.  My time is past.

Here's a small true story for you.  We oldies don't have a Netflix subscription.  But I twigged in a conversation that the kids do, so the question arose, could I borrow it to watch the Madeleine series?  The answer was yes, so far, so good.

The next part of the conversation was about the '14 bottles of wine' allegation.  I felt obliged to do a little steerage, to explain that the 14 bottles were not just for the T9, but for all those entitled parties in the Tapas on that occasion.  Oh!

Our kids did not watch the Netflix series.  Having worked in Luz, they are sick to the back teeth of the MBM story.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 05, 2019, 11:24:48 PM
That was published today!

Friday 5 April 2019
Madeleine McCann: The heartbreaking 'ironic' song Kate recalls singing with her daughter
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1110159/madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-ironic-song-kate-mccann-recalls-spt


Indeed somebody sure is "takin da piss!"  *%87 and it certainly is not a heartbroken mother. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2019, 11:25:37 PM
My grandchildren are not related to me by genetics.

However, my beloved's family also appears to be prone to deaths related to high blood pressure, not cancer.

I don't lecture my children about topics such as smoking or high blood pressure.  I put in a little gentle steerage from time to time, but otherwise they are the responsible authorities, not me.  My time is past.

Here's a small true story for you.  We oldies don't have a Netflix subscription.  But I twigged in a conversation that the kids do, so the question arose, could I borrow it to watch the Madeleine series?  The answer was yes, so far, so good.

The next part of the conversation was about the '14 bottles of wine' allegation.  I felt obliged to do a little steerage, to explain that the 14 bottles were not just for the T9, but for all those entitled parties in the Tapas on that occasion.  Oh!

Our kids did not watch the Netflix series.  Having worked in Luz, they are sick to the back teeth of the MBM story.

I don't need to lecture my children Re smoking.. They are intelligent enough to understand  the evidence... Everyone isn't.. Obviously
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 05, 2019, 11:32:34 PM


Indeed somebody sure is "takin da piss!"  *%87 and it certainly is not a heartbroken mother.

She sure does take the piss! The one question she answered proves it!

49. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

Kate McCann Answer: ‘Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.’
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 11:48:35 PM
My grandchildren are not related to me by genetics.

However, my beloved's family also appears to be prone to deaths related to high blood pressure, not cancer.

I don't lecture my children about topics such as smoking or high blood pressure.  I put in a little gentle steerage from time to time, but otherwise they are the responsible authorities, not me.  My time is past.

Here's a small true story for you.  We oldies don't have a Netflix subscription.  But I twigged in a conversation that the kids do, so the question arose, could I borrow it to watch the Madeleine series?  The answer was yes, so far, so good.

The next part of the conversation was about the '14 bottles of wine' allegation.  I felt obliged to do a little steerage, to explain that the 14 bottles were not just for the T9, but for all those entitled parties in the Tapas on that occasion.  Oh!

Our kids did not watch the Netflix series.  Having worked in Luz, they are sick to the back teeth of the MBM story.

Been there and done all of this.  Hopefully without anger, although some of it was too long ago to remember.  I suspect that I might have been a bit cross now and again.  14 Bottles if wine.  What a colossal fib that was.

My youngest son thinks that I am cracked.  Not because I believe The Mccanns, but because I have the patience, although God knows what he thinks I should be doing.  At my age there isn't too much going on that anyone could find riveting.

Sceptic Beliefs?  Perhaps it is the same for Sceptics.  Most of us are over the hill.  No where to go other than to hope.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 05, 2019, 11:50:53 PM
I blew smoke directly into my babies faces and they thrived on it.

Oh, you are a one.  Chimps Ahoy.  That was fun.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 06, 2019, 07:21:59 AM
Oh, you are a one.  Chimps Ahoy.  That was fun.
Troll the trolls.  It’s the only way...  8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 09:18:51 AM
Crikey, it shows that most people on here don't understand genetics, epidemiology or statistics.

My very large extended family had many frequent smokers in it.  Not a single one died from lung cancer.  Our genetics are that we are prone to high blood pressure, so we die like flies from heart attacks, (my father), and strokes (my mother).

I have been around passive smoking for decades.  It won't kill me.  My focus is high blood pressure.  That will kill me.

They certainly don't understand epidemiology or statistics if they think either proves cause and effect imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 06, 2019, 09:21:43 AM
They certainly don't understand epidemiology or statistics if they think either proves cause and effect imo.

It's not what anyone here thinks it's what the world experts in this field think... But if course you know better than the world's experts ...it's significant because it shows your. unwillingness to accept overwhelming evidence when it is presented to you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 09:28:17 AM

The topic of the thread is ... "Sceptics  beliefs ?"  Please bear that in mind when posting.  Thank you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 02:03:39 PM
It's not what anyone here thinks it's what the world experts in this field think... But if course you know better than the world's experts ...it's significant because it shows your. unwillingness to accept overwhelming evidence when it is presented to you

Cornell University shares my opinion, so It's not my 'belief';

Epidemiological studies can never prove causation; that is, it cannot prove that a specific risk factor actually causes the disease being studied.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/TIB/epidemiology.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 06, 2019, 03:08:23 PM
Cornell University shares my opinion, so It's not my 'belief';

Epidemiological studies can never prove causation; that is, it cannot prove that a specific risk factor actually causes the disease being studied.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/TIB/epidemiology.html

I have claimed the evidence shows smoking causes lung cancer... You and others have claimed this is not a fact... It might be better if you actually read the, article you quoted... It contains...

The rates of lung cancer are much higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Does this prove that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No. In order to prove that cigarette smoking is the factor causing this increase in lung cancer, it was necessary to expose animals to tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke extracts. This was done under highly controlled conditions where the only difference between the controls (animals not exposed to smoke) and treated animals was the exposure to smoke. These laboratory studies proved the causal association between smoking and increased risk of cancer....


So the paper YOU quoted confirms the causal link between smoking and lung cancer... Hopefully this will be the last post on the topic and you should now accept you have been wrong all along
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 04:44:35 PM
One of the sceptic beliefs which is still under discussion by and can apparently be found repeated on twitter even today is 'blood spatter'.  The myth of blood spatter just isn't substantiated in the files ... in fact the files indicate the exact opposite http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7281.msg336681#msg336681
Yet it still persists 12 years down the line defying evidence that there was no such thing ... and ultimately defying logic.

Why believe? something which just isn't true ... as the mythical blood spatter demonstrates.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 06, 2019, 05:20:51 PM
And then there’s the lichen on the window ledge myth which still does the rounds from time to time.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 05:34:46 PM
And then there’s the lichen on the window ledge myth which still does the rounds from time to time.

So 'proof' that Madeleine couldn't have been abducted via the window was that the lichen on the window ledge hadn't been disturbed.
Forensic photographs of the time illustrate that there was no lichen present to begin with.  Yet people believed that for years and as you say ... it still pops up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 06, 2019, 05:40:05 PM
So 'proof' that Madeleine couldn't have been abducted via the window was that the lichen on the window ledge hadn't been disturbed.
Forensic photographs of the time illustrate that there was no lichen present to begin with.  Yet people believed that for years and as you say ... it still pops up.
It was microscopic invisible lichen apparently...  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 05:40:42 PM
The belief that the shutter could not be raised from outside was firmly defended for many years.  I think Amaral may have mentioned it in his book.

That belief is something which has been debunked by a leading sceptic and we have all seen demonstrations of it being done.

Has that belief finally hit the dustbin of history ... or is it still raised on social media?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 06, 2019, 05:51:17 PM
The belief that the shutter could not be raised from outside was firmly defended for many years.  I think Amaral may have mentioned it in his book.

That belief is something which has been debunked by a leading sceptic and we have all seen demonstrations of it being done.

Has that belief finally hit the dustbin of history ... or is it still raised on social media?

Diane Webster proved the shutter couldn’t be opened without damage on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, a media crew a few weeks later. I really don’t know who benefits from misrepresenting already established facts.

From the files:


- Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 06, 2019, 06:06:04 PM
The belief that the shutter could not be raised from outside was firmly defended for many years.  I think Amaral may have mentioned it in his book.

That belief is something which has been debunked by a leading sceptic and we have all seen demonstrations of it being done.

Has that belief finally hit the dustbin of history ... or is it still raised on social media?

"However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 06:23:08 PM
I have claimed the evidence shows smoking causes lung cancer... You and others have claimed this is not a fact... It might be better if you actually read the, article you quoted... It contains...

The rates of lung cancer are much higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Does this prove that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No. In order to prove that cigarette smoking is the factor causing this increase in lung cancer, it was necessary to expose animals to tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke extracts. This was done under highly controlled conditions where the only difference between the controls (animals not exposed to smoke) and treated animals was the exposure to smoke. These laboratory studies proved the causal association between smoking and increased risk of cancer....


So the paper YOU quoted confirms the causal link between smoking and lung cancer... Hopefully this will be the last post on the topic and you should now accept you have been wrong all along

If there was no difference between a cause and a causal link there would be no need to use different words to describe them. I understand the difference but I will stop trying to explain it now. Heads and brick walls come to mind.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 06:30:54 PM
One of the sceptic beliefs which is still under discussion by and can apparently be found repeated on twitter even today is 'blood spatter'.  The myth of blood spatter just isn't substantiated in the files ... in fact the files indicate the exact opposite http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7281.msg336681#msg336681
Yet it still persists 12 years down the line defying evidence that there was no such thing ... and ultimately defying logic.

Why believe? something which just isn't true ... as the mythical blood spatter demonstrates.

I assume that's a rhetorical question?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 06, 2019, 06:41:58 PM
If there was no difference between a cause and a causal link there would be no need to use different words to describe them. I understand the difference but I will stop trying to explain it now. Heads and brick walls come to mind.
There is no proof that uv rays cause skin cancer so I guess you don’t believe that either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 06, 2019, 06:47:12 PM
If there was no difference between a cause and a causal link there would be no need to use different words to describe them. I understand the difference but I will stop trying to explain it now. Heads and brick walls come to mind.
have you read the article you linked to...did you read and understand my post...have another look...



The rates of lung cancer are much higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Does this prove that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No. In order to prove that cigarette smoking is the factor causing this increase in lung cancer, it was necessary to expose animals to tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke extracts. This was done under highly controlled conditions where the only difference between the controls (animals not exposed to smoke) and treated animals was the exposure to smoke. These laboratory studies proved the causal association between smoking and increased risk of cancer...
.


it says cigarrettes are the factor causing the increase in lung cancer...how much clearer does it need to be....


what this shows to me is you have a totally closed mind and just will not accept clear evidence taht contradicts it.....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 07:39:08 PM
I assume that's a rhetorical question?

Feel free to answer it if you are so inclined.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
"However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

As I said ... despite watching a demonstration of exactly how the shutter was raised there is huge resistance to relinquishing the sceptic belief that it was impossible to do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 06, 2019, 08:17:08 PM
As I said ... despite watching a demonstration of exactly how the shutter was raised there is huge resistance to relinquishing the sceptic belief that it was impossible to do.

Dianne was there on the night of the disappearance and tried the shutter that night. Peter Mac raised the shutter years later so who knows what had happened to it in the meantime.

It always amuses me when individuals who weren’t there on the night attempt to second guess individuals who were. Why would Dianne Webster say that she couldn’t raise the shutters if she could ? What would she have to gain.

John would it be possible to have a fingers in ears emoticon?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 06, 2019, 08:24:48 PM
Dianne was there on the night of the disappearance and tried the shutter that night. Peter Mac raised the shutter years later so who knows what had happened to it in the meantime.

It always amuses me when individuals who weren’t there on the night attempt to second guess individuals who were. Why would Dianne Webster say that she couldn’t raise the shutters if she could ? What would she have to gain.

John would it be possible to have a fingers in ears emoticon?
But you yourself have posted an excerpt from the files in which the police themselves say they saw the shutter forced open.  How was this possible if Dianne Webster could not perform the feat?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 06, 2019, 09:21:41 PM
Feel free to answer it if you are so inclined.

It's nothing to do with me. I just wondered who you were talking to. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2019, 09:47:29 PM
It's nothing to do with me. I just wondered who you were talking to.

??? ... you did after all respond to my post which I think does make it 'something to do with' you otherwise why bother? ... but hey-ho ...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 06, 2019, 10:59:23 PM
As I said ... despite watching a demonstration of exactly how the shutter was raised there is huge resistance to relinquishing the sceptic belief that it was impossible to do.

On 3 May 2007 they could not be raised by Dianne as seen in crime scene photos. They had stuck that's why that weren't fully down! They normally fall back down but there's a gap at the bottom which means the shutters had stuck! Elementary like the evidence found on the alleged open window!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 01:00:31 AM
On 3 May 2007 they could not be raised by Dianne as seen in crime scene photos. They had stuck that's why that weren't fully down! They normally fall back down but there's a gap at the bottom which means the shutters had stuck! Elementary like the evidence found on the alleged open window!
Snip
He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside.
___________________________________________________________________

 ... the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back ...
___________________________________________________________________

----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.  G McCann 10/05/2007
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm


Sceptics believe that the crime scene was 'staged'.
They've never come up with an explanation as to why having carefully opened the window and raised the shutter to 'simulate' an abduction ... this 'master criminal' went to the bother of destroying the 'set up' by closing the shutter before the police could see it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 01:17:47 AM
Snip
He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside.
___________________________________________________________________

 ... the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back ...
___________________________________________________________________

----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.  G McCann 10/05/2007
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm


Sceptics believe that the crime scene was 'staged'.
They've never come up with an explanation as to why having carefully opened the window and raised the shutter to 'simulate' an abduction ... this 'master criminal' went to the bother of destroying the 'set up' by closing the shutter before the police could see it.

Whether or not there was an abduction you have to ask why he did that ? This concerned parent who knew it was an abduction from the get go, or so we’re told, decided to tamper with the shutters he believed had been used by the abductor and by doing so risked contaminating any evidence that had been deposited there. What did he hope to achieve by messing with the shutters ? Did it matter at that point whether they’d been opened from the outside to let someone in or the inside to let someone out ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 07:33:33 AM
Snip
He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside.
___________________________________________________________________

 ... the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back ...
___________________________________________________________________

----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.  G McCann 10/05/2007
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm


Sceptics believe that the crime scene was 'staged'.
They've never come up with an explanation as to why having carefully opened the window and raised the shutter to 'simulate' an abduction ... this 'master criminal' went to the bother of destroying the 'set up' by closing the shutter before the police could see it.

Who says Gerry McCann opened the window and shutter?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 08:11:23 AM
Is a supposed open window the sole reserve of an alleged abductor?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 08:43:44 AM
Who says Gerry McCann opened the window and shutter?
I thought you believed the McCanns staged an abduction?  Do you think only one of them did while the other had no idea that’s what was going on? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 10:25:16 AM
I thought you believed the McCanns staged an abduction?  Do you think only one of them did while the other had no idea that’s what was going on?

Beiief is not a word I'm fond of actually. I don't believe anything in the way the McCann supporters do. They're convinced the McCanns are innocent and are highly inlikely to change their miinds. I'm not convinced of their innocence, but neither am I concinced of their guilt. I am undecided. I acknowledge possibilities, I don't 'believe' in them. One of those possibilitues is a staged abduction scene. Another is that it had to be changed due to unforseen circumstances.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 10:47:01 AM
Beiief is not a word I'm fond of actually. I don't believe anything in the way the McCann supporters do. They're convinced the McCanns are innocent and are highly inlikely to change their miinds. I'm not convinced of their innocence, but neither am I concinced of their guilt. I am undecided. I acknowledge possibilities, I don't 'believe' in them. One of those possibilitues is a staged abduction scene. Another is that it had to be changed due to unforseen circumstances.
As this thread is about sceptics ‘ beliefs perhaps it isn’t the thread for you.  Sitting on the fence allows you to cast doubt about anything and everything without ever having to commit yourself either way ans it is IMO a technique to enable you to wriggle out of any position when the logic of that position is exposed as flawed.  You do it in every discussion whether it’s smoking, Brexit or this case.  You have no firm views on anything, or claim not to, and I find it extremely slippery.  You are not convinced of the McCanns’ guilt?  When have you once tested the “staged abduction and hid the body”  theory critically?  Never on this forum as far as I recall.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 10:59:50 AM
Beiief is not a word I'm fond of actually. I don't believe anything in the way the McCann supporters do. They're convinced the McCanns are innocent and are highly inlikely to change their miinds. I'm not convinced of their innocence, but neither am I concinced of their guilt. I am undecided. I acknowledge possibilities, I don't 'believe' in them. One of those possibilitues is a staged abduction scene. Another is that it had to be changed due to unforseen circumstances.

i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:12:34 AM
Quite.  G-Unit believes the McCanns acted oddly, then cites a photo on one ten thousandth of a second in time to illustrate the perceived oddness. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:19:15 AM
i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif
It’s an interesting point actually.  If the McCanns were tried on the evidence that we so far have that purports to point to their guilt, would G-Unit have to find them “Not Guilty”?  I guess by her own admission having just declared she isnot convinced of their guilt thst she would have to clear them of involvement.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 07, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Who says Gerry McCann opened the window and shutter?

Himself and his wife say he raised the shutter. Evidence suggests it was Kate who opened the window.  The shutter will fall back down if raised so I don't think anybody saw them in a fully raised position. I think Dianne was the first to raise them and got them stuck otherwise why would Kate get her to do it if Gerry had already tried? It does not add up!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 11:34:46 AM
Beiief is not a word I'm fond of actually. I don't believe anything in the way the McCann supporters do. They're convinced the McCanns are innocent and are highly inlikely to change their miinds. I'm not convinced of their innocence, but neither am I concinced of their guilt. I am undecided. I acknowledge possibilities, I don't 'believe' in them. One of those possibilitues is a staged abduction scene. Another is that it had to be changed due to unforseen circumstances.

based on your logic a judicial system would be impossible...every trial would result without any conclusion...no one could be found guilty or not guilty....you have to look at the evidence and make a decision...based on the evidence...and based on the evidence at the moment the mccanns would be found not guilty....and cleared
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 12:44:46 PM
i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif

Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 12:48:19 PM
Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee

The jury decides who's evidence it believes as you have confirmed... They reach a verdict based on belief..
To look at belief as being worthless is ridiculous... How else can any trial rec a conclusion without a belief based on the evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 12:57:26 PM
Whether or not there was an abduction you have to ask why he did that ? This concerned parent who knew it was an abduction from the get go, or so we’re told, decided to tamper with the shutters he believed had been used by the abductor and by doing so risked contaminating any evidence that had been deposited there. What did he hope to achieve by messing with the shutters ? Did it matter at that point whether they’d been opened from the outside to let someone in or the inside to let someone out ?

I think it did matter because, if they claimed the intruder came in via a window it would not be a good look if the bloody shutter didn't open for him/her to 'escape with MBM.

I am of the opinion there is a very good reason why the room was 'searched' by the Tapas and the shutters/window was tested-Allowing contamination of evidence- IF THERE WAS ANY from a stranger.

Perhaps they all panicked about what would happen to them- leaving their children alone everynight-to wine and dine on this 'family' holiday- jail? loss of jobs? children removed to social care in Portugual..

Claiming abduction  from the bed would be a great get -out- of -jail- card-free for them!

It could have  worked...until the seen abductor was found not to be an abductor by UK Police, The time line was moved, and the police in Portugual never believed it, and now  SY are looking at walked and wandered...

This leaves me with two questions...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 01:03:42 PM
The jury decides who's evidence it believes as you have confirmed... They reach a verdict based on belief..
To look at belief as being worthless is ridiculous... How else can any trial rec a conclusion without a belief based on the evidence

You didn't mention evidence  you just said belief. no one has been convicted on anything in a courtroom based on someones belief of nothing.

Perhaps you should make your posts clearer.

 Based on EVIDENCE, as the PJ have claimed there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to charge the Parents. So how can anyone say they believe them or not if no evidence is offered by the police.

G is quite right to sit on a fence if that is what is being claimed, due to ther being no evidence of abduction from window.

I agree with G on this point.    I rule nothing in or out and anything is possible,unless ruled out.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 01:16:15 PM
You didn't mention evidence  you just said belief. no one has been convicted on anything in a courtroom based on someones belief of nothing.

Perhaps you should make your posts clearer.

 Based on EVIDENCE, as the PJ have claimed there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to charge the Parents. So how can anyone say they believe them or not if no evidence is offered by the police.

G is quite right to sit on a fence if that is what is being claimed, due to ther being no evidence of abduction from window.

I agree with G on this point.    I rule nothing in or out and anything is possible,unless ruled out.

based on a belief in the evidence...it all comes down to belief...based on the evidence I think the mccanns are totally innocent....as Ive shown...based on the evience smoking causes cancer...g didnt believe taht either....g can think what she likes .....g is wrong to criticise supporters because we believe the mccanns are innocent...based on the evidence....which iv said countless times...and supporters have also said that if new evidence comes to light they would be happy to change their mind
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 01:17:22 PM
I think it did matter because, if they claimed the intruder came in via a window it would not be a good look if the bloody shutter didn't open for him/her to 'escape with MBM.

I am of the opinion there is a very good reason why the room was 'searched' by the Tapas and the shutters/window was tested-Allowing contamination of evidence- IF THERE WAS ANY from a stranger.

Perhaps they all panicked about what would happen to them- leaving their children alone everynight-to wine and dine on this 'family' holiday- jail? loss of jobs? children removed to social care in Portugual..

Claiming abduction  from the bed would be a great get -out- of -jail- card-free for them!

It could have  worked...until the seen abductor was found not to be an abductor by UK Police, The time line was moved, and the police in Portugual never believed it, and now  SY are looking at walked and wandered...

This leaves me with two questions...

you believe SY are looking at w and w...I dont beleive they are
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 01:24:27 PM
you believe SY are looking at w and w...I dont beleive they are

What do you believe that they are looking at and why ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 01:27:04 PM
based on a belief in the evidence...it all comes down to belief...based on the evidence I think the mccanns are totally innocent....as Ive shown...based on the evience smoking causes cancer...g didnt believe taht either....g can think what she likes .....g is wrong to criticise supporters because we believe the mccanns are innocent...based on the evidence....which iv said countless times...and supporters have also said that if new evidence comes to light they would be happy to change their mind

Davel, I think you are getting cought up with yourself again...You never mentioned evidence in your fist post

 you have never shown any evidence the parents are innocent and there was an abduction from the flat. So keep pretending you have.does not make it true.

I will quite happpily agree the parents are innocent when real hard evidence with some circumstancial evidence is presented- untill then I cannot form an opinion. I will not change my mind about their behaviour though.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 01:51:13 PM
Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee
But I didn't say that did I?  How about quoting me accurately, rather than make stuff up?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 01:55:18 PM
You didn't mention evidence  you just said belief. no one has been convicted on anything in a courtroom based on someones belief of nothing.

Perhaps you should make your posts clearer.

 Based on EVIDENCE, as the PJ have claimed there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to charge the Parents. So how can anyone say they believe them or not if no evidence is offered by the police.

G is quite right to sit on a fence if that is what is being claimed, due to ther being no evidence of abduction from window.

I agree with G on this point.    I rule nothing in or out and anything is possible,unless ruled out.
Anything?
All possibilities equally as possible?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 01:56:35 PM
Davel, I think you are getting cought up with yourself again...You never mentioned evidence in your fist post

 you have never shown any evidence the parents are innocent and there was an abduction from the flat. So keep pretending you have.does not make it true.

I will quite happpily agree the parents are innocent when real hard evidence with some circumstancial evidence is presented- untill then I cannot form an opinion. I will not change my mind about their behaviour though.

Ive been talking about ..based on the evidence...for the last 5 years...if you cant see evidence of innocence ...thats up to you ....I can.....i dont really care if you dont change your mind...its of no importance,...

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 01:58:33 PM
Davel, I think you are getting cought up with yourself again...You never mentioned evidence in your fist post

 you have never shown any evidence the parents are innocent and there was an abduction from the flat. So keep pretending you have.does not make it true.

I will quite happpily agree the parents are innocent when real hard evidence with some circumstancial evidence is presented- untill then I cannot form an opinion. I will not change my mind about their behaviour though.

this was my post today..Whats that big word in red




i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 07, 2019, 02:06:28 PM
this was my post today..Whats that big word in red




i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif


Nice try but what you said was:

'the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury'

Maybe the word evidence should have been somewhere else in the paragraph if that was meant to be a paragraph?  could have been in a sentence like the above sentence? *%87

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 02:11:44 PM

Nice try but what you said was:

'the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury'

Maybe the word evidence should have been somewhere else in the paragraph if that was meant to be a paragraph?  could have been in a sentence like the above sentence? *%87

you said i never mentioned evidence in my first post...the EVIDENCE shows you are totally wrong....its not really worth having a conversation with someone who refuses to accept clear EVIDENCE...I wont bother replying to you on this topic again
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 02:20:28 PM
Ive been talking about ..based on the evidence...for the last 5 years...if you cant see evidence of innocence ...thats up to you ....I can.....i dont really care if you dont change your mind...its of no importance,...

So what do you believe OG and the PJ are looking at ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 02:22:40 PM
So what do you believe OG and the PJ are looking at ?

based on the evidence ...which Ive posted many times...I beleive they are still looking at a stranger abduction
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 02:29:27 PM
As this thread is about sceptics ‘ beliefs perhaps it isn’t the thread for you.  Sitting on the fence allows you to cast doubt about anything and everything without ever having to commit yourself either way ans it is IMO a technique to enable you to wriggle out of any position when the logic of that position is exposed as flawed.  You do it in every discussion whether it’s smoking, Brexit or this case.  You have no firm views on anything, or claim not to, and I find it extremely slippery.  You are not convinced of the McCanns’ guilt?  When have you once tested the “staged abduction and hid the body”  theory critically?  Never on this forum as far as I recall.

I never said I was a sceptic with beliefs; in fact I've been denying it for years. Hopefully the penny has finally dropped and people will stop accusing me of believing this or that. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 02:32:56 PM
based on the evidence ...which Ive posted many times...I beleive they are still looking at a stranger abduction

Yes but in what context ? Child traffickers, childless couples, confused burglars....what ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 02:33:36 PM
I never said I was a sceptic with beliefs; in fact I've been denying it for years. Hopefully the penny has finally dropped and people will stop accusing me of believing this or that.

but you do have beliefs...you believe the statements are accurate....you believe the alert are accurate
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 02:35:23 PM
Yes but in what context ? Child traffickers, childless couples, confused burglars....what ?
i just stick with stranger abduction......it could still be one of several
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 02:38:27 PM
Himself and his wife say he raised the shutter. Evidence suggests it was Kate who opened the window.  The shutter will fall back down if raised so I don't think anybody saw them in a fully raised position. I think Dianne was the first to raise them and got them stuck otherwise why would Kate get her to do it if Gerry had already tried? It does not add up!

There is quite a long and involved thread on the forum where a highly respected member posted ...

5 prints on the glass ("vidro") are consistent with leaning on an already-open window to look out IMO.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg118208#msg118208

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
I never said I was a sceptic with beliefs; in fact I've been denying it for years. Hopefully the penny has finally dropped and people will stop accusing me of believing this or that.
You’re not a sceptic and you have no beliefs you say, however the evidence of your posts on this forum tend to suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 02:42:42 PM
i think..you need to rethink...the way you think...the whole justice system is based on belief.....people are given life sentences based on belief of the jury...two judges believed cipriano to be guilty..one didnt believe...you have to weigh the evidence and reach a decision...i dont know 100% the mccanns are innocent but i strongly believe they are...how else do you reach any judicial decision without beleif

I'm neither a judge nor a juror so I don't have to decide anything. If I found myself on a jury I would decide based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, nothing else. Whoever did the best job would win, which is slightly different than saying justice would triumph.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 02:46:19 PM
Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee

Why do you think the Portuguese Attorney General didn't instruct charging the arguidos instead of lifting their suspect status.
Might it have been there was no evidence to justify it?  I believe that is the case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 02:48:15 PM
Here in the UK the courts tend to go on evidence presented,not on 'belief'. However, once the evidence is presented it is up to the judge/ jury to descide who's evidence they believe. Don't forget a lot of real evidence can be a game changer- but for many other reasons cannot be addmissible.

_________________________________________________________________-_______________________

I laughed when I saw VS telling Gunit she shouldn't post on here because she doesn't do what she is told. heehee

It's amazing isn't it? There seem to be a set of rules that some think everyone must abide by. If you dare to be different you're not playing fair, it seems!!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 02:51:57 PM
I think it did matter because, if they claimed the intruder came in via a window it would not be a good look if the bloody shutter didn't open for him/her to 'escape with MBM.

I am of the opinion there is a very good reason why the room was 'searched' by the Tapas and the shutters/window was tested-Allowing contamination of evidence- IF THERE WAS ANY from a stranger.

Perhaps they all panicked about what would happen to them- leaving their children alone everynight-to wine and dine on this 'family' holiday- jail? loss of jobs? children removed to social care in Portugual..

Claiming abduction  from the bed would be a great get -out- of -jail- card-free for them!

It could have  worked...until the seen abductor was found not to be an abductor by UK Police, The time line was moved, and the police in Portugual never believed it, and now  SY are looking at walked and wandered...

This leaves me with two questions...

I think that speculative post covers quite a few of the sceptic beliefs but as it was they didn't require a 'get out of jail card free'.  The lack of evidence to support their guilt did that for them no bother.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 02:58:04 PM
It's amazing isn't it? There seem to be a set of rules that some think everyone must abide by. If you dare to be different you're not playing fair, it seems!!!

Topic please ... "Sceptics beliefs ?"  Thank you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 02:59:46 PM
but you do have beliefs...you believe the statements are accurate....you believe the alert are accurate

Or maybe some people won't stop accusing me of having beliefs.  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 03:00:13 PM
i just stick with stranger abduction......it could still be one of several

So anyone as long as it’s not the parents ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 03:02:17 PM
So anyone as long as it’s not the parents ?
Anyone who is guilty
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 03:08:38 PM
You’re not a sceptic and you have no beliefs you say, however the evidence of your posts on this forum tend to suggest otherwise.

According to you my posts suggest all sorts of things I have never thought, said or intended to say. May I suggest you stick with what I say instead of trying to find hidden meanings? You're not very good at it in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 03:09:21 PM
Anyone who is guilty

But you have no evidence against anyone so how do you know that it is not the parents?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 03:29:19 PM
According to you my posts suggest all sorts of things I have never thought, said or intended to say. May I suggest you stick with what I say instead of trying to find hidden meanings? You're not very good at it in my opinion.
Not very good at what? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
But you have no evidence against anyone so how do you know that it is not the parents?
I think we have enough evidence to know the patents are innocent
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 03:42:24 PM
It's amazing isn't it? There seem to be a set of rules that some think everyone must abide by. If you dare to be different you're not playing fair, it seems!!!
In what way do you think you are different?  Evasive yes, different no, in fact quite predictable IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 03:49:41 PM
I think we have enough evidence to know the patents are innocent

Enough evidence ? What ? OG have said that the parents were not suspects two years ago in a case where Portugal has supremacy and the investigation is covered by judicial secrecy ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 03:52:11 PM
Please post ON TOPIC or expect your post to be deleted.  Thank you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 03:54:18 PM
Enough evidence ? What ? OG have said that the parents were not suspects two years ago in a case where Portugal has supremacy and the investigation is covered by judicial secrecy ?

More than enough....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 03:56:24 PM
More than enough....

So it doesn’t concern you that anything OG is asked about the investigation can’t be answered directly because it is covered by judicial secrecy ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 03:59:19 PM
So it doesn’t concern you that anything OG is asked about the investigation can’t be answered directly because it is covered by judicial secrecy ?
No
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 04:03:29 PM
No

If and its a big if,say SY uncover the moey shot and it helps in a conviction,is it legal given its a Portuguese investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 04:04:29 PM
If and its a big if,say SY uncover the moey shot and it helps in a conviction,is it legal given its a Portuguese investigation.
Yes
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 04:05:50 PM
Yes

On whose say so?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 04:17:53 PM
No

Fair enough. More a faith based opinion than a fact based one then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 07, 2019, 05:01:12 PM
There is quite a long and involved thread on the forum where a highly respected member posted ...

5 prints on the glass ("vidro") are consistent with leaning on an already-open window to look out IMO.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg118208#msg118208

Try leaning out of a window and see how many fingerprints you leave? Anyway nothing about that in her statement. Looking out into the car park for Madeleine? Nope only running in the opposite direction for help.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 05:08:31 PM
On whose say so?

On the fact they were officially invited by the Portuguese police
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 05:09:05 PM
Fair enough. More a faith based opinion than a fact based one then.

In your opinion... IMO based on sound evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 05:17:39 PM
In your opinion... IMO based on sound evidence

There is no evidence....not one single scrap...if you disregard OG’s claim, and we all know that due to judicial secrecy they would not be able to tell us the truth.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 05:22:43 PM
There is no evidence....not one single scrap...if you disregard OG’s claim, and we all know that due to judicial secrecy they would not be able to tell us the truth.

again in your opinion....imo there is lots of evidence which rules out the parents...you dont seem to understand yhe difference between your opinion and facts.....so tahts a poor start
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 05:28:23 PM
Try leaning out of a window and see how many fingerprints you leave? Anyway nothing about that in her statement. Looking out into the car park for Madeleine? Nope only running in the opposite direction for help.

The pity of it all is that you have had this conversation before with a genuinely impartial member when it came to interpreting the evidence ...

Snip
@Pathfinder thanks, her 5 fingerprints which you posted were not on the window handle, and not on any part of the aluminium, they were on the inside surface of the glass.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg192765#msg192765
_____________________________________________________________

Viewed from inside, it is the right half of the sliding window which was open.
Someone leaning out of that open window to look left and right, would place their right hand on the wall, and their left hand on the window.

The left palm would lean on the aluminium frame of the already opened sliding section of the window, and their left fingers, extending further, would leave fingerprints on the inside surface of the glass of that sliding section.

And that is exactly what the 5 fingerprints are - left fingers on the inside surface of the glass.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg192786#msg192786


I remember the discussion on that thread very well ... indeed I learned a lot from it.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 05:42:12 PM
again in your opinion....imo there is lots of evidence which rules out the parents...you dont seem to understand yhe difference between your opinion and facts.....so tahts a poor start

You say that there is lots of evidence that rules out the parents but you have consistently failed to provide any so forgive me if it cause me to think your opinion is based solely on faith....and that okay, just don’t pretend it’s based on anything else.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 05:45:51 PM
You say that there is lots of evidence that rules out the parents but you have consistently failed to provide any so forgive me if it cause me to think your opinion is based solely on faith....and that okay, just don’t pretend it’s based on anything else.

you can think what you like ...we had a whole thread on the subject....but dont accuse me of pretending...thats ad hom and against forum rules
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 05:50:46 PM
you can think what you like ...we had a whole thraed on the subject....but dont accuse me of pretending...thats ad hom and against forum rules

You have given me no evidence of anything else so how can I think other than that you are pretending? Members lose all respect if they constantly prevaricate as you do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 05:55:06 PM
You have given me no evidence of anything else so how can I think other than that you are pretending? Members lose all respect if they constantly prevaricate as you do.

Im not interested in respect from posters such as you........you are mistaken in most things ...imo...and you are mistaken if you think im pretending....misguided...mistaken ...is my opinion of you ...and I have zero respect for you...doesnt matter does it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:10:47 PM
Im not interested in respect from posters such as you........you are mistaken in most things ...imo...and you are mistaken if you think im pretending....misguided...mistaken ...is my opinion of you ...and I have zero respect for you...doesnt matter does it

It’s not that I want to think you are pretending....it’s simply that you’ve given myself, and this forum, no other choice. You say that there is plenty of evidence, then when asked to supply that evidence you prevericate, insult and frankly act like a child. The forum rules state the cites must be supplied for claims yet you have consistently failed to provide any for your constant claim that there is evidence of an abduction. TBH I’d have thought you’d be champing at the bit to provide your evidence, imagine the joy you’d feel to shut us sceptics up, but no, not so much as a whisper of tangible proof.

So I’ll leave it there....but if you ever feel the need to claw back your credibility, don’t hesitate to let us know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 06:12:35 PM
It’s not that I want to think you are pretending....it’s simply that you’ve given myself, and this forum, no other choice. You say that there is plenty of evidence, then when asked to supply that evidence you prevericate, insult and frankly act like a child. The forum rules state the cites must be supplied for claims yet you have consistently failed to provide any for your constant claim that there is evidence of an abduction. TBH I’d have thought you’d be champing at the bit to provide your evidence, imagine the joy you’d feel to shut us sceptics up, but no, not so much as a whisper of tangible proof.

So I’ll leave it there....but if you ever feel the need to claw back your credibility, don’t hesitate to let us know.
What a goading and insulting post.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 06:15:25 PM
It’s not that I want to think you are pretending....it’s simply that you’ve given myself, and this forum, no other choice. You say that there is plenty of evidence, then when asked to supply that evidence you prevericate, insult and frankly act like a child. The forum rules state the cites must be supplied for claims yet you have consistently failed to provide any for your constant claim that there is evidence of an abduction. TBH I’d have thought you’d be champing at the bit to provide your evidence, imagine the joy you’d feel to shut us sceptics up, but no, not so much as a whisper of tangible proof.

So I’ll leave it there....but if you ever feel the need to claw back your credibility, don’t hesitate to let us know.

Ive provided all the evidence that supports abduction...and theres lots on  a thread devoted to the topic..the rest of your post is the rambling insults of an idiot....imo...LOL
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 07, 2019, 06:17:10 PM
What a goading and insulting post.

A frank exchange of views, I believe it's called   @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:24:12 PM
Ive provided all the evidence that supports abduction...and theres lots on  a thread devoted to the topic..the rest of your post is the rambling insults of an idiot....imo...LOL

Provide the link please.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 06:30:00 PM
Provide the link please.

do you not remember the thread...[deleted by moderator]?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:39:09 PM
do you not remember the thread...its impossible to have a debate with posters who have such poor memories

As I said, prevarication.

Lest you forget, it’s against forum rules to claim something without a cite. Over to you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 06:41:36 PM
You say that there is lots of evidence that rules out the parents but you have consistently failed to provide any so forgive me if it cause me to think your opinion is based solely on faith....and that okay, just don’t pretend it’s based on anything else.

to say i am pretending is ad hom and reported ...why was this post not removed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 06:42:31 PM
It’s not that I want to think you are pretending....it’s simply that you’ve given myself, and this forum, no other choice. You say that there is plenty of evidence, then when asked to supply that evidence you prevericate, insult and frankly act like a child. The forum rules state the cites must be supplied for claims yet you have consistently failed to provide any for your constant claim that there is evidence of an abduction. TBH I’d have thought you’d be champing at the bit to provide your evidence, imagine the joy you’d feel to shut us sceptics up, but no, not so much as a whisper of tangible proof.

So I’ll leave it there....but if you ever feel the need to claw back your credibility, don’t hesitate to let us know.

why has rob left this post and edited mine
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 06:44:57 PM
As I said, prevarication.

Lest you forget, it’s against forum rules to claim something without a cite. Over to you.
Faithlilly.  Imagine if you can that Madeleine actually was abducted and that everything the McCanns said about that evening was true.  Then, the open window and shutter would indeed be evidence of an abduction would it not.  just because you choose not to believe them does not mean there is no evidence of abduction, only thst you have chosen to disregard it, just as you will disregard the obvious logic in this post.   @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 06:45:32 PM
Provide the link please.

whats the point..if i expalin it all again you will forget it in the next five minutes
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:48:30 PM
whats the point..if i expalin it all again you will forget it in the next five minutes

You have claimed something and forum rules say you have to provide a cite or remove your claim.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 06:50:43 PM
by the state of your memory I would say you are extremely grown up

Stop prevaricating and provide a cite as per forum rules or withdraw your claim.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 06:51:24 PM
Stop prevaricating and provide a cite as per forum rules or withdraw your claim.
LOL
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 06:52:37 PM
Here's a thread for you,

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.0

55 pages of overwhelming abduction evidence including.....

An (alleged) open window

Some sightings

The parents insistence

Not Suspects

I think that about sums it up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:00:01 PM
On the fact they were officially invited by the Portuguese police


They were? I thougt it was the McCann who wanted them.
Got to be a cite for that if you please.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2019, 07:00:53 PM
Ive provided all the evidence that supports abduction...and theres lots on  a thread devoted to the topic..the rest of your post is the rambling insults of an idiot....imo...LOL
Saying things that refer to another member as an "idiot" crosses the boundary.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 07:01:35 PM

They were? I thougt it was the McCann who wanted them.

That’s what it said in the Netflix documentary...you know, the very truthful one !
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 07:03:19 PM
Saying things that refer to another member as an "idiot" crosses the boundary.
Saying I'm pretending... Crosses the boundary.. Saying I'm behaving like a child crosses the boundary... Di you agree
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:03:51 PM
That’s what it said in the Netflix documentary...you know, the very truthful one !

What, that the Portuguse wanted SY on board as per davels claim?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 07:06:03 PM
I have no respect for forum rules or the moderators who dont enforce them..or for posters such as yourself

Fair enough but you can never claim again that you have provided evidence of an abduction when when asked to you refused to give any.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2019, 07:08:23 PM
What, that the Portuguse wanted SY on board as per davels claim?

Apologies I thought we were talking about the cadaver dog.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 07:08:48 PM
Fair enough but you can never claim again that you have provided evidence of an abduction when when asked to you refused to give any.

spams provide one of the many threads where ive supplied it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:14:19 PM
Apologies I thought we were talking about the cadaver dog.

No this,according to davel the portuguse invited SY on board.

On the fact they were officially invited by the Portuguese police
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 07:16:12 PM
No this,according to davel the portuguse invited SY on board.

they did..thats afact...in order for SY to investigate they required an official invitation from the PJ
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:17:56 PM
they did..thats afact...in order for SY to investigate they required an official invitation from the PJ
Cite please.
So despite the McCanns insistence has some say,it was the PJ who wanted it reopened?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 07:21:00 PM
Cite please.
So despite the McCanns insistence has some say,it was the PJ who wanted it reopened?

another short term memory syndrome....it was only the PJ who could reopen it...I will give acite tomorrow ..its 100% fact...
arent the supposed experts here aware of it..the pj reopened it...whether they wanted to i dont know
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2019, 07:21:22 PM
Back to the topic please.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:25:00 PM
another short term memory syndrome....it was only the PJ who could reopen it...I will give acite tomorrow ..its 100% fact...
arent the supposed experts here aware of it..the pj reopened it...whether they wanted to i dont know

So the supposed pressure from the McCanns toward cameron was wasted,it was the PJ who they should have appealed to?

Look forward to the cite,if so then its the PJ directing SY and how it spends the brit money or do you think they gave them carte blanche to do what they want?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 07, 2019, 07:37:17 PM
The pity of it all is that you have had this conversation before with a genuinely impartial member when it came to interpreting the evidence ...

Snip
@Pathfinder thanks, her 5 fingerprints which you posted were not on the window handle, and not on any part of the aluminium, they were on the inside surface of the glass.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg192765#msg192765
_____________________________________________________________

Viewed from inside, it is the right half of the sliding window which was open.
Someone leaning out of that open window to look left and right, would place their right hand on the wall, and their left hand on the window.

The left palm would lean on the aluminium frame of the already opened sliding section of the window, and their left fingers, extending further, would leave fingerprints on the inside surface of the glass of that sliding section.

And that is exactly what the 5 fingerprints are - left fingers on the inside surface of the glass.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg192786#msg192786


I remember the discussion on that thread very well ... indeed I learned a lot from it.

"Observations: The fingerprint traces collected are identified as being the middle finger of the left hand (3x) and forefinger of the left hand (2x), of the missing girl’s mother,"

You don't support yourself using only 2 fingers to lean out of a window - you use all of them.

Nothing in her statement about looking out of a window to check the car park. I'm interested in evidence not made up bollox!

"After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, the interviewee went back, scared and shocked, to the restaurant, to alert her husband and the others to the disappearance." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 07:41:15 PM
They unearthed what they thought was evidence.
Didn't go much on education 50+ yrs ago  I'll not take it from you too.

for those of us who were educated 50 years ago.. I would say education has gone backwards...my son went to a leading private day school and is now a doctor...but did not study maths at A..and S of course.. to the depth i did..perhaps you simply didnt go to a very good school..i went to the same one as mark Rowley
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2019, 07:51:31 PM
University of life,best education I've had.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2019, 07:55:03 PM
University of life,best education I've had.
nothing wrong with that...ive several very successful friends who left school early...but dont knock the education system which has provided the doctors who save thousands of lives every day..Gerry McCann includeD
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 07:56:53 PM
Here's a thread for you,

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.0

55 pages of overwhelming abduction evidence including.....

An (alleged) open window

Some sightings

The parents insistence

Not Suspects

I think that about sums it up.
All of which is evidence if you really think hard about it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 08:11:04 PM
All of which is evidence if you really think hard about it.

I never said it wasn't. None of it's particularly convincing though IMO.

Indeed, there is evidence against the McCanns, contrary to what is often claimed.

"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously" KM
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 08:33:07 PM
I never said it wasn't. None of it's particularly convincing though IMO.

Indeed, there is evidence against the McCanns, contrary to what is often claimed.

"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously" KM
There we have it.  The evidence which, if and when abduction is proven, will be a very convincing part of it indeed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 08:40:12 PM
There we have it.  The evidence which, if and when abduction is proven, will be a very convincing part of it indeed.

Abduction is apparently already proven according to whichever MSM outlet you subscribe to.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 07, 2019, 08:41:16 PM
There we have it.  The evidence which, if and when abduction is proven, will be a very convincing part of it indeed.

So much hanging on such a little word.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 08:44:26 PM
I never said it wasn't. None of it's particularly convincing though IMO.

Indeed, there is evidence against the McCanns, contrary to what is often claimed.

"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously" KM

Please don't post only the part of a quote which suits your purpose.  I think it demeans you as a poster and it brings the reputation of this forum for accuracy into disrepute.

The full quote from Kate's book is ...
"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously.
This was absolute nonsense, but ‘evidence’ of this kind came down to one person’s word against another. And it appeared that, as far as the PJ were concerned, our word counted for little."
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 08:49:17 PM
Please don't post only the part of a quote which suits your purpose.  I think it demeans you as a poster and it brings the reputation of this forum for accuracy into disrepute.

The full quote from Kate's book is ...
"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously.
This was absolute nonsense, but ‘evidence’ of this kind came down to one person’s word against another. And it appeared that, as far as the PJ were concerned, our word counted for little."

Kate may claim it was absolute nonsense, because she would say that, wouldn't she.

But the fact remains, a witness claimed to have seen them carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

That, my dear, is evidence against the McCanns.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 07, 2019, 08:51:28 PM
University of life,best education I've had.

I would like to say the same, but it isn't true, of course.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 09:03:31 PM
Kate may claim it was absolute nonsense, because she would say that, wouldn't she.

But the fact remains, a witness claimed to have seen them carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

That, my dear, is evidence against the McCanns.

If that is the quality of the 'evidence' against the McCanns one can see why the Attorney General blew the case against them out of the water.

Anonymous witnesses are ten a penny in Amaral's book and elsewhere on YouTube ... none of whom make an appearance in the files.  If they do ... please cite them ... starting with the one quoted in Kate's book.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2019, 09:06:11 PM
Comments about moderators are off topic.  Please stay on topic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 07, 2019, 09:08:21 PM
If that is the quality of the 'evidence' against the McCanns one can see why the Attorney General blew the case against them out of the water.

Anonymous witnesses are ten a penny in Amaral's book and elsewhere on YouTube ... none of whom make an appearance in the files.  If they do ... please cite them ... starting with the one quoted in Kate's book.

You'll have to ask Kate, she must have seen this statement. Maybe this witness statement was redacted from the published files, perhaps because it was in the peado-files. Who knows.
Either way, it's still evidence, Kate herself accepted that fact.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:15:30 PM
Gunit. You believe there is no evidence of abduction yet you claim not to do beliefs.  Your beliefs are wrong in this case as there is evidence that would be presented in a court of law should a suspected abductor ever be tried.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 07, 2019, 11:29:42 PM
Sure.  You believe there is no evidence of abduction yet you claim not to do beliefs.  Your beliefs are wrong in this case as there is evidence that would be presented in a court of law should a suspected abductor ever be tried.

Really?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 07, 2019, 11:37:31 PM
Gunit. You believe there is no evidence of abduction yet you claim not to do beliefs.  Your beliefs are wrong in this case as there is evidence that would be presented in a court of law should a suspected abductor ever be tried.

We have looked at this many times, there was no evidence of any intruder, no sign of a break-in, no valuables taken. The apartment had not been disturbed or rifled in any way, I'm afraid the abduction from the bedroom claim has no basis whatsoever.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 07, 2019, 11:40:26 PM
Kate may claim it was absolute nonsense, because she would say that, wouldn't she.

But the fact remains, a witness claimed to have seen them carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

That, my dear, is evidence against the McCanns.

The second main luggage bag they took to PDL is not seen in crime scene photos. Only the blue one was seen in the wardrobe. That second luggage bag should be identified and maybe it's black. All those items seen on the second shelf where Eddie later alerted could have possibly been emptied from it.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SrIb5E4lPUI/AAAAAAAAGbM/JKA6ByR2Pns/s400/wardrobe.jpg)









Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:41:11 PM
Really?
Yes, really.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 07, 2019, 11:44:18 PM
We have looked at this many times, there was no evidence of any intruder, no sign of a break-in, no valuables taken. The apartment had not been disturbed or rifled in any way, I'm afraid the abduction from the bedroom claim has no basis whatsoever.
So if a suspected abductor is charged and tried in a court of law there would be no reference made of the open window and raised shutter, because it wouldn’t be evidence of an intruder entering the apartment, is that what you’re claiming? ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2019, 11:54:29 PM
We have looked at this many times, there was no evidence of any intruder, no sign of a break-in, no valuables taken. The apartment had not been disturbed or rifled in any way, I'm afraid the abduction from the bedroom claim has no basis whatsoever.

Exactly the same could be said of Alesha MacPhail's abduction and murder.  There was no evidence in the flat she had been taken from that she had been abducted at knife point.
The flat hadn't been disturbed or rifled.
Nothing had been taken ... with one obvious exception. 
All the evidence was found outside from CCTV and forensic evidence of the psychopath's DNA on Alesha's body.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 12:25:57 AM
Exactly the same could be said of Alesha MacPhail's abduction and murder.  There was no evidence in the flat she had been taken from that she had been abducted at knife point.
The flat hadn't been disturbed or rifled.
Nothing had been taken ... with one obvious exception. 
All the evidence was found outside from CCTV and forensic evidence of the psychopath's DNA on Alesha's body.

That's very different. They had other evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2019, 12:28:52 AM
The second main luggage bag they took to PDL is not seen in crime scene photos. Only the blue one was seen in the wardrobe. That second luggage bag should be identified and maybe it's black. All those items seen on the second shelf where Eddie later alerted could have possibly been emptied from it.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SrIb5E4lPUI/AAAAAAAAGbM/JKA6ByR2Pns/s400/wardrobe.jpg)
Ah ... the infamous blue bag of sceptic belief ~ I had forgotten about that one.

... be it tennis bag ... or golf bag ... any bag will do. 

There was even a handy photograph of Gerry on the links complete with golf bag ... so guess what?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-86nZRQUATh4/T1IC3W_sswI/AAAAAAAAIcQ/T0r6HPiDnfM/s400/vlcsnap-2012-03-03-11h20m03s47.png)
Far too opportune to allow that one to pass ... and grown men actually sat in front of that image and discussed putting a child's body into a bag.  If that doesn't smack of desperation, I don't know what does.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2019, 12:36:01 AM
That's very different. They had other evidence.

There was no evidence of forced entry ... there was no evidence of burglary ... there was no evidence that anything had been disturbed ... there was no evidence the psychopath had been anywhere near the flat let alone had entered it and had taken Alesha.
No-one saw or heard a thing.

What do you think makes that "very different" from apartment 5A?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 08, 2019, 01:18:01 AM
There was no evidence of forced entry ... there was no evidence of burglary ... there was no evidence that anything had been disturbed ... there was no evidence the psychopath had been anywhere near the flat let alone had entered it and had taken Alesha.
No-one saw or heard a thing.

What do you think makes that "very different" from apartment 5A?

Alesha was abducted in the early hours of the morning when everyone was most probably in bed asleep or if not certainly in their houses. Madeleine’s abduction, if it took place, happened around 9.30ish when there were people out and about and there would have been more chance of anything suspicious being seen.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: John on April 08, 2019, 03:30:21 AM
So if a suspected abductor is charged and tried in a court of law there would be no reference made of the open window and raised shutter, because it wouldn’t be evidence of an intruder entering the apartment, is that what you’re claiming? ?

An open window and a raised shutter might be indicative of an intruder but isn't evidence of such in its own right. There would have to be other evidence such as a forced entry, footprints or scuff marks on the window sills or walls etc...

There are no independent witnesses who could testify to the window being open or the shutter being raised.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 07:14:43 AM
That's very different. They had other evidence.
It’s very similar IMO.  A child was taken from her bed and she didn’t wake up when taken, nor was any forensic evidence left at the scene. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 07:16:01 AM
Alesha was abducted in the early hours of the morning when everyone was most probably in bed asleep or if not certainly in their houses. Madeleine’s abduction, if it took place, happened around 9.30ish when there were people out and about and there would have been more chance of anything suspicious being seen.
Plenty of suspicious activity was seen, read the files.  Incidentally, your argument doesn’t seem to extend to the person who chose that busy time to carry a corpse through town and dump it in a bin!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 07:17:30 AM
An open window and a raised shutter might be indicative of an intruder but isn't evidence of such in its own right. There would have to be other evidence such as a forced entry, footprints or scuff marks on the window sills or walls etc...

There are no independent witnesses who could testify to the window being open or the shutter being raised.
Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 10:11:46 AM
There was no evidence of forced entry ... there was no evidence of burglary ... there was no evidence that anything had been disturbed ... there was no evidence the psychopath had been anywhere near the flat let alone had entered it and had taken Alesha.
No-one saw or heard a thing.

What do you think makes that "very different" from apartment 5A?

I was referring to evidence which could be used in court to gain a conviction. The open window and shutters implicate no-one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 10:54:32 AM
Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.

Evidence of what?  That someone opened them.   &^^&*

There is no corroborating evidence whatsoever that any third party entered the children's bedroom let alone abducted Maddie.  There is real evidence though that she wandered out and was lifted from the street outside.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 08, 2019, 11:14:23 AM
Evidence of what?  That someone opened them.   &^^&*

There is no corroborating evidence whatsoever that any third party entered the children's bedroom let alone abducted Maddie.  There is real evidence though that she wandered out and was lifted from the street outside.

What ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 12:01:28 PM
What ?

A fresh scent trail which ended abruptly right opposite mini reception where Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins stood chatting minutes earlier.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 08, 2019, 12:08:46 PM
A fresh scent trail which ended abruptly right opposite mini reception where Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins stood chatting minutes earlier.

Is that it ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 12:13:22 PM
Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.

Why? In what context?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 08, 2019, 01:48:54 PM
Ah ... the infamous blue bag of sceptic belief ~ I had forgotten about that one.

... be it tennis bag ... or golf bag ... any bag will do. 

There was even a handy photograph of Gerry on the links complete with golf bag ... so guess what?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-86nZRQUATh4/T1IC3W_sswI/AAAAAAAAIcQ/T0r6HPiDnfM/s400/vlcsnap-2012-03-03-11h20m03s47.png)
Far too opportune to allow that one to pass ... and grown men actually sat in front of that image and discussed putting a child's body into a bag.  If that doesn't smack of desperation, I don't know what does.

Two main luggage bags were booked on the plane and only one was photographed in crime scene photos. One main luggage bag is missing from crime scene photos and any  proper investigation would identify that bag.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2019, 05:10:13 PM
Two main luggage bags were booked on the plane and only one was photographed in crime scene photos. One main luggage bag is missing from crime scene photos and any  proper investigation would identify that bag.

I concur ... "any proper investigation would identify that bag" ... probably still had the outgoing stickers attached.

So no worries then ... Amaral would have ensured all proper diligences were followed then don't you think?  Or at the least one would have thought there might have been one teensy 'bag' question asked at the arguida interrogation ... but there wasn't, was there?

One of two things then ... the police were satisfied there was no problem concerning a bag ... or the police were incompetent.  Which do you think?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 06:56:48 PM
Evidence of what?  That someone opened them.   &^^&*

There is no corroborating evidence whatsoever that any third party entered the children's bedroom let alone abducted Maddie.  There is real evidence though that she wandered out and was lifted from the street outside.
So are you saying that the evidence of the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence in court?  A simple yes or no will suffice.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 06:58:20 PM
Why? In what context?
What do you mean why?  Do you think at a trial of an alleged abductor the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence, or not referred to?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 08, 2019, 07:03:32 PM
I concur ... "any proper investigation would identify that bag" ... probably still had the outgoing stickers attached.

So no worries then ... Amaral would have ensured all proper diligences were followed then don't you think?  Or at the least one would have thought there might have been one teensy 'bag' question asked at the arguida interrogation ... but there wasn't, was there?

One of two things then ... the police were satisfied there was no problem concerning a bag ... or the police were incompetent.  Which do you think?

They would need to check airport CCTV footage. I don't know if they did that but it should have been done.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 07:32:14 PM
What do you mean why?  Do you think at a trial of an alleged abductor the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence, or not referred to?

Things aren't just randomly mentioned in court. They are mentioned because they are useful to the prosecution or the defence. What use are the window and shutters to either side?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 08:02:49 PM
Things aren't just randomly mentioned in court. They are mentioned because they are useful to the prosecution or the defence. What use are the window and shutters to either side?
It was my understanding that the events of the alleged crime including how, why, when, what and where were presented in court by the prosecution and that key witnesses would be called upon to describe what they saw, heard, felt and thought.  Perhaps I am mistaken but I believed this was all part of the evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 08:56:16 PM
It was my understanding that the events of the alleged crime including how, why, when, what and where were presented in court by the prosecution and that key witnesses would be called upon to describe what they saw, heard, felt and thought.  Perhaps I am mistaken but I believed this was all part of the evidence?

So they say they saw an open window and shutters. The defence says their client didn't touch either of them. How can the prosecution prove he/she/they did touch them?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 09:15:11 PM
So they say they saw an open window and shutters. The defence says their client didn't touch either of them. How can the prosecution prove he/she/they did touch them?
They can’t.  Do you still not understand the difference between evidence and proof?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 09:22:09 PM
They can’t.  Do you still not understand the difference between evidence and proof?

So why mention it? Witnesses aren't questioned about something unless it helps to build a case against the accused. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 09:40:19 PM
So why mention it? Witnesses aren't questioned about something unless it helps to build a case against the accused.
So you think Kate’s witness statement or evidence would not be admissible or required in court is that what you’re saying?  Why would it not build a case against the accused?  Are eye witness accounts ignored because they are not proven? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 09:55:51 PM
Is that it ?

More than enough given everything else that we know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 09:57:58 PM
So are you saying that the evidence of the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence in court?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

No it wouldn't be disallowed as it was an observation according to Kate McCann, problem is though that only her fingerprints were identified on the window.  A claimed open window is not evidence that any intruder entered the apartment and removed a child.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 08, 2019, 10:00:38 PM
So you think Kate’s witness statement or evidence would not be admissible or required in court is that what you’re saying?  Why would it not build a case against the accused?  Are eye witness accounts ignored because they are not proven?

Without corroboration they are meaningless.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 10:04:06 PM
No it wouldn't be disallowed as it was an observation according to Kate McCann, problem is though that only her fingerprints were identified on the window.  A claimed open window is not evidence that any intruder entered the apartment and removed a child.
It would be in the trial of an alleged abductor, unless you believe the method of illegal entry to the apartment in such a trial would be ignored?  The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact, no matter how you want to wriggle out of it an change the terminology from evidence to “observation”.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 10:05:50 PM
Without corroboration they are meaningless.
So in a prospective trial of Gerry McCann Martin Smith’s evidence would not be admitted without corroboration because it would be meaningless?  In a rape trial a victim’s testimony is meaningless without corroboration?  I see.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 10:25:08 PM
So you think Kate’s witness statement or evidence would not be admissible or required in court is that what you’re saying?  Why would it not build a case against the accused?  Are eye witness accounts ignored because they are not proven?

As you think it will be used, I suggest you are the one who needs to explain what, in your opinion, it adds to the prosecution case?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 10:31:53 PM
It would be in the trial of an alleged abductor, unless you believe the method of illegal entry to the apartment in such a trial would be ignored?  The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact, no matter how you want to wriggle out of it an change the terminology from evidence to “observation”.

To convict someone of abduction you need to either connect them to the crime scene or to the victim. There is nothing which connects anyone to the crime scene.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 10:35:04 PM
As you think it will be used, I suggest you are the one who needs to explain what, in your opinion, it adds to the prosecution case?
In the same way that any other evidence would, obviously.  It is an important part of the jigsaw as it potentially shows that the apartment was enetered illegally and shows how.  I can’t believe I am having to explain it to you, frankly.  Let’s turn this on its head.  Imagine Gerry McCann is charged with faking an abduction.  Would the open window and shutters be evidence of that, or not as there is no corroborating evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 08, 2019, 10:46:21 PM
In the same way that any other evidence would, obviously.  It is an important part of the jigsaw as it potentially shows that the apartment was enetered illegally and shows how.  I can’t believe I am having to explain it to you, frankly.  Let’s turn this on its head.  Imagine Gerry McCann is charged with faking an abduction.  Would the open window and shutters be evidence of that, or not as there is no corroborating evidence?

It would be evidence of staging against the parents e.g. evidence found on said open window. You would need to find evidence of an abductor inside that apartment or witnesses coming forward that overheard planning or talk so what have you got? You cannot say the invisible man took her.

The best lead for abduction were charity collectors who could have been casing the joint but they did not call at apartment 5A and they were doing rounds much earlier than when Maddy was reported to be missing. Trying to con and make some money and abducting a child is a huge leap. Why show your faces to many witnesses if your about to abduct a child. Doesn't make sense to me!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 10:55:05 PM
In the same way that any other evidence would, obviously.  It is an important part of the jigsaw as it potentially shows that the apartment was enetered illegally and shows how.  I can’t believe I am having to explain it to you, frankly.  Let’s turn this on its head.  Imagine Gerry McCann is charged with faking an abduction.  Would the open window and shutters be evidence of that, or not as there is no corroborating evidence?

It's not how that's important, it's who.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 11:11:23 PM
It's not how that's important, it's who.
Of course how is important.  How the crime was committed.  Tell me why this is not important to establish in a court of law then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2019, 11:24:31 PM
No it wouldn't be disallowed as it was an observation according to Kate McCann, problem is though that only her fingerprints were identified on the window.  A claimed open window is not evidence that any intruder entered the apartment and removed a child.
Yet we are told that the window was cleaned on Wednesday, so if the "burglar" wiped the window clean of their fingerprints who would be the wiser.  Wipe marks are wipe marks and no one can tell if they were done Thursday night or Wednesday.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2019, 11:31:26 PM
Of course how is important.  How the crime was committed.  Tell me why this is not important to establish in a court of law then?

They are trying to prove abduction. If they can't place the accused in the apartment it doesn't matter how he gained entry, does it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2019, 11:37:03 PM
They are trying to prove abduction. If they can't place the accused in the apartment it doesn't matter how he gained entry, does it?
That is the reason I think the abduction was more a result of Madeleine being out on the footpath looking for Mum and Dad, rather than there being an intruder.  It would have only required some management type person to close the door at the reception (for security) to make it impossible for Madeleine to enter the Tapas area.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 08, 2019, 11:49:20 PM
They are trying to prove abduction. If they can't place the accused in the apartment it doesn't matter how he gained entry, does it?
What if he can be placed in the vicinity of the apartment?  What if the accused has a criminal history of breaking and entering ground floor flats in a similar manner? 

Let me ask you this:  you arrive home one evening to find the sash window in you bedroom pushed up, not how you left it.  Nothing in the bedroom appears to be disturbed but then you realise that your great grandad’s gold pocket watch is missing from its place in your bedside table.  Do you discount the open window as evidence that the watch was stolen by an intruder because it cannot be corroborated by dna or fingerprints?  Must you keep all possibilities on the table, eg you slept walked and put the watch in the bin the night before, or one of your kids played with it, broke it and threw it away, the ghost of your great grandfather spirited it away, all possibilities being equally likely despite the fact the window was not found as you left it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 09, 2019, 12:09:05 AM
More than enough given everything else that we know.

Not for me. The item the dogs were given to smell would have to be proved to have been Madeleine’s and as she walked that way probably many times how could you be specific in regard to when the scent was left ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 12:24:30 AM
What if he can be placed in the vicinity of the apartment?  What if the accused has a criminal history of breaking and entering ground floor flats in a similar manner? 

Let me ask you this:  you arrive home one evening to find the sash window in you bedroom pushed up, not how you left it.  Nothing in the bedroom appears to be disturbed but then you realise that your great grandad’s gold pocket watch is missing from its place in your bedside table.  Do you discount the open window as evidence that the watch was stolen by an intruder because it cannot be corroborated by dna or fingerprints?  Must you keep all possibilities on the table, eg you slept walked and put the watch in the bin the night before, or one of your kids played with it, broke it and threw it away, the ghost of your great grandfather spirited it away, all possibilities being equally likely despite the fact the window was not found as you left it?

You seem to be moving the goalposts now. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 12:35:05 AM
What if he can be placed in the vicinity of the apartment?  What if the accused has a criminal history of breaking and entering ground floor flats in a similar manner? 

Let me ask you this:  you arrive home one evening to find the sash window in you bedroom pushed up, not how you left it.  Nothing in the bedroom appears to be disturbed but then you realise that your great grandad’s gold pocket watch is missing from its place in your bedside table.  Do you discount the open window as evidence that the watch was stolen by an intruder because it cannot be corroborated by dna or fingerprints?  Must you keep all possibilities on the table, eg you slept walked and put the watch in the bin the night before, or one of your kids played with it, broke it and threw it away, the ghost of your great grandfather spirited it away, all possibilities being equally likely despite the fact the window was not found as you left it?
Personally I think it would be a mistake to link the two observations together, if the watch was out of reach from the open window, and it appeared from forensic evidence no one accessed the open window.  The two events are coincidental and not linked by evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 07:14:09 AM
You seem to be moving the goalposts now.
. Perhaps you eould like to explain how my scenario “moves the goalposts”? It is exactly the same as the Madeleine case, only difference is what was taken.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 07:15:39 AM
Personally I think it would be a mistake to link the two observations together, if the watch was out of reach from the open window, and it appeared from forensic evidence no one accessed the open window.  The two events are coincidental and not linked by evidence.
So you would not cite the open (previously closed) window as evidence that you were robbed?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 09, 2019, 08:40:36 AM
So you would not cite the open (previously closed) window as evidence that you were robbed?
Let's apply that logic to the case in question: wouldn't you cite the fact that there was a total absence of evidence of any sort that an abduction had taken place as evidence that an abduction had not taken place?
Something / someone is missing, there's circumstantial evidence in one, there's none in the other.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 08:58:35 AM
So you would not cite the open (previously closed) window as evidence that you were robbed?
You might, but in reality I think you'd be blaming the wrong person.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 09:00:45 AM
Let's apply that logic to the case in question: wouldn't you cite the fact that there was a total absence of evidence of any sort that an abduction had taken place as evidence that an abduction had not taken place?
Something / someone is missing, there's circumstantial evidence in one, there's none in the other.
I for one do not get what you mean. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 09, 2019, 09:06:50 AM
So you would not cite the open (previously closed) window as evidence that you were robbed?
You probably would , but it wouldn't exclude the possibility that you had staged the event and taken the watch for an insurance scam.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 09, 2019, 09:12:26 AM
You probably would , but it wouldn't exclude the possibility that you had staged the event and taken the watch for an insurance scam.
How dare you! [scuttles off down to the pawn shop, is offered £12 for the mass produced, non-working, late-Victorian, silver plate pocket watch, agrees, takes the money, nips to Gregg's for a sausage roll and trousers the remaining £11.20]
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 09:36:19 AM
. Perhaps you eould like to explain how my scenario “moves the goalposts”? It is exactly the same as the Madeleine case, only difference is what was taken.

I'm not interested in that, it's the "what ifs" I was referring to. Originally you declared that the open window/shutters would be used in court in the trial of an abductor.

Let's begin at the beginning. No-one will ever be arrested because of that evidence because there's nothing to link anyone to the apartment. No sighting, no fingerprints and no DNA.

The only way an arrest can be made is by connecting the suspect to the child or her remains. Anyone found with her would be arrested but if they denied taking her from the apartment it would be difficult to prove they did. The evidence you mention wouldn't help at all because it  doesn't place then there.

If DNA evidence was found on remains and a match was found that person would be arrested. If they denied taking her from the apartment the evidence you mention wouldn't place them there either.

In both cases evidence placing the suspect in or near the apartment is needed, not evidence which suggests how they might have entered.

The open window/shutters were useful in suggesting what happened to the child but no use in  showing who did it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 05:58:37 PM
You might, but in reality I think you'd be blaming the wrong person.
Why, who should you be blaming?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:01:14 PM
Let's apply that logic to the case in question: wouldn't you cite the fact that there was a total absence of evidence of any sort that an abduction had taken place as evidence that an abduction had not taken place?
Something / someone is missing, there's circumstantial evidence in one, there's none in the other.
No, because there is evidence, the open window and shutter and missing child are evidence of an abduction.  Had Alesha McPhails killer not been caught on CCTV there would have been even less evidence of abduction than in the McCann case, how does the old saying about absence of evidence go?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:01:55 PM
You probably would , but it wouldn't exclude the possibility that you had staged the event and taken the watch for an insurance scam.
No you’re right but it’s still evidence nonetheless.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:04:38 PM
I'm not interested in that, it's the "what ifs" I was referring to. Originally you declared that the open window/shutters would be used in court in the trial of an abductor.

Let's begin at the beginning. No-one will ever be arrested because of that evidence because there's nothing to link anyone to the apartment. No sighting, no fingerprints and no DNA.

The only way an arrest can be made is by connecting the suspect to the child or her remains. Anyone found with her would be arrested but if they denied taking her from the apartment it would be difficult to prove they did. The evidence you mention wouldn't help at all because it  doesn't place then there.

If DNA evidence was found on remains and a match was found that person would be arrested. If they denied taking her from the apartment the evidence you mention wouldn't place them there either.

In both cases evidence placing the suspect in or near the apartment is needed, not evidence which suggests how they might have entered.

The open window/shutters were useful in suggesting what happened to the child but no use in  showing who did it.
Perhaps you could point to any post I have made where I suggested the open windows would provided evidence of who did it.  You can carry on like this until the cows come home, the fact is Kate’s statement is evidence, she mentions the open window so that’s evidence, it would probably be repeated in a court of law as evidence, why do you continue to dispute this?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 09, 2019, 06:06:20 PM
No you’re right but it’s still evidence nonetheless.

So would you agree that evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and so may not be a reliable indicator of anything?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 06:07:53 PM
Why, who should you be blaming?
Another person who had access to the room.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 06:10:31 PM
No you’re right but it’s still evidence nonetheless.
I would tend to call it a finding.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:16:55 PM
So would you agree that evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and so may not be a reliable indicator of anything?
Of course, as I think I pointed out yesterday in fact when I asked if Gerry was ever prosecuted for staging an abduction would not the open window and shutters not be used in court as evidence?  I don’t seem to recall anyone commenting on that.   Can we therefore once and for all agree that the open window and shutters are evidence.  They are evidence of abduction, or of something else, but they feature in the statement narrative of at least one key witness so to suggest they are not evidence of anything is IMO absurd.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 06:21:38 PM
So would you agree that evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and so may not be a reliable indicator of anything?
As the PJ report states faced with a situation of a missing child and an open window Kate is justified in thinking that they are linked, as in MBM was abducted and taken via the window.  That was her initial interpretation.  Later it was found no one climbed through the window, so it is not the full story.

Of course, as I think I pointed out yesterday in fact when I asked if Gerry was ever prosecuted for staging an abduction would not the open window and shutters not be used in court as evidence?  I don’t seem to recall anyone commenting on that.   Can we therefore once and for all agree that the open window and shutters are evidence.  They are evidence of abduction, or of something else, but they feature in the statement narrative of at least one key witness so to suggest they are not evidence of anything is IMO absurd.

The open window and shutters "are evidence of something else" IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:25:23 PM
The open windows evidence could be used in a prosecution (or defence)  of an alleged abductor to ascertain whether or not they acted alone
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 09, 2019, 06:26:53 PM
In what way?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:31:37 PM
In what way?
An alleged abductor in the court could attempt to shift some of the blame onto another by revealing how the abduction took place, via the open window, one handing the child to another.  He could claim to have been a common or garden burglar working with another, expecting his mate to be handing out valuables theough the window and when he was passed the child he tried to protest, was forced into taking her, didn’t want to, but the other guy made him.  Etc, etc etc.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 06:34:58 PM
An alleged abductor in the court could attempt to shift some of the blame onto another by revealing how the abduction took place, via the open window, one handing the child to another.  He could claim to have been a common or garden burglar working with another, expecting his mate to be handing out valuables theough the window and when he was passed the child he tried to protest, was forced into taking her, didn’t want to, but the other guy made him.  Etc, etc etc.
OK if there were two abductors explain how the first one got into the room?  And while you're at it how did he leave?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 06:55:50 PM
OK if there were two abductors explain how the first one got into the room?  And while you're at it how did he leave?
I don’t need to, but clearly an abductor could get into the apartment, it was unlocked and on the ground floor.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 07:01:52 PM
Perhaps you could point to any post I have made where I suggested the open windows would provided evidence of who did it.  You can carry on like this until the cows come home, the fact is Kate’s statement is evidence, she mentions the open window so that’s evidence, it would probably be repeated in a court of law as evidence, why do you continue to dispute this?

So the accused is asked if he opened the window/shutters. He says no. He is asked if he entered by the window. He says no. As there's no proof he did either of those things the questions are a waste of time. What can be proved using that evidence in your opinion?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 09, 2019, 07:31:44 PM
So the accused is asked if he opened the window/shutters. He says no. He is asked if he entered by the window. He says no. As there's no proof he did either of those things the questions are a waste of time. What can be proved using that evidence in your opinion?

Actually proving anything is going to be nigh on impossible in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 07:54:19 PM
So the accused is asked if he opened the window/shutters. He says no. He is asked if he entered by the window. He says no. As there's no proof he did either of those things the questions are a waste of time. What can be proved using that evidence in your opinion?
So the accused is asked if he abducted Madeleine, he says no.  He is asked if he was ever in the vicinity of Apartment 5a on the evening of the 3rd May.  He says no.  I guess these questions are a waste of time too then.  I see you are going to carry on maintaining the open window and shutter are not evidence and that no amount of common sense posting from me to the contrary will deter you from that view.  Oh well, God loves a tryer apparently.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 08:03:13 PM
An alleged abductor in the court could attempt to shift some of the blame onto another by revealing how the abduction took place, via the open window, one handing the child to another.  He could claim to have been a common or garden burglar working with another, expecting his mate to be handing out valuables theough the window and when he was passed the child he tried to protest, was forced into taking her, didn’t want to, but the other guy made him.  Etc, etc etc.

So now it's being discussed in court because the accused has admitted it was used? Possible but unlikely imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 08:34:02 PM
So now it's being discussed in court because the accused has admitted it was used? Possible but unlikely imo.
One last try.  In any potential court case about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are you of the opinion that at no point in the proceedings would Kate be called upon to give her account of the evening’s events? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 09, 2019, 08:37:28 PM
One last try.  In any potential court case about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are you of the opinion that at no point in the proceedings would Kate be called upon to give her account of the evening’s events?
Which one?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 08:47:58 PM
Which one?
Kate's account has been pretty consistent IMO.  I don't see the problem.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 08:49:17 PM
Which one?
What are you on about?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2019, 09:20:27 PM
One last try.  In any potential court case about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are you of the opinion that at no point in the proceedings would Kate be called upon to give her account of the evening’s events?

The whole trial could take place wthout any of the group being called. As far as I know none of them saw or heard anything which might incriminate anyone.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 09:29:13 PM
The whole trial could take place wthout any of the group being called. As far as I know none of them saw or heard anything which might incriminate anyone.
Therefore nothing in any of the Tapas groups’s statements is evidence, correct?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2019, 09:32:11 PM
Therefore nothing in any of their statements is evidence, correct?
It would depend on who is being accused IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 09, 2019, 11:22:39 PM
Iwonder if G-Unit considers that there is any evidence of a staged abduction within the apartment?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 12:12:15 AM
Therefore nothing in any of the Tapas groups’s statements is evidence, correct?

I don't know and neither do you. It would depend on who was being tried and what for.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 10, 2019, 12:19:38 AM
I don't know and neither do you. It would depend on who was being tried and what for.
You don’t know if the Tapas group’s statements are evidence?  What is evidence then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 12:26:38 AM
You don’t know if the Tapas group’s statements are evidence?  What is evidence then?

The police gather evidence from the moment they open an investigation. At some point someone is charged because some of the evidence points to their guilt. Not all of it, some of it. In court only the evidence which, it is hoped, will prove guilt is used. Did you think all the evidence was used? That would drag on a bit to say the least.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 10, 2019, 01:42:29 AM
You don’t know if the Tapas group’s statements are evidence?  What is evidence then?
A word I heard  the other day was "testify" so I think a statement is called testimony.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 10, 2019, 07:33:04 AM
The police gather evidence from the moment they open an investigation. At some point someone is charged because some of the evidence points to their guilt. Not all of it, some of it. In court only the evidence which, it is hoped, will prove guilt is used. Did you think all the evidence was used? That would drag on a bit to say the least.
So you agree it is evidence then.    Case closed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 08:16:42 AM
So you agree it is evidence then.    Case closed.

It still doesn't mean that Kate's evidence about the window/shutters would be heard in court, which was your original claim.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 10, 2019, 08:34:30 AM
It still doesn't mean that Kate's evidence about the window/shutters would be heard in court, which was your original claim.
We can’t know at this stage what evidence would be heard in court.  You cannot claim it definitely would not, IMO, as hers and others evidence might be used to demonstrate what time window the alleged abductor operated within.  My original claim was that the open window and shutter are evidence of an abduction, I think we can all agree now that it is, I hope!. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 09:58:18 AM
We can’t know at this stage what evidence would be heard in court.  You cannot claim it definitely would not, IMO, as hers and others evidence might be used to demonstrate what time window the alleged abductor operated within.  My original claim was that the open window and shutter are evidence of an abduction, I think we can all agree now that it is, I hope!.

Your original claim has clearly changed.

snip/

The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg519713#msg519713

Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg519620#msg519620



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 10, 2019, 10:21:37 AM
Your original claim has clearly changed.

snip/

The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg519713#msg519713

Of course it’s evidence and it would be presented as such at a trial of an anyone charged with entering the apartment and taking the child.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg519620#msg519620
I stand by that.  When the prosecution sets out its case it usually describes the events leading up to the crime, based on the evidence it has accumulated.  Now, tell me - 'do you think the evidence of the open window and shutters would be considered irrelevant in a trial concerning a case of an abductor gaining entry to an apartment?  Was the method of entry (an unlocked back door) not discussed or referenced at any point at trial in the case of the girl abducted from her bath do you think?  If the open window and shutter are of so little importance or consequence in this case why have they fascinated some people for 12+ years? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 10, 2019, 10:42:30 AM
If the open window and shutter are of so little importance or consequence in this case why have they fascinated some people for 12+ years?
I imagine the same fascination as to why seemingly sane, responsible parents would habitually leave 3 wee ans alone in an unlocked holiday apartment, all for a jolly old time with friends and colleagues.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 10:44:16 AM
I stand by that.  When the prosecution sets out its case it usually describes the events leading up to the crime, based on the evidence it has accumulated.  Now, tell me - 'do you think the evidence of the open window and shutters would be considered irrelevant in a trial concerning a case of an abductor gaining entry to an apartment?  Was the method of entry (an unlocked back door) not discussed or referenced at any point at trial in the case of the girl abducted from her bath do you think?  If the open window and shutter are of so little importance or consequence in this case why have they fascinated some people for 12+ years?

You changed your original opinion when you realised it wasn't tenable as my last post shows. I have no need or desire to start at the beginning again.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 10, 2019, 10:46:49 AM
I imagine the same fascination as to why seemingly sane, responsible parents would habitually leave 3 wee ans alone in an unlocked holiday apartment, all for a jolly old time with friends and colleagues.
Why has that aspect of the case held so much fascination for some for 12+ years I wonder...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 10, 2019, 10:48:29 AM
You changed your original opinion when you realised it wasn't tenable as my last post shows. I have no need or desire to start at the beginning again.
I have not changed my opinion as MY last post shows.  The open window and shutter would, IMO, feature in the court case of a would-be abductor.  What we don't know is how that evidence would be used, but the idea that it wouldn't even be mentioned is nonsense IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 10, 2019, 08:17:32 PM
Be interesting to see the jury's faces when the evidence on said open window is revealed and no independent witnesses saw it open before or after the alleged abduction. Star witness Amy must have been dreaming to see it open when everybody else saw it closed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 10, 2019, 08:30:23 PM
Be interesting to see the jury's faces when the evidence on said open window is revealed and no independent witnesses saw it open before or after the alleged abduction. Star witness Amy must have been dreaming to see it open when everybody else saw it closed.
So Amy is not an independent witness then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2019, 09:02:47 PM
So Amy is not an independent witness then?

Amy will need to explain how she got there before Gerry closed that window. She'd have had to follow him in.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 10, 2019, 09:14:47 PM
Amy will need to explain how she got there before Gerry closed that window. She'd have had to follow him in.
Is she independent or not?  Why would she haveto explain anything if the window evidence is never going to be heard in court?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 10, 2019, 09:31:58 PM
Is she independent or not?  Why would she haveto explain anything if the window evidence is never going to be heard in court?
So is "Amy" actually Amy Tierney?  I explored the reason (in another thread) how she got to the apartment early enough to see the window open and the shutters still up. 

Coming to think about it again that fact just about proves it wasn't Kate who first notices Madeleine missing.

I was very tempted to say who knew Madeleine was missing before Kate did, but it would have been called libel so I didn't.  I feel the rules on libel do restrict the development of new theories.  (When in fact it appears a common tactic for the police to explore all possible theories in this manner.)


What I can't see is how Amaral processed this information and made sense of it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 10, 2019, 11:51:49 PM
So is "Amy" actually Amy Tierney?  I explored the reason (in another thread) how she got to the apartment early enough to see the window open and the shutters still up. 

Coming to think about it again that fact just about proves it wasn't Kate who first notices Madeleine missing.

I was very tempted to say who knew Madeleine was missing before Kate did, but it would have been called libel so I didn't.  I feel the rules on libel do restrict the development of new theories.  (When in fact it appears a common tactic for the police to explore all possible theories in this manner.)


What I can't see is how Amaral processed this information and made sense of it.

It is very interesting that Amy was just happening by and saw this. could she have seen the 'abductor' as well? So where does that leave poor Diane Webster- telling us it didn't open  and stay up... or Gerry Testing it.  WHO CLOSED THE SHUTTERS AND WINDOW? Tsk!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 01:48:00 AM
It is very interesting that Amy was just happening by and saw this. could she have seen the 'abductor' as well? So where does that leave poor Diane Webster- telling us it didn't open  and stay up... or Gerry Testing it.  WHO CLOSED THE SHUTTERS AND WINDOW? Tsk!
As I have said previously, following listening to hundreds of murder cases described on YouTube, where you have parents involved, they will protect the name of their offspring.  If Dianne had any suspicion her daughter or son in law were involved in any way it is likely, from my studies, I'd say she would do things to make it more difficult to prove any possible case against them. [Note: I'm not saying they were involved]
So I ask myself why would she get involved in trying to determine if the shutters could be opened from the outside?  Firstly it would be make sure her children can't be implicated in any way.   Secondly it would be to make it seem impossible to do so, even if it wasn't impossible to open from the outside.
I have not been able to work out if Gerry's attempt was before or after Dianne's. 

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 07:16:29 AM
Is she independent or not?  Why would she haveto explain anything if the window evidence is never going to be heard in court?

She is independent, and if she's telling the truth then others are not. Did I say the window evidence was never going to be used? I think I said it wasn't a fact that it would be used as you insisted.

 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 07:24:59 AM
She is independent, and if she's telling the truth then others are not. Did I say the window evidence was never going to be used? I think I said it wasn't a fact that it would be used as you insisted.
I think we have made some progress actually, from the “no evidence of abduction “ position to the “some evidence of abduction “ position.  I’m cool with that.   I’m also certain rhat should an alleged abductor ever come to court the judge and jury (if there is one in Portugal) will want to know how it was possible for him or her to get into the apartment and that his or her defence team will use the absence of evidence linking to the suspect at the points  of entry to argue his or her innocence.   Therefore I maintain that the open window and shutter would be evidence that would be tested in court. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 08:05:42 AM
As I have said previously, following listening to hundreds of murder cases described on YouTube, where you have parents involved, they will protect the name of their offspring.  If Dianne had any suspicion her daughter or son in law were involved in any way it is likely, from my studies, I'd say she would do things to make it more difficult to prove any possible case against them. [Note: I'm not saying they were involved]
So I ask myself why would she get involved in trying to determine if the shutters could be opened from the outside?  Firstly it would be make sure her children can't be implicated in any way.   Secondly it would be to make it seem impossible to do so, even if it wasn't impossible to open from the outside.
I have not been able to work out if Gerry's attempt was before or after Dianne's.

In the Alesha MacPhail murder ... the psychopath's mother contacted police and handed in CCTV footage of her son which played a prominent role bringing him to the attention of the police and in his subsequent trial and conviction.

It is therefore not a rule of thumb that parents do not implicate their child in a crime ... quite often they do.

What is extraordinary about Madeleine's case is that innocent witnesses have had everything about them mulled over ad nauseam while little thought is given to the perpetrator despite two police forces now looking for him/her or them.
That's the internet for you though.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 08:58:29 AM
I think we have made some progress actually, from the “no evidence of abduction “ position to the “some evidence of abduction “ position.  I’m cool with that.   I’m also certain rhat should an alleged abductor ever come to court the judge and jury (if there is one in Portugal) will want to know how it was possible for him or her to get into the apartment and that his or her defence team will use the absence of evidence linking to the suspect at the points  of entry to argue his or her innocence.   Therefore I maintain that the open window and shutter would be evidence that would be tested in court.

An open window and shutters is evidence that someone opened them. Who, when or why is unknown and a defence lawyer would be quite correct to point out that there's no evidence that his client was the person who opened them for the purpose of abducting MBM.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 09:18:09 AM
In the Alesha MacPhail murder ... the psychopath's mother contacted police and handed in CCTV footage of her son which played a prominent role bringing him to the attention of the police and in his subsequent trial and conviction.

It is therefore not a rule of thumb that parents do not implicate their child in a crime ... quite often they do.

What is extraordinary about Madeleine's case is that innocent witnesses have had everything about them mulled over ad nauseam while little thought is given to the perpetrator despite two police forces now looking for him/her or them.
That's the internet for you though.


Hardly surprising when you consider that nothing is known about this perpetrator.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 10:02:09 AM
In the Alesha MacPhail murder ... the psychopath's mother contacted police and handed in CCTV footage of her son which played a prominent role bringing him to the attention of the police and in his subsequent trial and conviction.

It is therefore not a rule of thumb that parents do not implicate their child in a crime ... quite often they do.

What is extraordinary about Madeleine's case is that innocent witnesses have had everything about them mulled over ad nauseam while little thought is given to the perpetrator despite two police forces now looking for him/her or them.
That's the internet for you though.
You are right it might not be absolute.  I get the impression that the response "that parents do not implicate their child in a crime"  maybe be as high as 90% and only 10% that would turn their kids in to the police.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 10:03:40 AM

Hardly surprising when you consider that nothing is known about this perpetrator.

Goncalo Amaral dismissed the notion of stranger abduction and introduced many of his prejudices into a sceptic belief system promoted by him and still adhered to twelve years down the line.

One very good reason for nothing being uncovered about this perpetrator in 2007 is that the investigation quickly moved into the realms of the fantasies of blue bags ~ missing fridges and MI5 operatives playing cover-up.

Where was the good solid police work usual to finding a perpetrator and building a case and not the ephemera of bottles of wine and non-existent anon witnesses such as the Irish teenage smoker.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 10:10:48 AM
12 years on, nothing has advanced - as far as we can tell.
Plenty of leads that went nowhere, perhaps because they were never real leads in the first place, yet OG still plods on.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 10:17:06 AM
12 years on, nothing has advanced - as far as we can tell.
Plenty of leads that went nowhere, perhaps because they were never real leads in the first place, yet OG still plods on.
Isn't the pressure on the PJ the real benefit to the UK community.  If there are still millions of tourists going to Portugal, an improved method of investigating missing children, break-ins at holiday resorts, and rapes of tourists is the payback for the expense of investigating the MBM case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 11, 2019, 10:26:35 AM
Goncalo Amaral dismissed the notion of stranger abduction and introduced many of his prejudices into a sceptic belief system promoted by him and still adhered to twelve years down the line.

One very good reason for nothing being uncovered about this perpetrator in 2007 is that the investigation quickly moved into the realms of the fantasies of blue bags ~ missing fridges and MI5 operatives playing cover-up.

Where was the good solid police work usual to finding a perpetrator and building a case and not the ephemera of bottles of wine and non-existent anon witnesses such as the Irish teenage smoker.

Amaral had got away with those tactics before so why not try it again?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 10:33:40 AM

Hardly surprising when you consider that nothing is known about this perpetrator.

It has never been established that there is a perpetrator. In order to believe there is one it's necessary to believe that those closest to MBM are completely innocent. In order to believe those people are completely innocent it's necessary to believe they told the truth. Some people do believe that, others don't.

In my opinion it's those who support the parents and their friends who are relying on belief. Those who view them with scepticism are refusing to believe. They point to evidence which suggests a possible lack of truthfulness. What they don't know is why that evidence exists. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
My original point for the thread was to question why sceptics still hold fast to their beliefs   that the McCanns are complicit in their child's disappearance in spite of two ongoing police investigations which have been investigating the evidence for years, and have declared them not to be suspects.

Just to add on a personal note, we have just celebrated our Golden Wedding and the whole experience has brought sharply home to me how tragic it must be for any family to have a member of their family  missing from any celebration when the family member's whereabouts is unknown.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 10:53:22 AM
Goncalo Amaral dismissed the notion of stranger abduction and introduced many of his prejudices into a sceptic belief system promoted by him and still adhered to twelve years down the line.

One very good reason for nothing being uncovered about this perpetrator in 2007 is that the investigation quickly moved into the realms of the fantasies of blue bags ~ missing fridges and MI5 operatives playing cover-up.

Where was the good solid police work usual to finding a perpetrator and building a case and not the ephemera of bottles of wine and non-existent anon witnesses such as the Irish teenage smoker.

He dismissed the notion of stranger abduction very quickly., too quickly and many of those early myths are still in circulation in various forums on the internet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 11:04:10 AM
Goncalo Amaral dismissed the notion of stranger abduction and introduced many of his prejudices into a sceptic belief system promoted by him and still adhered to twelve years down the line.

One very good reason for nothing being uncovered about this perpetrator in 2007 is that the investigation quickly moved into the realms of the fantasies of blue bags ~ missing fridges and MI5 operatives playing cover-up.

Where was the good solid police work usual to finding a perpetrator and building a case and not the ephemera of bottles of wine and non-existent anon witnesses such as the Irish teenage smoker.

Amaral wasn't alone in doubting the notion of stranger abduction. I don't know why you cling to the notion that he was the originator of any doubts. People have said their doubts were not aroused by anything he said or did; why do you disbelieve them?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 11:08:25 AM
Amaral wasn't alone in doubting the notion of stranger abduction. I don't know why you cling to the notion that he was the originator of any doubts. People have said their doubts were not aroused by anything he said or did; why do you disbelieve them?

I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 11:25:26 AM
It has never been established that there is a perpetrator. In order to believe there is one it's necessary to believe that those closest to MBM are completely innocent. In order to believe those people are completely innocent it's necessary to believe they told the truth. Some people do believe that, others don't.

In my opinion it's those who support the parents and their friends who are relying on belief. Those who view them with scepticism are refusing to believe. They point to evidence which suggests a possible lack of truthfulness. What they don't know is why that evidence exists.

I don't accept that Madeleine disappeared into thin air of her own volition, so there has to be a perpetrator
The identity of this person, whether stranger or known to the family has not yet been determined.
All IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 11:52:07 AM
I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all.

You may find something difficult to believe but that doesn't nean it's not true.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 11:55:18 AM
You may find something difficult to believe but that doesn't nean it's not true.

I quite agree, although  far down the scale of probability as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 11:57:02 AM
12 years on, nothing has advanced - as far as we can tell.
Plenty of leads that went nowhere, perhaps because they were never real leads in the first place, yet OG still plods on.

Many 'real' leads were not followed at the time in 2007 and had to be investigated after Scotland Yard's involvement of 2013 by which time the prime suspect for the Judicial police in 2013 had allegedly died.

Part and parcel of positive investigative work is checking everything to rule it in or rule it out before progressing to the next stage; sometimes successfully sometimes not; but if you don't bother being open to possibility or decide the conclusion and then seek the evidence to suit your conclusion that is a recipe for disaster.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 12:02:06 PM
You may find something difficult to believe but that doesn't nean it's not true.




What first triggered your disbelief  and has there ever been a time when you doubted your disbelief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 12:04:23 PM
Many 'real' leads were not followed at the time in 2007 and had to be investigated after Scotland Yard's involvement of 2013 by which time the prime suspect for the Judicial police in 2013 had allegedly died.

Part and parcel of positive investigative work is checking everything to rule it in or rule it out before progressing to the next stage; sometimes successfully sometimes not; but if you don't bother being open to possibility or decide the conclusion and then seek the evidence to suit your conclusion that is a recipe for disaster.

That is precisely what Operation Grange has been about. The so called 'leads' have just been a smokescreen - IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 12:10:46 PM
I don't accept that Madeleine disappeared into thin air of her own volition, so there has to be a perpetrator
The identity of this person, whether stranger or known to the family has not yet been determined.
All IMO.

Whatever people think, it's true to say that the existence of a perpetrator has never been extablished.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 12:15:55 PM
Amaral wasn't alone in doubting the notion of stranger abduction. I don't know why you cling to the notion that he was the originator of any doubts. People have said their doubts were not aroused by anything he said or did; why do you disbelieve them?

Amaral instituted and promoted his interpretation of what happened to Madeleine.

He wrote a best selling book about it.

He became an omnipresent media pundit to promulgate it.

Name me anyone else outwith his clique who has not long since abandoned 'doubt' in the face of evidence.

Amaral built a case to declare the McCanns arguidos ... that case was blown away when the PJ files were released, as Sandra Felgueiras broadcast to the Netflix audience.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 12:18:33 PM
Whatever people think, it's true to say that the existence of a perpetrator has never been extablished.

Agreed, and after so much police activity as well. So much effort for so little return.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 11, 2019, 12:28:10 PM
My original point for the thread was to question why sceptics still hold fast to their beliefs   that the McCanns are complicit in their child's disappearance in spite of two ongoing police investigations which have been investigating the evidence for years, and have declared them not to be suspects.

Just to add on a personal note, we have just celebrated our Golden Wedding and the whole experience has brought sharply home to me how tragic it must be for any family to have a member of their family  missing from any celebration when the family member's whereabouts is unknown.


So you can imagine - as you still believe Maddie could still be alive.

How that must feel -  at the times Maddie was alone and had no one.

Bad decision or choice it was there's to make - not Maddie's.

What is tragic in all this- is Maddie faced it on her own they still had a family.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 12:31:02 PM
Agreed, and after so much police activity as well. So much effort for so little return.k


Look at it in a different way.
So much effort and still nothing to indicate that the police Investigations have apparently found any evidence  of parental involvement.
Surely that would be a relatively easier task than finding the evidence for stranger abduction!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 12:39:41 PM
So much effort and publicly, nothing to show for it. Zilch.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 12:54:59 PM



What first triggered your disbelief  and has there ever been a time when you doubted your disbelief?

The early appeals by the parents. They didn't trigger disbelief, they just didn't trigger belief. I rhen forgot about it. The next time I took any notice was when they were made arguidos. It didn't surprise me because of my initial impression pf them.

I don't recall taking any other interest in the case for years. Then one day I was asked for my opinion on it and my reply was that I didn't know. I began to research the case in 2014 in order to be able to answer that question. It soon dawned on me that it was necessary to read the PJ files, because so much of what I read was opinion or rumour. My conclusion was that, based on the evidence, it was impossible to be certain what happened to Madeleine.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 11, 2019, 12:55:38 PM
So much effort and publicly, nothing to show for it. Zilch.

And no further on than the day Maddie went missing - IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 01:02:02 PM
Amaral instituted and promoted his interpretation of what happened to Madeleine.

He wrote a best selling book about it.

He became an omnipresent media pundit to promulgate it.

Name me anyone else outwith his clique who has not long since abandoned 'doubt' in the face of evidence.

Amaral built a case to declare the McCanns arguidos ... that case was blown away when the PJ files were released, as Sandra Felgueiras broadcast to the Netflix audience.

And yet she continued to question the parents in an accusatory manner for years after the files were released. She therefore must have known the truth but put the parents through that kind of questioning simply for ratings.... either that or she is wringing her hands now for ratings...either way her integrity as an individual as well as her credibility as a journalist is shot.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 01:17:04 PM

So you can imagine - as you still believe Maddie could still be alive.

How that must feel -  at the times Maddie was alone and had no one.

Bad decision or choice it was there's to make - not Maddie's.

What is tragic in all this- is Maddie faced it on her own they still had a family.

What I can't imagine is anyone bothering posting a statement like that fourteen years down the line unless there had been some undue outside influence to encourage the continued unkindness.

Words fail me regarding your last sentence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 01:20:01 PM
Amaral instituted and promoted his interpretation of what happened to Madeleine.

He wrote a best selling book about it.

He became an omnipresent media pundit to promulgate it.

Name me anyone else outwith his clique who has not long since abandoned 'doubt' in the face of evidence.

Amaral built a case to declare the McCanns arguidos ... that case was blown away when the PJ files were released, as Sandra Felgueiras broadcast to the Netflix audience.

What I find in your posts is an unshakeable belief in the McCann's innocence and an equally unshakeable belief that they were only ever doubted because of Amaral. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 01:28:03 PM

Look at it in a different way.
So much effort and still nothing to indicate that the police Investigations have apparently found any evidence  of parental involvement.
Surely that would be a relatively easier task than finding the evidence for stranger abduction!
Not really, in the main, and I know there's exceptions, an abductor will leave some trace - damage, footprints, disturbed dust, noise, DNA, fingerprints, etc. It's usually pretty easy evidence to spot. Breaking and entering and then taking a human being will generally involve leaving some vestiges of activity.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 01:32:34 PM



What first triggered your disbelief  and has there ever been a time when you doubted your disbelief?
If I may, I will also answer this question - my trigger was the interview when Gerry was asked if he had sedated his kids and he say '....of course we never sedated the children'. Can't remember the actual interview and with whom. But his whole body language was screaming LIE - his words were totally incongruent with all of the signals he was putting out.
I had my doubts, but this remains pertinent for me, even in the context of press persecution / constant barrage of questions / mental exhaustion / grief / anxiety.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 01:36:12 PM
What I find in your posts is an unshakeable belief in the McCann's innocence and an equally unshakeable belief that they were only ever doubted because of Amaral.

I have an unshakeable belief in the right of individuals to the right to the presumption of innocence ... it is the hallmark of a civilised society.

As you have noticed my posts respect not just that one but all human rights.  I wouldn't have it any other way.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 01:47:11 PM
Not really, in the main, and I know there's exceptions, an abductor will leave some trace - damage, footprints, disturbed dust, noise, DNA, fingerprints, etc. It's usually pretty easy evidence to spot. Breaking and entering and then taking a human being will generally involve leaving some vestiges of activity.

Alesha MacPhail's abduction left none of the indications you suggest in common with many others.  You recognise that fact in your post. 
Have you never heard of intruders or burglars particularly in holiday complexes illicitly using a key?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 01:48:29 PM
If I may, I will also answer this question - my trigger was the interview when Gerry was asked if he had sedated his kids and he say '....of course we never sedated the children'. Can't remember the actual interview and with whom. But his whole body language was screaming LIE - his words were totally incongruent with all of the signals he was putting out.
I had my doubts, but this remains pertinent for me, even in the context of press persecution / constant barrage of questions / mental exhaustion / grief / anxiety.

The body language issue is one which the sceptic belief system adopted with gusto.

There are still those who believe in the tabloid invention of a syringe found to administer drugs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 11, 2019, 01:57:56 PM
My original point for the thread was to question why sceptics still hold fast to their beliefs   that the McCanns are complicit in their child's disappearance in spite of two ongoing police investigations which have been investigating the evidence for years, and have declared them not to be suspects.

Just to add on a personal note, we have just celebrated our Golden Wedding and the whole experience has brought sharply home to me how tragic it must be for any family to have a member of their family  missing from any celebration when the family member's whereabouts is unknown.

All other leads have come to nowt for good reason - truth doesn't change!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 11, 2019, 02:05:30 PM
What I can't imagine is anyone bothering posting a statement like that fourteen years down the line unless there had been some undue outside influence to encourage the continued unkindness.

Words fail me regarding your last sentence.


Likewise - I fail to see to see how you have compassion to the mcs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 02:06:51 PM
The body language issue is one which the sceptic belief system adopted with gusto.

There are still those who believe in the tabloid invention of a syringe found to administer drugs.


Really, you must tell me who they are - or is it just your opinion ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 02:11:40 PM
The body language issue is one which the sceptic belief system adopted with gusto.

There are still those who believe in the tabloid invention of a syringe found to administer drugs.
Scurrilous, and to be expected from the filthy rags.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 02:13:16 PM

Really, you must tell me who they are - or is it just your opinion ?

Hmmm ... you don't read comments under Mccann articles?  Good choice, actually.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 02:17:08 PM
Hmmm ... you don't read comments under Mccann articles?  Good choice, actually.

Better than your's, it would seem.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 02:22:15 PM

Likewise - I fail to see to see how you have compassion to the mcs.

  ... and it is sentiments like that which epitomise sceptic opinion. 
That has to be fuelled from somewhere and I suggest it is the beliefs spouted unashamedly and uncritically on social media.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 03:04:20 PM
All other leads have come to nowt for good reason - truth doesn't change!

And you know "the truth".?
Which lead has not "come to nowt" ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 03:20:57 PM
Truth is an absolute. Only its perception is open to question.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 03:55:17 PM
  ... and it is sentiments like that which epitomise sceptic opinion. 
That has to be fuelled from somewhere and I suggest it is the beliefs spouted unashamedly and uncritically on social media.
You keep doing that, as if there aren't degrees of scepticism and as if one speaks for all.
If I'm your 'sceptic', then this poster doesn't speak for me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 04:07:53 PM
Truth is an absolute. Only its perception is open to question.

Best tell that to Pathfinder.!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 04:36:41 PM
The early appeals by the parents. They didn't trigger disbelief, they just didn't trigger belief. I rhen forgot about it. The next time I took any notice was when they were made arguidos. It didn't surprise me because of my initial impression pf them.

I don't recall taking any other interest in the case for years. Then one day I was asked for my opinion on it and my reply was that I didn't know. I began to research the case in 2014 in order to be able to answer that question. It soon dawned on me that it was necessary to read the PJ files, because so much of what I read was opinion or rumour. My conclusion was that, based on the evidence, it was impossible to be certain what happened to Madeleine.

If the early appeals didn't trigger either belief or disbelief what did they trigger?
Any emotion or feeling?
It maybe impossible to say with certainty what happened to Madeleine but your reading of the files seems to have  influenced your disbelief rather than belief in the parent non involvement.
Both police investigations will be very aware of the files and both have said the McCanns are not suspects.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 04:38:05 PM
If I may, I will also answer this question - my trigger was the interview when Gerry was asked if he had sedated his kids and he say '....of course we never sedated the children'. Can't remember the actual interview and with whom. But his whole body language was screaming LIE - his words were totally incongruent with all of the signals he was putting out.
I had my doubts, but this remains pertinent for me, even in the context of press persecution / constant barrage of questions / mental exhaustion / grief / anxiety.

Your doubts are based on body language?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 05:15:26 PM
If the early appeals didn't trigger either belief or disbelief what did they trigger?
Any emotion or feeling?
It maybe impossible to say with certainty what happened to Madeleine but your reading of the files seems to have  influenced your disbelief rather than belief in the parent non involvement.
Both police investigations will be very aware of the files and both have said the McCanns are not suspects.

And both investigations are covered by judicial secrecy so won’t be able to tell the public even if the parents were suspects.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
I have an unshakeable belief in the right of individuals to the right to the presumption of innocence ... it is the hallmark of a civilised society.

As you have noticed my posts respect not just that one but all human rights.  I wouldn't have it any other way.

I hope we all agree with all the rights people are enttled to; including freedom of expression.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 05:28:53 PM
And both investigations are covered by judicial secrecy so won’t be able to tell the public even if the parents were suspects.


You believe that after two lengthy investigations by both Police Forces, this is still a possibility?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2019, 05:33:17 PM
I hope we all agree with all the rights people are enttled to; including freedom of expression.

With freedom of expression or 'freedom of speech' comes responsibility.  That is where morality comes in.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 05:36:37 PM

You believe that after two lengthy investigations by both Police Forces, this is still a possibility?

It's infinitely more likely that Maddie was taken by a dead tractor driver who preferred kidnap to employment tribunals.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 05:37:26 PM
You keep doing that, as if there aren't degrees of scepticism and as if one speaks for all.
If I'm your 'sceptic', then this poster doesn't speak for me.

Describing all sceptics in terms of the most extreme or ill-onformed of them is just an attempt to paint all sceptcs with the same brush. Otherwise it would have to be acknowledged that there are sceptics who aren't sad, lonely, ill-educated trolls who hate the McCanns because they're jealous of them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 05:50:08 PM

You believe that after two lengthy investigations by both Police Forces, this is still a possibility?

It’s a fact not a possibility.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 05:50:24 PM
It's infinitely more likely that Maddie was taken by a dead tractor driver who preferred kidnap to employment tribunals.

I'm sure that theory has been discarded as well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 05:51:15 PM
It’s a fact not a possibility.

What's a fact?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 05:57:52 PM
Describing all sceptics in terms of the most extreme or ill-onformed of them is just an attempt to paint all sceptcs with the same brush. Otherwise it would have to be acknowledged that there are sceptics who aren't sad, lonely, ill-educated trolls who hate the McCanns because they're jealous of them.

Not at all!
But step out of the safety of this forum, and you will find many sceptics who fit your description exactly!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 06:04:12 PM
If the early appeals didn't trigger either belief or disbelief what did they trigger?
Any emotion or feeling?
It maybe impossible to say with certainty what happened to Madeleine but your reading of the files seems to have  influenced your disbelief rather than belief in the parent non involvement.
Both police investigations will be very aware of the files and both have said the McCanns are not suspects.

Concern for the child, obviously, which has nothing to do with belief in her parents. I found a lot of things in the files, but nothing which convinced me of anyone's innocence.

I have no idea what the police are thinking or doing so I can't comment. Perhaps one day there may be another release of files in Portugal, but OG will cling to secrecy just as LP did imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 06:06:01 PM
What's a fact?

That both investigations are covered by judicial secrecy and therefore even if the parents were under investigation we, the public, wouldn’t be told about it. That is exactly what happened in the original investigation. The PJ’s spokesperson denied that the parents were suspects even though we now know that they were.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:08:42 PM
An open window and shutters is evidence that someone opened them. Who, when or why is unknown and a defence lawyer would be quite correct to point out that there's no evidence that his client was the person who opened them for the purpose of abducting MBM.
Who is disputing that?  Possibly the prosecution who may have amassed other, circumstantial evidence in the meantime.  Glad you now seem to be accepting the evidence would almost certainly be presented in court anyway.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:09:27 PM
Concern for the child, obviously, which has nothing to do with belief in her parents. I found a lot of things in the files, but nothing which convinced me of anyone's innocence.

I have no idea what the police are thinking or doing so I can't comment. Perhaps one day there may be another release of files in Portugal, but OG will cling to secrecy just as LP did imo.

So nothing that has added weight to either your belief or disbelief in the McCanns non involvement?
Did their pursuit of the scoping exercise and the consequent reopening of the investigation not influence your view?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 06:11:27 PM
With freedom of expression or 'freedom of speech' comes responsibility.  That is where morality comes in.

Are you accusing someone of irresponsibility?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:13:10 PM
That both investigations are covered by judicial secrecy and therefore even if the parents were under investigation we, the public, wouldn’t be told about it. That is exactly what happened in the original investigation. The PJ’s spokesperson denied that the parents were suspects even though we now know that they were.

So it is a fact that after a lengthy investigation by two police forces no evidence has been found as yet which would make the parents suspects.
Does this not make you doubt your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:13:46 PM
And yet she continued to question the parents in an accusatory manner for years after the files were released. She therefore must have known the truth but put the parents through that kind of questioning simply for ratings.... either that or she is wringing her hands now for ratings...either way her integrity as an individual as well as her credibility as a journalist is shot.
In your opinion.  Is she out of work now in Portugal as a result of this so-called “shot credibility “?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:15:29 PM
If I may, I will also answer this question - my trigger was the interview when Gerry was asked if he had sedated his kids and he say '....of course we never sedated the children'. Can't remember the actual interview and with whom. But his whole body language was screaming LIE - his words were totally incongruent with all of the signals he was putting out.
I had my doubts, but this remains pertinent for me, even in the context of press persecution / constant barrage of questions / mental exhaustion / grief / anxiety.
Does that mean you actually believe the McCanns sedated their children?  What with, do you think?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 06:16:31 PM
Not at all!
But step out of the safety of this forum, and you will find many sceptics who fit your description exactly!

Safety? Safe from what? Not from being accused of being all those things I'm not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:19:13 PM
Safety? Safe from what? Not from being accused of being all those things I'm not.


If you choose to misread a post in order to seem to be a victim of false accusations, then so be it!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:20:01 PM
Safety? Safe from what? Not from being accused of being all those things I'm not.
Who on this forum has accused you of being a sad, lonely, ill-educated troll jealous of the Mc.canns?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:27:46 PM
Does that mean you actually believe the McCanns sedated their children? 
No. It means it was a really odd reaction and there was more to it.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:28:48 PM
No. It means it was a really odd reaction and there was more to it.

More to what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 06:31:44 PM
I have an unshakeable belief in the right of individuals to the right to the presumption of innocence ... it is the hallmark of a civilised society.

As you have noticed my posts respect not just that one but all human rights.  I wouldn't have it any other way.
Have you been following the mass shooting in NZ?  50 people dead and 40 or more wounded and the whole incident live streamed on Facebook.  A person caught 17 minutes after the incident started.

I'm struggling to presume him innocent.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 11, 2019, 06:34:13 PM
Have you been following the mass shooting in NZ?  50 people dead and 40 or more wounded and the whole incident live streamed on Facebook.  A person caught 17 minutes after the incident started.

I'm struggling to presume him innocent.
I presume and trust that you and yours are safe.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 06:37:31 PM
I'm sure that theory has been discarded as well.
On what basis?  Did he have a watertight alibi for the 3rd of May 2007?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:40:06 PM
I presume and trust that you and yours are safe.
I may be wrong here but I don’t believe Robbitybob is a Muslim worshipper.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:41:41 PM
No. It means it was a really odd reaction and there was more to it.
You just didn’t the look of him and that was that.  Rational, much.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:41:47 PM
On what basis?  Did he have a watertight alibi for the 3rd of May 2007?

Fair enough.
He might still  be a suspect.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:44:28 PM
More to what?
How many things do you think I was talking about? It's right there in the post - his odd reaction.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 06:44:56 PM
Fair enough.
He might still  be a suspect.

And why don’t you know whether he is ? Could it be due to judicial secrecy ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:45:34 PM
Have you been following the mass shooting in NZ?  50 people dead and 40 or more wounded and the whole incident live streamed on Facebook.  A person caught 17 minutes after the incident started.

I'm struggling to presume him innocent.

Yes, it must be difficult in a case such as that, to be on a jury and try to remain with the concept of innocent .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 06:49:07 PM
How many things do you think I was talking about? It's right there in the post - his odd reaction.
What would have been a normal reaction to being asked that question in front of the TV cameras and in what way did Gerry’s reaction differ so noticeably from the correct behaviour to display when asked?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:49:17 PM
You just didn’t the look of him and that was that.  Rational, much.
Is that the best you've got? 'Didn't like the look of him'? Apart from not even remotely stating that, it wasn't even insinuated. I thought his reaction to the question was odd and was incongruous to the refutation. I'm no body language expert, or speech analyst, and I don't trust the supposed science related to it - but it was pretty starkly obvious.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:50:24 PM
And why don’t you know whether he is ? Could it be due to judicial secrecy ?

You keep avoiding the question.
Does the fact that two lengthy police investigations have so far not been able to implicate the McCanns of being complicit in their child's disappearance not cast the slightest doubt on your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:51:14 PM
Is that the best you've got? 'Didn't like the look of him'? Apart from not even remotely stating that, it wasn't even insinuated. I thought his reaction to the question was odd and was incongruous to the refutation. I'm no body language expert, or speech analyst, and I don't trust the supposed science related to it - but it was pretty starkly obvious.

To you?
Or to everyone ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 06:52:09 PM
How many things do you think I was talking about? It's right there in the post - his odd reaction.

That's it then?
That's the basis for your belief ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:53:33 PM
What would have been a normal reaction to being asked that question in front of the TV cameras and in what way did Gerry’s reaction differ so noticeably from the correct behaviour to display when asked?
Well I stated that the context must be taken in to account and lent some latitude, if you care to read the pertinent parts of the original post. Tell you what, I'll find the clip and let the forum decide. In my opinion, it was a reaction that was attempting to hide a poke of the amygdala. Could be fight / anger, but it looked more like flight to me. I see it daily in my line of work.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 06:53:53 PM
I presume and trust that you and yours are safe.
Yes all OK. 

Yes, it must be difficult in a case such as that, to be on a jury and try to remain with the concept of innocent .

My feeling is that no one goes and shoots him dead just on the basis he is presumed guilty.  There has to be the fair trial first.  OK how to select an impartial jury is yet to be seen.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 06:56:45 PM
You keep avoiding the question.
Does the fact that two lengthy police investigations have so far not been able to implicate the McCanns of being complicit in their child's disappearance not cast the slightest doubt on your belief?

No it’s you who keeps avoiding the question. Why didn’t we know through official channels that the parents were being investigated before September 6th 2007 ? Could it be down to judicial secrecy? Why would we not know if the parents were being investigated this time? Judicial secrecy too ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 06:56:57 PM
To you?
Or to everyone ?
I get it now - it's a wee game. OK, I have to explain in terms you can understand - I've stated it's my opinion. I've stated it from the initial post.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:02:11 PM
That's it then?
That's the basis for your belief ?
You are on fire tonight. Read the initial post - it made me think, in my opinion he's not being truthful, so what else isn't true. It didn't define an entire belief system, I'm not on a crusade or going to start a cult.

Are we permitted to post links to Youtube?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:05:53 PM
I get it now - it's a wee game. OK, I have to explain in terms you can understand - I've stated it's my opinion. I've stated it from the initial post.

No, not a game?
It was obvious to you that his reaction was odd but perhaps his reaction didn't seem odd to others.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 07:07:42 PM
No, not a game?
It was obvious to you that his reaction was odd but perhaps his reaction didn't seem odd to others.
We all can express our own opinions.  The General has spoken.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 11, 2019, 07:08:38 PM
No, not a game?
It was obvious to you that his reaction was odd but perhaps his reaction didn't seem odd to others.

I did to me too. Most odd.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:09:51 PM
You are on fire tonight. Read the initial post - it made me think, in my opinion he's not being truthful, so what else isn't true. It didn't define an entire belief system, I'm not on a crusade or going to start a cult.

Are we permitted to post links to Youtube?

One clip made you doubtful?
Has any clip made you doubt your doubts?

I didn't for one moment think you would start a cult or a crusade.
What a strange thought to have?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:11:06 PM
I did to me too. Most odd.

Of course!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:11:18 PM
No, not a game?
It was obvious to you that his reaction was odd but perhaps his reaction didn't seem odd to others.
Well of course that's the case. That's the case with anything subjective in the history of humanity.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:14:19 PM
Well of course that's the case. That's the case with anything subjective in the history of humanity.

I do not doubt that you found it odd.
But has it defined your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:18:56 PM
No it’s you who keeps avoiding the question. Why didn’t we know through official channels that the parents were being investigated before September 6th 2007 ? Could it be down to judicial secrecy? Why would we not know if the parents were being investigated this time? Judicial secrecy too ?

May to September is five months.

How long is it since both investigations declared the McCanns not to be suspects?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 07:19:33 PM
Well I stated that the context must be taken in to account and lent some latitude, if you care to read the pertinent parts of the original post. Tell you what, I'll find the clip and let the forum decide. In my opinion, it was a reaction that was attempting to hide a poke of the amygdala. Could be fight / anger, but it looked more like flight to me. I see it daily in my line of work.
Ah.  You’re something of an expert.  Might have known.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:20:28 PM
I do not doubt that you found it odd.
But has it defined your belief?
No. It was not Road to Damascus moment. I didn't throw my arms up, cast my robes off and embark on a crusade.
I'm no staunch McCann [ censored word ], I haven't got a Mr Magoo what went on, but it's not stitching together and little episodes like this only add to the intrigue.
Thanks for reading.

I'll post the clip, if permitted, but I'm sure you've all seen it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:23:05 PM
Ah.  You’re something of an expert.  Might have known.
It's that obvious?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:25:08 PM
No. It was not Road to Damascus moment. I didn't throw my arms up, cast my robes off and embark on a crusade.
I'm no staunch McCann [ censored word ], I haven't got a Mr Magoo what went on, but it's not stitching together and little episodes like this only add to the intrigue.
Thanks for reading.

I'll post the clip, if permitted, but I'm sure you've all seen it.

Do you think the you tube clip will have been noted by both police Investigations?
Would it be used as evidence?

I'm hoping you are allowed to post it here.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:25:57 PM
Do you think the you tube clip will have been noted by both police Investigations?
Would it be used as evidence?

I'm hoping you are allowed to post it here.
No, absolutely not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 07:27:08 PM
You are on fire tonight. Read the initial post - it made me think, in my opinion he's not being truthful, so what else isn't true. It didn't define an entire belief system, I'm not on a crusade or going to start a cult.

Are we permitted to post links to Youtube?
Yes links are OK.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 07:27:34 PM
It's that obvious?
It’s the way you stuck your finger up your nose when you said it that convinced me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:28:03 PM
Yes links are OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58)

Please ignore the amateur youtube pyschologists input in the comments. Not my opinions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 07:29:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58)
Aww, come on.  He’s so obviously flirting with Sandra I’m surprised Kate didn’t slap him one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:30:37 PM
Aww, come on.  He’s so obviously flirting with Sandra I’m surprised Kate didn’t slap him one.
I almost inserted an laughing emoji there........touché.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 07:33:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jtmkXXv58)

Please ignore the amateur youtube pyschologists input in the comments. Not my opinions.

What do you notice from that clip?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 07:42:03 PM
So nothing that has added weight to either your belief or disbelief in the McCanns non involvement?
Did their pursuit of the scoping exercise and the consequent reopening of the investigation not influence your view?

I found nothing in the files whch dispelled my dooubts. I found things which added to them. Their appeal for a review isn't necessarily a sign of innocence. It might be, but equally it might not be.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:44:11 PM
I found nothing in the files whch dispelled my dooubts. I found things which added to them. Their appeal for a review isn't necessarily a sign of innocence. It might be, but equally it might not be.

Why would they appeal for a review if guilty of playing a part in their child's disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 07:48:50 PM
Bluff, in the hope that people will say exactly what you have said.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 07:50:08 PM
.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 07:52:27 PM
Who on this forum has accused you of being a sad, lonely, ill-educated troll jealous of the Mc.canns?

I am labelled a sceptic. I constantly read posts describing sceptics. None pf them describe me. That's why I object to the label. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:52:44 PM
Bluff, in the hope that people will say exactly what you have said.

Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?
So, they knowing that they are implicit in their child's disappearance, ask for a review of the investigation into her disappearance as a bluff?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2019, 07:53:49 PM
Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?
So, they knowing that they are implicit in their child's disappearance, ask for a review of the investigation into her disappearance as a bluff?

Well, they seem to have convinced you  8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 07:54:19 PM
What do you notice from that clip?
That, in my amateur opinion, using my flawed, biased, conditioned point of view, he's finding that particular question awkward, is evasive and the actions are incongruent with the words.

* effusive replaced with evasive. I meant evasive.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:55:01 PM
Well, they seem to have convinced you  8(0(*

But it hasn't convinced you.
Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 07:57:39 PM
That, in my amateur opinion, using my flawed, biased, conditioned point of view, he's finding that particular question awkward, is effusive and the actions are incongruent with the words.

Have you ever been interviewed by a professional interviewer and asked if you sedated your child who has disappeared?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 08:00:45 PM
Have you ever been interviewed by a professional interviewer and asked if you sedated your child who has disappeared?
No, but then I've never left my kids in a holiday apartment and lost one of them either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 08:06:15 PM
No, but then I've never left my kids in a holiday apartment and lost one of them either.

Tut tut, the usual deflection when a question cannot be answered.
I'm sure you haven't.
But yet you seem to know that a parent who did "lose "a child would know exactly how to respond to  a professional interviewer suggesting that the missing child had been sedated?
Excellent powers of putting oneself into a situation that you would never have been in.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 08:15:45 PM
Tut tut, the usual deflection when a question cannot be answered.
I'm sure you haven't.
But yet you seem to know that a parent who did "lose "a child would know exactly how to respond to  a professional interviewer suggesting that the missing child had been sedated?
Excellent powers of putting oneself into a situation that you would never have been in.
What part of 'no' at the beginning of the response is deflection?

And to be clear, I have admitted it's extenuating circumstances, under duress / pressure after innumerable banal interviews. I even yield to the fact that they never shy away from the scrutiny, particularly the first years. But I maintain that this specific reaction is at odds with the refutation of the impertinent question, given that he probably girded his loins knowing he would likely be asked.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 08:25:10 PM
Why would they appeal for a review if guilty of playing a part in their child's disappearance?

That would depend on what they were trying to achieve. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 08:33:44 PM
That would depend on what they were trying to achieve.

I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 11, 2019, 08:35:31 PM
I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?


Continue on what grounds? when SY have no jurisdiction in Portugal.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 08:37:58 PM
That, in my amateur opinion, using my flawed, biased, conditioned point of view, he's finding that particular question awkward, is evasive and the actions are incongruent with the words.

* effusive replaced with evasive. I meant evasive.
Sandra asks if they used Calpol, but in his answer there is no mention of Calpol.  Gerry denies using sedatives.  Calpol IMO is not a sedative.  They may have used Calpol for there is no specific denial of Calpol use.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 08:39:46 PM
I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?

The original investigation never need have ended, Amaral had got the boot & wasn't there to frame the McCanns anymore, Robelo tried to get them back for a reconstruction, all they had to do was convince their friends to go back with them, it was in Maddie's best interests afterall. But, alas, following the Rothley meeting, the McCanns friends decided it best not to return. The selfish b........s. Poor Maddie.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 08:42:38 PM
Maddie was abandoned for a second time. All for the sake of a few hours spent demonstrating innocence, which wouldn't have been difficult, given how incredibly bloody innocent they are.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 08:46:07 PM
Maddie was abandoned for a second time. All for the sake of a few hours spent demonstrating innocence, which wouldn't have been difficult, given how incredibly bloody innocent they are.
Who were they going to demonstrate that to?  They were asked to vacate the apartment in the middle of the night.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 08:49:44 PM
Just acknowledging your replies Wonderfulspam
 However there is nothing in either replies which  adds anything to the answers to my original question.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 08:51:41 PM
Who were they going to demonstrate that to?  They were asked to vacate the apartment in the middle of the night.

I'm talking about Robelo's request for a reconstruction, a year later, which didn't take place, hence the investigation ended.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2039181/Madeleine-McCann-reconstruction-called-off-by-Portuguese-Police.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 08:55:55 PM
Have you been following the mass shooting in NZ?  50 people dead and 40 or more wounded and the whole incident live streamed on Facebook.  A person caught 17 minutes after the incident started.

I'm struggling to presume him innocent.
#

Have you seen the video?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 09:00:50 PM
#

Have you seen the video?
No I haven't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 09:02:43 PM
Off to watch the final episode of the Victim
Very involving of internet speculation?
 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 09:04:24 PM
No I haven't.

I have. Would you like to see it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 09:06:58 PM
I'm talking about Robelo's request for a reconstruction, a year later, which didn't take place, hence the investigation ended.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2039181/Madeleine-McCann-reconstruction-called-off-by-Portuguese-Police.html
I don't believe that there was any intention to have a reconstruction.   But because certain members of the Tapas 9 were in fear of what might happen they refused to attend.   
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 09:08:06 PM
I have. Would you like to see it?
Not really. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 09:12:13 PM
I don't believe that there was any intention to have a reconstruction.   But because certain members of the Tapas 9 were in fear of what might happen they refused to attend.   

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1584329/Madeleine-McCann-parents-asked-to-return-to-Portugal-for-reconstruction.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 11, 2019, 09:16:22 PM
Not really.

You're missing out there.
I watched it twice. He certainly left his mark.
I think the MSM do a dis service in their censorship of events like these.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 09:18:07 PM
I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?

I have to say you puzzle me. I don't care what you believe or assume about the McCanns, their friends or the police.You can think what you like.

On the other hand you seem interested in learning and understanding why other people think what they think. When they tell you, however, you just reject their views out of hand. 

I get the impression that you're convinced that you're right and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. I find that somewhat arrogant to be honest.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 09:18:14 PM
What part of 'no' at the beginning of the response is deflection?

And to be clear, I have admitted it's extenuating circumstances, under duress / pressure after innumerable banal interviews. I even yield to the fact that they never shy away from the scrutiny, particularly the first years. But I maintain that this specific reaction is at odds with the refutation of the impertinent question, given that he probably girded his loins knowing he would likely be asked.
What I find odd is that this interview, over a year after Madeleine’s disappearance, was the thing that you say triggered your disbelief, not all the other stuff that had already convinced most sceptics that they were as guilty as hell.  Was this interview your first encounter with the case?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2019, 09:25:04 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1584329/Madeleine-McCann-parents-asked-to-return-to-Portugal-for-reconstruction.html
"Senior Portuguese police are sitting in on the interviews but are not allowed to question anyone themselves. Over the next three days, they will interview all of the so-called Tapas Seven." 
So these events happened at the time of the rogatory interviews.

That article shows there were a lot of unresolved issues to be defined before the Tapas 9 would agree to a revisit to Portugal.  I don't think these issues were ever resolved. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 11, 2019, 09:29:57 PM
What I find odd is that this interview, over a year after Madeleine’s disappearance, was the thing that you say triggered your disbelief, not all the other stuff that had already convinced most sceptics that they were as guilty as hell.  Was this interview your first encounter with the case?
I'll be honest, I didn't see any of this material contemporaneously really.
It's only after stumbling upon the rise of the Youtube sensationalist and pretend sleuths that I started digging. I've changed my point of view about 30 times. So when I chanced upon this I just thought.....'yeh, bit cringy that'.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 11, 2019, 09:32:11 PM
"Senior Portuguese police are sitting in on the interviews but are not allowed to question anyone themselves. Over the next three days, they will interview all of the so-called Tapas Seven." 
So these events happened at the time of the rogatory interviews.

That article shows there were a lot of unresolved issues to be defined before the Tapas 9 would agree to a revisit to Portugal.  I don't think these issues were ever resolved.

The Tapas 7 asked for various assurances which Rebelo refused to give.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 09:42:12 PM
I'll be honest, I didn't see any of this material contemporaneously really.
It's only after stumbling upon the rise of the Youtube sensationalist and pretend sleuths that I started digging. I've changed my point of view about 30 times. So when I chanced upon this I just thought.....'yeh, bit cringy that'.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 11, 2019, 10:13:44 PM
I may be wrong here but I don’t believe Robbitybob is a Muslim worshipper.
I would rate your post as crass, and that is being generous.

Christchurch has suffered in recent times from a major earthquake and a massive shooting.

Although neither American or Australian, we have one of both under our roof at the moment.

 &%%6  And I thought I had no empathy.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2019, 10:22:44 PM
"Senior Portuguese police are sitting in on the interviews but are not allowed to question anyone themselves. Over the next three days, they will interview all of the so-called Tapas Seven." 
So these events happened at the time of the rogatory interviews.

That article shows there were a lot of unresolved issues to be defined before the Tapas 9 would agree to a revisit to Portugal.  I don't think these issues were ever resolved.

Rebelo did his best but it was never going to happen imo.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 11, 2019, 10:37:34 PM
I have to say you puzzle me. I don't care what you believe or assume about the McCanns, their friends or the police.You can think what you like.

On the other hand you seem interested in learning and understanding why other people think what they think. When they tell you, however, you just reject their views out of hand. 

I get the impression that you're convinced that you're right and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. I find that somewhat arrogant to be honest.

Goodness me!
What a personal and inappropriate response!
I believe I did ask you what the McCanns hoped to achieve from their request to have the investigation reopened ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 11, 2019, 10:43:17 PM
I would rate your post as crass, and that is being generous.

Christchurch has suffered in recent times from a major earthquake and a massive shooting.

Although neither American or Australian, we have one of both under our roof at the moment.

 &%%6  And I thought I had no empathy.
As the gunman struck some weeks ago, targeting Muslim worshippers at a mosque, your concern for Robbity’s safety seemed somewhat unecessary, though well meant I’m sure.   I have visited NZ and have many relatives there but did not feel the need to enquire after their safety after the event - they would have thought me mad to do so in the circumstances.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 12, 2019, 12:48:03 AM
July 2015

The remaining line of inquiry is centred around a letter asking for assistance sent from UK investigators to the Portuguese Public Prosecution Service in July 2015.

The statement from the Attorney General's office said confirmed they had received the letter in July, and said the request will be sent to the Criminal Investigation Police (PJ) for them to look in to.

The spokeswoman would not comment on the nature of the request.

October 2015

Madeleine McCann case: Police team cut to four

April 2016

Madeleine McCann case: One line of inquiry remains

Police are following one remaining line of inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Scotland Yard boss Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has said.

February 2017

In the 76-page ruling on the case – made public – they also said the archiving in 2008 of the criminal case into Madeline’s ­disappearance does not prove the McCanns are innocent.

They wrote: “It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.”
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 12, 2019, 09:25:59 PM
July 2015

The remaining line of inquiry is centred around a letter asking for assistance sent from UK investigators to the Portuguese Public Prosecution Service in July 2015.

The statement from the Attorney General's office said confirmed they had received the letter in July, and said the request will be sent to the Criminal Investigation Police (PJ) for them to look in to.

The spokeswoman would not comment on the nature of the request.

October 2015

Madeleine McCann case: Police team cut to four

April 2016

Madeleine McCann case: One line of inquiry remains

Police are following one remaining line of inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Scotland Yard boss Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has said.

February 2017

In the 76-page ruling on the case – made public – they also said the archiving in 2008 of the criminal case into Madeline’s ­disappearance does not prove the McCanns are innocent.

They wrote: “It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.”

Both Police forces have said the McCanns are not suspects.

(Davel isn't here, just filling in for him)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 12, 2019, 09:43:33 PM
Both Police forces have said the McCanns are not suspects.

(Davel isn't here, just filling in for him)

Tis true.
They are not!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 12, 2019, 10:14:07 PM
Tis true.
They are not!!

But then because of judicial secrecy we wouldn’t know if they were.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 12, 2019, 10:47:42 PM
But then because of judicial secrecy we wouldn’t know if they were.
Judicial secrecy didn’t stop us knowing about the last lot of suspects, why would it be any different with the McCanns?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 08:56:09 AM
  ... and it is sentiments like that which epitomise sceptic opinion. 
That has to be fuelled from somewhere and I suggest it is the beliefs spouted unashamedly and uncritically on social media.


Could you expand- on the above post please B

Exactly what you are suggesting.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 09:12:43 AM
Judicial secrecy didn’t stop us knowing about the last lot of suspects, why would it be any different with the McCanns?

Why would the McCanns not be suspects, while burglar bill & Bobby Murat were???

Evidence, I'd imagine. There must be some definite evidence which rules the McCanns out.

I wonder what it is.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 09:28:14 AM

Could you expand- on the above post please B

Exactly what you are suggesting.

Please read back over your previous posts and give some thought to the thread title 'Sceptics beliefs?' in relation to them before deflecting.

I often find it useful to look in before I look out when wondering.  I can recommend it to you particularly as the thread is for discussion of opinions such as those expressed in your posts.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 09:55:10 AM
Goodness me!
What a personal and inappropriate response!
I believe I did ask you what the McCanns hoped to achieve from their request to have the investigation reopened ?

Oh dear. I didn't intend to be personal or inappropriate. Please explain why you think that I was.
I can't tell you what the McCanns hoped to achieve because all I have to go on is what they said. I could, like some, believe eerything they say, but my scepticism makes that difficult for me. By definition sceptics don't believe, you see, they doubt.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 10:00:21 AM
Please read back over your previous posts and give some thought to the thread title 'Sceptics beliefs?' in relation to them before deflecting.

I often find it useful to look in before I look out when wondering.  I can recommend it to you particularly as the thread is for discussion of opinions such as those expressed in your posts.

Unfortunately still can't grasp - what your point is B
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 10:03:18 AM
Oh dear. I didn't intend to be personal or inappropriate. Please explain why you think that I was.
I can't tell you what the McCanns hoped to achieve because all I have to go on is what they said. I could, like some, believe eerything they say, but my scepticism makes that difficult for me. By definition sceptics don't believe, you see, they doubt.

Thank God I was born an optimist.  But just the luck of the draw.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 10:15:28 AM
Oh dear. I didn't intend to be personal or inappropriate. Please explain why you think that I was.
I can't tell you what the McCanns hoped to achieve because all I have to go on is what they said. I could, like some, believe eerything they say, but my scepticism makes that difficult for me. By definition sceptics don't believe, you see, they doubt.

Nothing wrong with 'doubting' that I can see.

That 'doubting' appears to become entrenched as part of 'Sceptics beliefs?' maintained over a twelve year period and is applicable to everything McCann and anyone associated with them however peripherally.

No doubts about Madeleine author Paulo Pereira Cristovao and no fora set up to excoriate him?  Nothing about another arguido the supreme court judges' ruling put in exactly the same basket as the McCanns?

What luxury it must be, being a selective 'doubter' and a selective 'sceptic'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 10:16:38 AM
Why would the McCanns not be suspects, while burglar bill & Bobby Murat were???

Evidence, I'd imagine. There must be some definite evidence which rules the McCanns out.

I wonder what it is.

You have to believe that the police know more than you do! They haven't suggested there's evidence which rules the McCanns out, they've said there's no evidence which suggests their involvement. Anyone who thinks there is is making things up because they're nasty trolls. Any sensible person knows that the police know the truth, tell the truth and don't make mistakes. Have faith!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 10:22:45 AM
Thank God I was born an optimist.  But just the luck of the draw.

I'm an optimist too.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 10:43:19 AM
Nothing wrong with 'doubting' that I can see.

That 'doubting' appears to become entrenched as part of 'Sceptics beliefs?' maintained over a twelve year period and is applicable to everything McCann and anyone associated with them however peripherally.

No doubts about Madeleine author Paulo Pereira Cristovao and no fora set up to excoriate him?  Nothing about another arguido the supreme court judges' ruling put in exactly the same basket as the McCanns?

What luxury it must be, being a selective 'doubter' and a selective 'sceptic'.
I believe nothing and no-one. Some people and things I don't believe, which isn't the same at all.
There's nothing selective about my scepticism I can assure you. I apply A B C  to everyone and everything. A lack of comment shouldn't be interpreted as approval or belief; it's more likely to signify lack of interest. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 11:10:51 AM
You have to believe that the police know more than you do! They haven't suggested there's evidence which rules the McCanns out, they've said there's no evidence which suggests their involvement. Anyone who thinks there is is making things up because they're nasty trolls. Any sensible person knows that the police know the truth, tell the truth and don't make mistakes. Have faith!

I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 11:16:23 AM
I believe nothing and no-one. Some people and things I don't believe, which isn't the same at all.
There's nothing selective about my scepticism I can assure you. I apply A B C  to everyone and everything. A lack of comment shouldn't be interpreted as approval or belief; it's more likely to signify lack of interest.

So you keep insisting ... while missing that what is posted is in danger of leading the reader to a different conclusion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:18:13 AM
I'm an optimist too.

But only for your own sake.  My optimism applies to everything I do and think.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 11:18:50 AM
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.

That is just your opinion - I think more common sense for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 11:25:04 AM
That is just your opinion - I think more common sense for obvious reasons.

When starting a sentence with "I think" it means it is my opinion.

Perhaps you would care to elucidate yours as it is likely to throw a great deal more light on sceptics beliefs than mine ever could.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 11:25:56 AM
So you keep insisting ... while missing that what is posted is in danger of leading the reader to a different conclusion.

Only in your opinion.  If outraged, why not take it up with the Sun ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:27:05 AM
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.

I believe that Amaral saw a way to exonerate himself in The Cipriano Case.  Mothers kill their children.

How on God's earth he was allowed to run the investigation on Missing Madeleine McCann will always be a disgrace to Portugal.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:34:09 AM
Only in your opinion.  If outraged, why not take it up with the Sun ?

I thought that The Sun article was only a question.  Just to sell newspapers.  There are no accusations within the article.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 11:38:52 AM
I thought that The Sun article was only a question.  Just to sell newspapers.  There are no accusations within the article.

In which case there is no need for anyone to get worked up about it - IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 11:50:08 AM
When starting a sentence with "I think" it means it is my opinion.

Perhaps you would care to elucidate yours as it is likely to throw a great deal more light on sceptics beliefs than mine ever could.

Yes, I know what it means - that why I put it.

As for elucidating - I speak for myself - I don't believe the mcs version of events.

As to list why - I haven't time to sit here all day.

One main belief as the title of the thread - I don't believe a word they say.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:53:16 AM
In which case there is no need for anyone to get worked up about it - IMO

I amn't worked up about it.   But I suppose that we have to talk about something.

Like Brietta, I believe totally in the Presumption of Innocence.  There would be No Law without that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 11:53:50 AM
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.

Are you accusing me of lying? You seem to be saying I disbelieve the police who wrote the PJ final report, but I believed Amaral, adopted his beliefs, made them the cornerstone of my beliefs and still believe him. You seem to believe you know what I think and whatever I say to the contrary I'm lying.

I find that pretty insulting.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:55:54 AM
Yes, I know what it means - that why I put it.

As for elucidating - I speak for myself - I don't believe the mcs version of events.

As to list why - I haven't time to sit here all day.

One main belief as the title of the thread - I don't believe a word they say.

That is sad.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 11:58:45 AM
Are you accusing me of lying? You seem to be saying I disbelieve the police who wrote the PJ final report, but I believed Amaral, adopted his beliefs, made them the cornerstone of my beliefs and still believe him. You seem to believe you know what I think and whatever I say to the contrary I'm lying.

I find that pretty insulting.

"Adopted" is probably the operative word.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 12:21:28 PM
That is sad.

I know - I would love to sit here all day.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 12:24:15 PM
Amaral, by no means, is an honourable man.  He never was.  He is a serial philander, a thief and a liar, and was so long before Madeleine disappeared.

Anyone who would put their faith in him has got a serious problem.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 01:00:31 PM
Amaral, by no means, is an honourable man.  He never was.  He is a serial philander, a thief and a liar, and was so long before Madeleine disappeared.

Anyone who would put their faith in him has got a serious problem.


Just the same as I would think - putting your faith in the mcs
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 01:23:22 PM

Just the same as I would think - putting your faith in the mcs

I put my faith in the McCann's as there is no way they could have hidden Madeleine's body somewhere where no one could find her in a place they had never visited before and the time line in which they had to do it,  impossible.  Also there is no way they could have changed from laughing and joking with friends to absolute non functioning sobbing hysterical parents  no way at all.

Amaral was under pressure to get results,  it was a god send to him for the dogs to signal.   He ignored the warnings from our lab to wait for the end results of the DNA he didn't wait and rushed to report there was 100% DNA of Madeleine's in 5a,  there wasn't he was wrong.  Unfortunately he wouldn't listen and with the dog alerts and DNA he made the McCann's arguido's from then on the search for Madeleine ended.  The McCann's were guilty as far as he was concerned and sealed what he thought with his book.  IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 01:38:44 PM
I put my faith in the McCann's as there is no way they could have hidden Madeleine's body somewhere where no one could find her in a place they had never visited before and the time line in which they had to do it,  impossible.  Also there is no way they could have changed from laughing and joking with friends to absolute non functioning sobbing hysterical parents  no way at all.

Amaral was under pressure to get results,  it was a god send to him for the dogs to signal.   He ignored the warnings from our lab to wait for the end results of the DNA he didn't wait and rushed to report there was 100% DNA of Madeleine's in 5a,  there wasn't he was wrong.  Unfortunately he wouldn't listen and with the dog alerts and DNA he made the McCann's arguido's from then on the search for Madeleine ended.  The McCann's were guilty as far as he was concerned and sealed what he thought with his book.  IMO

Also there is no way they could have changed from laughing and joking with friends to absolute non functioning sobbing hysterical parents  no way at all.


Oh lol - when did that happen then.

Or is it what you thought they did.

when were they ever nonfunctioning - I think the fund kept them to busy for that
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 01:46:24 PM
Also there is no way they could have changed from laughing and joking with friends to absolute non functioning sobbing hysterical parents  no way at all.


Oh lol - when did that happen then.

Or is it what you thought they did.

when were they ever nonfunctioning - I think the fund kept them to busy for that


I suggest you read the statements of those that were there.

They started the fund up a while later,  with a lot of help.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 13, 2019, 01:47:02 PM
Oh dear. I didn't intend to be personal or inappropriate. Please explain why you think that I was.
I can't tell you what the McCanns hoped to achieve because all I have to go on is what they said. I could, like some, believe eerything they say, but my scepticism makes that difficult for me. By definition sceptics don't believe, you see, they doubt.

It seems you are under a massive misapprehension by saying some believe everything  the McCanns say even though it's been explained to you many times.
I believe  the McCanns accounts.. Not blindly but based on the evidence.... That's a very sensible and logical approach .
It's pointless you asking me what evidence because we don't agree on what is and isn't evidence.
I think its absolutely  true that the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence... Some don't agree and afaiac they are wrong... Barry George was cleared due to the absence of evidence.... Would anyone disagree with that..
I don't know a 100% the McCanns are innocent but based on the evidence I would say they are innocent to a very high degree of certainty...
You believe that the McCanns statements are accurate... But you cannot know for certain..it's your belief.. You believe the alerts by the dogs are accurate... But there is no certainty... Its just your belief.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 01:58:03 PM

I suggest you read the statements of those that were there.

They started the fund up a while later,  with a lot of help.

Which statements - they seemed to have a lot of discrepancy in them.

how long were they nonfunctioning then - whatever happened the mcn knew Maddie had gone.

also that she was not going to be found anytime soon - they knew that. imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 13, 2019, 02:00:08 PM
I amn't worked up about it.   But I suppose that we have to talk about something.

Like Brietta, I believe totally in the Presumption of Innocence.  There would be No Law without that.

I think the McCanns are entitled far more than the presumption of innocence based on the absence of evidence..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 02:02:24 PM
Which statements - they seemed to have a lot of discrepancy in them.

how long were they nonfunctioning then - whatever happened the mcn knew Maddie had gone.

also that she was not going to be found anytime soon - they knew that. imo

Read the statements of the friends,  the police,  the manager of the ocean club,  and anyone else who was there.

Why do you think the McCann's knew Madeleine wasn't going to be found?


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 02:26:25 PM
Read the statements of the friends,  the police,  the manager of the ocean club,  and anyone else who was there.

Why do you think the McCann's knew Madeleine wasn't going to be found?


Maddie could have turned up at any time - the extravagance shows they didn't think she would. IMO

a photo as well to show how they weren't functioning.

https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2009/12/gerry-mccann-speaking-on-june-3rd-2007.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 02:27:50 PM

I suggest you read the statements of those that were there.

They started the fund up a while later,  with a lot of help.

I have done.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 02:34:06 PM
I have done.

So you would have read this from Alan Pyke a crisis counsellor -

I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information. They were insecure as to how to help and with the lack of help and assistance. Their comportment did not surprise me. It was a comportment which I have witnessed a lot at times when a trauma is suffered. In my opinion, their reaction relative to the disappearance of Madeleine, as already stated above, was completely within the bounds of what one would expect of parents whose daughter was taken from them against their will.


Though you will know different,  you being an expert on how parents behave when their daughter disappears.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 02:41:57 PM

Just the same as I would think - putting your faith in the mcs

Hardly the same thing.  The McCanns do not have a criminal record of any kind.  While Amaral was convicted on more counts than one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 02:43:36 PM
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.
Amaral was the police.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 02:48:08 PM
I think the McCanns are entitled far more than the presumption of innocence based on the absence of evidence..

You are probably right, but I can only presume on The Rule of Law.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 02:51:29 PM
Amaral was the police.

Bloody Great.  God preserves us all.  Amaral was a self serving Copper who stood to make a lot of money.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 02:52:37 PM
I have done.

I am glad that you are back as well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 02:58:34 PM
Bloody Great.  God preserves us all.  Amaral was a self serving Copper who stood to make a lot of money.
Are you insinuating, apart from his perceived incompetence, he was also corrupt?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 03:18:09 PM
So you keep insisting ... while missing that what is posted is in danger of leading the reader to a different conclusion.

I answer for myself. I have no intention of taking responsibility for anyone who misunderstands my posts or my intentions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 03:20:07 PM
But only for your own sake.  My optimism applies to everything I do and think.

Sorry, I haven't the foggiest what you mean.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 03:24:22 PM
Are you insinuating, apart from his perceived incompetence, he was also corrupt?

Yes.  No insinuation.  Amaral was convicted of Perjury and sentenced to a Suspended Sentence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 03:30:40 PM
I thought that The Sun article was only a question.  Just to sell newspapers.  There are no accusations within the article.

You are correct, it was just a question. It suggested nothing, required no answer and was completely and utterly pointless. That is my opinion and I think it needs highlighting that the newspaper in question doesn't exist to give information and opinions about current events and news. It's just a money-chasing waste of space rag imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 03:41:47 PM
Sorry, I haven't the foggiest what you mean.

First and ever foremost, I believe that all people are basically good.  I never assume that someone did something awful.  I always hope that they didn't.

But you see, I need proof before I go around inflicting even more pain on anyone who could be innocent.  I simply don't understand anyone who does.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 03:47:10 PM
Sorry, I haven't the foggiest what you mean.

I actually meant that like me, you are a tough old cookie.  Being married to HM Services isn't all that much fun.  So for your own sake you survive.

For your own sake.  I have never lost my ability to care about other people.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 03:51:22 PM
Nothing wrong with 'doubting' that I can see.

That 'doubting' appears to become entrenched as part of 'Sceptics beliefs?' maintained over a twelve year period and is applicable to everything McCann and anyone associated with them however peripherally.

No doubts about Madeleine author Paulo Pereira Cristovao and no fora set up to excoriate him?  Nothing about another arguido the supreme court judges' ruling put in exactly the same basket as the McCanns?

What luxury it must be, being a selective 'doubter' and a selective 'sceptic'.

You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 03:56:06 PM
You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack


Yes!  Yes!  Yes!   8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 03:59:53 PM
I actually meant that like me, you are a tough old cookie.  Being married to HM Services isn't all that much fun.  So for your own sake you survive.

For your own sake.  I have never lost my ability to care about other people.

You think I have lost my ability to care about others? What on earth makes you think that?. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 13, 2019, 04:04:02 PM
So you would have read this from Alan Pyke a crisis counsellor -

I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information. They were insecure as to how to help and with the lack of help and assistance. Their comportment did not surprise me. It was a comportment which I have witnessed a lot at times when a trauma is suffered. In my opinion, their reaction relative to the disappearance of Madeleine, as already stated above, was completely within the bounds of what one would expect of parents whose daughter was taken from them against their will.


Though you will know different,  you being an expert on how parents behave when their daughter disappears.


I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information.

Oh, a few reasons - not because Maddie was missing. namely lack of information.

You don't have to be an expert - as I said Maddie had gone one way or the other.

The grief would be the same - abducted or if they were involved. imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 04:07:12 PM
First and ever foremost, I believe that all people are basically good.  I never assume that someone did something awful.  I always hope that they didn't.

But you see, I need proof before I go around inflicting even more pain on anyone who could be innocent.  I simply don't understand anyone who does.

That sounds absolutely lovely if you gave everyone the benefit of the doubt, but in my opinion you don't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 04:11:12 PM

I would say that Kate e o Gerry were exhausted, anguished, confused, and angry for a few reasons, but namely with the lack of information.

Oh, a few reasons - not because Maddie was missing. namely lack of information.

You don't have to be an expert - as I said Maddie had gone one way or the other.

The grief would be the same - abducted or if they were involved. imo

That is right on the Money Kizzy. Their behaviour is really very different from the parents of say the moors /abducted/murdered children.

They did seem concerned enough to wonder what people would say..family at home and workmates.
Ans they did seem Un destraught when Mrs Fenn asked if they needed to call the police.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 04:12:36 PM
First and ever foremost, I believe that all people are basically good.  I never assume that someone did something awful.  I always hope that they didn't.


I don't employ that train of thought when I'm on the tube at night, I can tell you that much.
I assume everyone has murderous intent, and they think the same. It's tube rules.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 04:13:14 PM
You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack

Well said.  8((()*/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 04:18:25 PM
You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack

What?  Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCann's,  are you joking?

He came out with the 100% DNA of Madeleine found in the car rubbish.   He was the one who made the McCann's arguido's on the basis of the dog alerts and his misunderstanding of the DNA results.  Of course people started doubting the McCann's they were met with hostility when they were taken in for questioning.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 04:21:10 PM
  He was the one who made the McCann's arguido's on the basis of the dog alerts and his misunderstanding of the DNA results. 
Unilaterally? Did he have the authority to make this decision?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 04:22:38 PM
What?  Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCann's,  are you joking?

He came out with the 100% DNA of Madeleine found in the car rubbish.   He was the one who made the McCann's arguido's on the basis of the dog alerts and his misunderstanding of the DNA results.  Of course people started doubting the McCann's they were met with hostility when they were taken in for questioning.

People doubted the McCann version of events long before Amaral's name was commonly known.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 04:23:14 PM
Only in your opinion.  If outraged, why not take it up with the Sun ?

Where did I say I was "outraged"?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 04:24:10 PM
Hardly the same thing.  The McCanns do not have a criminal record of any kind.  While Amaral was convicted on more counts than one.

So you have faith in those who have no criminal record but not in those who do? You would have been caught out by Myles Bradbury then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 04:25:11 PM
That is right on the Money Kizzy. Their behaviour is really very different from the parents of say the moors /abducted/murdered children.

They did seem concerned enough to wonder what people would say..family at home and workmates.
Ans they did seem Un destraught when Mrs Fenn asked if they needed to call the police.


So how are the McCann's different from other parents of abducted children?   Did Sara Payne cry when appealing to Sarah's abductor?  No she didn't she kept composed,  even said 'I know you love her as we do'  in order to play the abductor and get him to return Sarah.   Did Sara Payne join the search parties?  No, after they had searched for Sarah they didn't go out to search again.   Did April's parents search?  No.   

Mrs. Fenn asked Gerry if he wanted to phone the police,  he said no the police had already been called.

So what else have you to say to describe the McCann's as being nasty uncaring parents?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 04:26:31 PM
Where did I say I was "outraged"?

Your whole attitude over this story has been one of outrage - in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 13, 2019, 04:26:45 PM
People doubted the McCann version of events long before Amaral's name was commonly known.

The people of Portugal were sympathetic towards them,  that changed for many when Amaral made the arguido's.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 04:31:20 PM
Yes, I know what it means - that why I put it.

As for elucidating - I speak for myself - I don't believe the mcs version of events.

As to list why - I haven't time to sit here all day.

One main belief as the title of the thread - I don't believe a word they say.

As clear as mud ... then of course, it is really taxing when asked to ponder on the inexplicable and provide a cogent reason.
Which in my opinion whether in the singular or the plural, 'sceptic belief' relies heavily on the 'beliefs' as outlined by Amaral which the majority of informed opinion rejected as far back as 2007.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 04:33:46 PM
People doubted the McCann version of events long before Amaral's name was commonly known.

It doesn't matter how many people point that out, they refuse to believe it. In my opinion it's because Gerry and Kate told them it was Anaral's fault so it must be true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 04:35:41 PM
People doubted the McCann version of events long before Amaral's name was commonly known.

Indeed. I doubted the McCanns from the outset.
4th May 2007. I had no idea who Amaral was until reading about the libel trial in some rag years later.
I happen to think his thesis is wrong in part.
I don't believe Maddie's corpse was transported in the hire car, for example. Nor do I believe there was an accident.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:37:21 PM
I don't employ that train of thought when I'm on the tube at night, I can tell you that much.
I assume everyone has murderous intent, and they think the same. It's tube rules.

So you are basically emotionally damaged.  Why do you think that is?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 04:40:03 PM
So you are basically emotionally damaged.  Why do you think that is?
PTSD
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:40:27 PM
Unilaterally? Did he have the authority to make this decision?

Yes, he did at the point.  Everything changed three days later.  But then Amaral knew that would happen.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 04:41:08 PM
Are you accusing me of lying? You seem to be saying I disbelieve the police who wrote the PJ final report, but I believed Amaral, adopted his beliefs, made them the cornerstone of my beliefs and still believe him. You seem to believe you know what I think and whatever I say to the contrary I'm lying.

I find that pretty insulting.

Please don't take things too personally and get so worked up about them ... it is after all a discussion forum.

I regret you feel I have insulted you, that was not my intention ... but I think you are pretty good at dishing it out for you to be so sensitive ... particularly since you insist in putting words in my mouth never said or implied.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:43:41 PM
So you have faith in those who have no criminal record but not in those who do? You would have been caught out by Myles Bradbury then.

You could say that.

I have no idea of Myles Bradbury.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 04:44:23 PM

Name calling? 
Particularly given that it was quite obviously a joke.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 04:44:49 PM
Please don't take things too personally and get so worked up about them ... it is after all a discussion forum.

I regret you feel I have insulted you, that was not my intention ... but I think you are pretty good at dishing it out for you to be so sensitive ... particularly since you insist in putting words in my mouth never said or implied.

Pot calling Kettle... you take things very personally and rempve posts which challenge you.

Nice work  .. hahahaha its all you have.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:53:58 PM

Name calling? 

So my post was removed because Briettas opinion must stay because she is a mod and not because her opinion is untrue. Perhaps she can add some meat to her watery  gravey by offering some instances.  like someone saying I didn't believe the McCanns because of Amaral  or  I stopped looking for Maddie because Amaral thinks she ,may be dead?  yes? No? 

My opinion of supporters is always removed.. funny that!

Sorry.  You are wrong.  No Moderator has the time or patience to remove your comments.  Mostly because they are all a bit silly.  So we ignore them.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 04:57:03 PM
Pot calling Kettle... you take things very personally and rempve posts which challenge you.

Nice work  .. hahahaha its all you have.

No.  Brietta does not do this.  And I will have you if you say this again.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:08:13 PM
You don't half post some rubbish- selective doubter and sceptic? what?

It really shouldn't bother you that much if people are doubting the words of others now should it? I mean who made you seem to think you are a higher authority.

People do not belive the McCanns version get yourself over it.

and what about this gem "I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics".


I THINK  you will find that what YOU think is rubbish. Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns. That is the McCann defence= attack

                "Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns."

I have seen that claim made by sceptics on a few occasions ... and I cannot tell you how intriguing I find it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:13:25 PM

Yes!  Yes!  Yes!   8@??)( 8@??)(

Posting in an offensive and downright rude manner demeans the poster doing so ... but not nearly as much as applauding the misdemeanour does.

But it is the correct thread for doing so, I think.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 05:18:52 PM
Posting in an offensive and downright rude manner demeans the poster doing so ... but not nearly as much as applauding the misdemeanour does.

But it is the correct thread for doing so, I think.

Rude? oh it wasn't meant to be rude.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 05:25:04 PM
                "Amaral had nothing to do with people doubting the McCanns."

I have seen that claim made by sceptics on a few occasions ... and I cannot tell you how intriguing I find it.

Is that because you know what sceptics think better than they do themselves, because you believe you know what sceptics think better than they do themselves, or because you think sceptics lie?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:26:01 PM
That is right on the Money Kizzy. Their behaviour is really very different from the parents of say the moors /abducted/murdered children.

They did seem concerned enough to wonder what people would say..family at home and workmates.
Ans they did seem Un destraught when Mrs Fenn asked if they needed to call the police.

I think you are an asset exemplifying sceptic attitudes and beliefs in the way in which you are capable of dredging up long forgotten mantras of prejudice which appears to bother no one but them.


"Gerry McCann did come up to apologise to my mother for all the unwanted attention – which was incredibly kind as he has endured a grief and pain that no parent should ever have to withstand.”  Ian Fenn
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8469932/Madeleine-McCann-time-to-forget.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7674.msg358216#msg358216
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:32:12 PM
Unilaterally? Did he have the authority to make this decision?

Sceptics appear to underestimate the importance of the coordinator ... apparently he was little more than an office boy or a filing clerk.
Certainly his boss expressed disquiet about precipitation ... but as far as Amaral is concerned it seems 'a big boy done it and ran away'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 05:35:07 PM
Is that because you know what sceptics think better than they do themselves, because you believe you know what sceptics think better than they do themselves, or because you think sceptics lie?

All three by the posts. It reallyis too funny...(&^&


"Gerry McCann did come up to apologise to my mother for all the unwanted attention – which was incredibly kind as he has endured a grief and pain that no parent should ever have to withstand.”  Ian Fenn

 from a newspaper?

Was that what Gerry went to Mrs Fenns house for? Not a wee cuppa tea wee chat about what she may have seen or heard pehaps? oh sorry that is the sceptic in me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2019, 05:40:56 PM
All three by the posts. It reallyis too funny...(&^&


"Gerry McCann did come up to apologise to my mother for all the unwanted attention – which was incredibly kind as he has endured a grief and pain that no parent should ever have to withstand.”  Ian Fenn

 from a newspaper?

Was that what Gerry went to Mrs Fenns house for? Not a wee cuppa tea wee chat about what she may have seen or heard pehaps? oh sorry that is the sceptic in me.

I was thinking of the 'short and to the point' remarks his missus and her bessie mate directed at the poor old lady.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 05:48:19 PM
Sceptics appear to underestimate the importance of the coordinator ... apparently he was little more than an office boy or a filing clerk.
Certainly his boss expressed disquiet about precipitation ... but as far as Amaral is concerned it seems 'a big boy done it and ran away'.
Here we go again 'sceptics do this', 'sceptics do that'. Yes, we get it, you like to tar everyone with the same brush.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 05:49:57 PM
Sceptics appear to underestimate the importance of the coordinator ... apparently he was little more than an office boy or a filing clerk.
Certainly his boss expressed disquiet about precipitation ... but as far as Amaral is concerned it seems 'a big boy done it and ran away'.

I thought that was the McCann stance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 05:51:36 PM
Here we go again 'sceptics do this', 'sceptics do that'. Yes, we get it, you like to tar everyone with the same brush.

Are you not supplying the tar?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 05:57:25 PM
Are you not supplying the tar?
....and you supply the feathers.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 05:57:36 PM
 ^*&&
Are you not supplying the tar?

Tarring everyone with the same brush is goading imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 05:58:26 PM
Rude? oh it wasn't meant to be rude.

You probably wouldn't know Rude if it smacked you in the mouth.  Some would, but I leave that to them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 06:08:57 PM
^*&&
Tarring everyone with the same brush is goading imo

Oh for God's sake, do yourself a favour.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 06:09:10 PM
The thread is finally producing the results it hoped for.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:15:56 PM
The thread is finally producing the results it hoped for.

It achieved nothing worth anything. Just words on a screen is all. Supporters are very few and far between now.. and most are very old...so new mods will be brought in eventually or John will fimd his site dissapear.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 06:17:28 PM
It achieved nothing worth anything. Just words on a screen is all. Supporters are very few and far between now.. and most are very old...so new mods will be brought in eventually or John will fimd his site dissapear.

Will or is?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:28:01 PM
Will or is?

Well we don't know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 06:35:55 PM
I was thinking of the 'short and to the point' remarks his missus and her bessie mate directed at the poor old lady.

I get the impression Kate has a temper.
She has a propensity to violence, punching & kicking walls.
I think that could, in part, explain what happened to Maddie.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 06:37:37 PM
I get the impression Kate has a temper.
She has a propensity to violence, punching & kicking walls.
I think that could, in part, explain what happened to Maddie.

Do stop this, will you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 06:38:33 PM
Do stop this, will you.

Just expressing my sceptical beliefs, as the thread invites.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 06:40:37 PM
Just expressing my sceptical beliefs, as the thread invites.


Supporters ought use the thread for their scepticism toward C sutton and Dr Perlin.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 06:43:15 PM

Supporters ought use the thread for their scepticism toward C sutton and Dr Perlin.

 @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 06:44:10 PM
Just expressing my sceptical beliefs, as the thread invites.

Look Love, we all know who you are, so give it a rest.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:44:47 PM
I get the impression Kate has a temper.
She has a propensity to violence, punching & kicking walls.
I think that could, in part, explain what happened to Maddie.


I suppose it is a theory.


I notied she isn't a wallflower in any sence of the meaning.
Calling policemen fking tossers and wishing Amaral"nothing but  fear", but the forgiving the 'abductor' so soon after ...and it could have been paedos- not a loving family who stole her from her bed.... as she lay under  over the covers are both parnets claim different scenarios.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:46:17 PM

Supporters ought use the thread for their scepticism toward C sutton and Dr Perlin.


AND everyone else they do not believe. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:47:51 PM
Look Love, we all know who you are, so give it a rest.

We do?


Oh...

Nobody tells me anything...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 06:50:42 PM
We do?


Oh...

Nobody tells me anything...

That's cos it's a secret and you are not to be trusted
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 06:52:47 PM
That's cos it's a secret and you are not to be trusted

This could well be true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 06:53:40 PM
That's cos it's a secret and you are not to be trusted

Indeed I should not be trusted.... to do as I am comanded  8(0(*

Spammers isn't... is it?   can't be  I don't believe it!  Well I never.. whood  da thunk it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 13, 2019, 07:04:16 PM
That's cos it's a secret and you are not to be trusted


Thats seven magpies.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 07:06:05 PM
Indeed I should not be trusted.... to do as I am comanded  8(0(*

Spammers isn't... is it?   can't be  I don't believe it!  Well I never.. whood  da thunk it

To gain the 'knowledge', you must allow yourself to be drawn down into the McCann labyrinth, where you will be fed on a daily diet of bullshit, until one day you are led, blinking, back into the light, so that you too can join the thinning ranks of those who truly believe.
And remember, behave and you too might one day become a chalk monitor.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 07:18:04 PM
Just expressing my sceptical beliefs, as the thread invites.


Got it all so wrong, haven't you?
It's not about Sceptics beliefs,  those have been expressed ad nauseum.
The thread is about  why and how sceptics sustain those belief s over so many years of not even the slightest suggestion the the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance by the two lengthy police investigations.
Could one sceptic give a plausible reason why Madeleine's parents conducted a campaign to have the case reopened if as you believe they are complicit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 13, 2019, 07:20:36 PM
Indeed I should not be trusted.... to do as I am comanded  8(0(*

Spammers isn't... is it?   can't be  I don't believe it!  Well I never.. whood  da thunk it

You are simply entertainment value these days.  And not too much of that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 07:25:33 PM

Could one sceptic give a plausible reason why Madeleine's parents conducted a campaign to have the case reopened if as you believe they are complicit.
Please find below list of hypothetical reasons as a response to the hypothetical scenario posited:

Balls of steel.
Obfuscation (red herring, to use the vernacular).
Safe in the knowledge that without a body a conviction would be almost impossible.
Crank up waning public support.
Misplaced hubris.
PR strategist suggestion.
Have to be seen to be still looking.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 07:27:41 PM

Got it all so wrong, haven't you?
It's not about Sceptics beliefs,  those have been expressed ad nauseum.
The thread is about  why and how sceptics sustain those belief s over so many years of not even the slightest suggestion the the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance by the two lengthy police investigations.
Could one sceptic give a plausible reason why Madeleine's parents conducted a campaign to have the case reopened if as you believe they are complicit.

They didn't campaign to have the case reopened.
They campaigned for a review. There's a slight difference.
As I said the other day, they could have kept the original 'investigation' ongoing, had they demonstrated their innocence, but they didn't do that, because they couldn't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 13, 2019, 07:27:58 PM

Got it all so wrong, haven't you?
It's not about Sceptics beliefs,  those have been expressed ad nauseum.
The thread is about  why and how sceptics sustain those belief s over so many years of not even the slightest suggestion the the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance by the two lengthy police investigations.
Could one sceptic give a plausible reason why Madeleine's parents conducted a campaign to have the case reopened if as you believe they are complicit.

'
No, the Thread title quite clearly says   Sceptics beliefs ?'
Your lack of comprehension explains much.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 07:30:26 PM
Please find below list of hypothetical reasons as a response to the hypothetical scenario posited:

Balls of steel.
Obfuscation (red herring, to use the vernacular).
Safe in the knowledge that without a body a conviction would be almost impossible.
Crank up waning public support.
Misplaced hubris.
PR strategist suggestion.
Have to be seen to be still looking.

He who rides the tiger is afraid to dismount.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Admin on April 13, 2019, 09:03:33 PM
Our moderators do an incredible job every day so a little word to any poster who feels that they are entitled to push the limits... DON'T!!

PS.  This is not up for debate.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 09:34:43 PM

Yes!  Yes!  Yes!   8@??)( 8@??)(
I’ll have what she’s having.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 09:44:48 PM
They didn't campaign to have the case reopened.
They campaigned for a review. There's a slight difference.
As I said the other day, they could have kept the original 'investigation' ongoing, had they demonstrated their innocence, but they didn't do that, because they couldn't.
Have you ever heard of a criminal begging for a police review of his or her own crimes?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 09:50:54 PM
Have you ever heard of a criminal beggimg for a police review of his or her own crimes?
Only most of them. Prison is full of 'innocent' people.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 09:52:38 PM
Have you ever heard of a criminal beggimg for a police review of his or her own crimes?

Jeremy Bamber for one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 09:53:06 PM
Only most of them. Prison is full of 'innocent' people.
OK I phrased that incorrectly. Have you ever heard of any non convicted criminals begging for a police review into their alleged crimes?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 09:54:09 PM
Jeremy Bamber for one.
He’s got nothing to lose has he?  He’s in prison for life with no chance of being released.  The McCanns were free as birds with no one actively investigating them, please explain.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 09:55:12 PM
OK I phrased that incorrectly. Have you ever heard of any non convicted criminals begging for a police review into their alleged crimes?

Go on you are dying to tell us... Who?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 09:56:35 PM
He’s got nothing to lose has he?  He’s in prison for life with no chance of being released.  The McCanns were free as birds with no one actively investigating them, please explain.

You asked for an example. I presented one. Not my fault you worded the question incorrectly.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 09:57:06 PM
OK I phrased that incorrectly. Have you ever heard of any non convicted criminals begging for a police review into their alleged crimes?
Can't say I have. I do admit that there would be an element of turkeys voting for Christmas.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:01:19 PM
Can't say I have. I do admit that there would be an element of turkeys voting for Christmas.

But like you said, No body, no conviction, confident the trail is stone cold.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 13, 2019, 10:17:37 PM
But like you said, No body, no conviction, confident the trail is stone cold.

You have the backing of celebrities, pope, royalty,presidents, Prime ministers all falling over themselves once they were contacted... That is quite  a 'wing man' to have. All standing up for poor parents. and well then the supporters- that staunch army of people who think doctors are above reproach. A PR sucess story. What could possibly go wrong?    ah the Supreme  court thingy. ouch!

The philpots  wanted a press pack inteview not to find the bstrd who burned their children alive(well they didn't have to they knew already) but thanked the police and firebrigade etc for all their help- Oh  how that turned out. The police didn't tell anyone the parents were under suspicion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:29:27 PM
But like you said, No body, no conviction, confident the trail is stone cold.
So they got away with it but instead decided to risk reinevestigation because..?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2019, 10:31:21 PM
But like you said, No body, no conviction, confident the trail is stone cold.

Didn't quite pan out like that for Leonor Cipriano in Amaral's previous missing child case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 10:38:07 PM
He’s got nothing to lose has he?  He’s in prison for life with no chance of being released.  The McCanns were free as birds with no one actively investigating them, please explain.

They can't.
I knew that tiger quote would appear.. (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 10:39:41 PM
So they got away with it but instead decided to risk reinevestigation because..?


Read the reasons given.
Enough to make you weep !

Or fall about laughing.!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:43:21 PM
So they got away with it but instead decided to risk reinevestigation because..?

They wanted a review, as has been explained.
What were they supposed to do?  They couldn't just disappear into obscurity. This is the worlds most high profile missing persons case. How would that look to those bank rolling the fund?

Fund Donor -"There's no police force looking for Maddie! Really! Why not campaign to have the case reopened?"

McCanns- " Oh, err, no, it's ok, we've got private eyes & still have 2 remaining children, we'll just make do with them"

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:45:12 PM

Read the reasons given.
Enough to make you weep !

Or fall about laughing.!
The only reason that would make any sort of sense is that they are both psychopaths, who enjoy extremely high risk actions and constantly drawing attention to their more criminal behaviour .  Spammy probably thinks they are, but most sceptics on here do seem to baulk at describing them as such, for some reason.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:45:44 PM
Didn't quite pan out like that for Leonor Cipriano in Amaral's previous missing child case.

She's free now. I trust the McCanns will be in contact with her to offer support in the search for Joana.
They'd get along famously IMO, Like peas in a pod.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:46:42 PM
They wanted a review, as has been explained.
What were they supposed to do?  They couldn't just disappear into obscurity. This is the worlds most high profile missing persons case. How would that look to those bank rolling the fund?

Fund Donor -"There's no police force looking for Maddie! Really! Why not campaign to have the case reopened?"

McCanns- " Oh, err, no, it's ok, we've got private eyes & still have 2 remaining children, we'll just make do with them"
Which Fund donor are you imagining having this conversation with the McCanns?  Were you aware of fund donors putting pressure on the McCann prior to the review?  If so, do you have cites?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:50:06 PM
The only reason that would make any sort of sense is that they are both psychopaths, who enjoy extremely high risk actions and constantly drawing attention to their more criminal behaviour .  Spammy probably thinks they are, but most sceptics on here do seem to baulk at describing them as such, for some reason.

I don't think they're psychopaths. I just think they are up to their bleeding necks in it.

I happen to think that the McCann's behaviour is consistent with that of a couple united in covering up a tragedy.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 10:51:24 PM
I don't think they're psychopaths. I just think they are up to their bleeding necks in it.

I happen to think that the McCann's behaviour is consistent with that of a couple united in covering up a tragedy.


Up to their necks in what?

What is "it"?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:54:14 PM
Which Fund donor are you imagining having this conversation with the McCanns?  Were you aware of fund donors putting pressure on the McCann prior to the review?  If so, do you have cites?

Could be any one of them. It's only a hypothetical.

Rebekah Brooks was quite persuasive in calling for a review, as I recall.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:55:07 PM

Up to their necks in what?

What is "it"?

Not abduction.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:55:25 PM
I don't think they're psychopaths. I just think they are up to their bleeding necks in it.

I happen to think that the McCann's behaviour is consistent with that of a couple united in covering up a tragedy.
12 years of constantly “being up to their necks in it” and neither has cracked, what amazingly strong and determined people they must be, and how loyal their friends must be too. It’s quite unbelievable really...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:57:14 PM
12 years of constantly “being up to their necks in it” and neither has cracked, what amazingly strong and determined people they must be, and how loyal their friends must be too. It’s quite unbelievable really...

They don't convince me, never have.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 10:59:20 PM

Never will either.

Maddie will never be found alive, &, if in the unlikely event that she is found dead, I bet she'll still be 3.

I'd bet my house on it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 10:59:37 PM
They don't convince me, never have.


Have you ever doubted your belief that they are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance or have you remained steadfast to your belief since May 2007?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 10:59:47 PM
Could be any one of them. It's only a hypothetical.

Rebekah Brooks was quite persuasive in calling for a review, as I recall.
And how did that all come about?  Was it as a result of Kate’s massively successful book that she wrote to keep the case high profile and to keep funding an investigation into their daughter’s disappearance and which she actively sought to have serialised in the biggest selling newspaper in the country ?  Again, strangely pathological behaviour for an allegedly guilty woman. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:00:43 PM
They don't convince me, never have.
They must be gutted that they haven’t convinced some anonymous geezer who goes by the name of Wonderfulspam on the internet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:02:57 PM
Never will either.

Maddie will never be found alive, &, if in the unlikely event that she is found dead, I bet she'll still be 3.

I'd bet my house on it.
I think it’s a rather tasteless thing to be betting on but nevertheless I too think it’s unlikely she will ever be found either alive or dead, but that doesn’t make the parents guilty.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 11:04:03 PM

Have you ever doubted your belief that they are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance or have you remained steadfast to your belief since May 2007?

Nope, never a moments doubt.
Nothing the McCanns have ever said or done, nor two forces saying 'Not Suspects', has ever caused me even the slightest uncertainty in my conviction.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:06:47 PM
Nope, never a moments doubt.
Nothing the McCanns have ever said or done, nor two forces saying 'Not Suspects', has ever caused me even the slightest uncertainty in my conviction.
You sound like a zealot.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 13, 2019, 11:06:59 PM
And how did that all come about?  Was it as a result of Kate’s massively successful book that she wrote to keep the case high profile and to keep funding an investigation into their daughter’s disappearance and which she actively sought to have serialised in the biggest selling newspaper in the country ?  Again, strangely pathological behaviour for an allegedly guilty woman.

Some b........ ex inspector wrote a rather successful book about the case, which she needed to counter.
Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 11:08:58 PM
Nope, never a moments doubt.
Nothing the McCanns have ever said or done, nor two forces saying 'Not Suspects', has ever caused me even the slightest uncertainty in my conviction.

Such faith.
Never to have doubted your conviction for even a moment.
Remarkable!



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 11:09:22 PM
You sound like a zealot.
Ditto
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 13, 2019, 11:14:08 PM
Such faith.
Never to have doubted your conviction for even a moment.
Remarkable!
Same could be said for you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 13, 2019, 11:20:29 PM
Same could be said for you.

I don't think so!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:27:57 PM
Ditto
No I don’t.   When have I ever said that I never had a moment’s doubt or had unshakable belief that I was right?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 13, 2019, 11:32:15 PM
Some b........ ex inspector wrote a rather successful book about the case, which she needed to counter.
Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened.
Strange that, seeing as how so much of it is used as sceptic fodder for more of their doubts and suspicions and criticisms. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 14, 2019, 08:22:35 AM
No I don’t.   When have I ever said that I never had a moment’s doubt or had unshakable belief that I was right?

So you argue from a point of scepticism,welcome to the dark side.(https://i.imgur.com/mv2RziO.png) (https://lunapic.com)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 14, 2019, 08:36:56 AM
Some b........ ex inspector wrote a rather successful book about the case, which she needed to counter.
Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened.


You say - Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened. end quote.

Well wouldn't yours if you had been accused of faking an abduction and hiding your child's body?

Kate got their side of the story out there.    A very good defence script too that would find them innocent in court.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 14, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
So you argue from a point of scepticism,welcome to the dark side.(https://i.imgur.com/mv2RziO.png) (https://lunapic.com)
No, I argue from a point of logic, I am not DarTh Vader, his character was that of a despot, a zealot if you like who had 100% unshakeable faith in his abilities and opinions.  E ven though he was not very nice, like most people he turned out to have a heart after all, which only became apparent on his death bed.  Perhaps there is hope for some sceptics yet.  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 14, 2019, 11:31:01 AM

You say - Kate's book reads like a defence script for a trial that hasn't happened. end quote.

Well wouldn't yours if you had been accused of faking an abduction and hiding your child's body?

Kate got their side of the story out there.    A very good defence script too that would find them innocent in court.
(&^&

Going by past court appearances - are you kidding me?   Their version would get pulled apart- whooshing and moving doors searching for a child in her bedroom after telling people she is missing/abducted... good god  ^*&& 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 14, 2019, 11:42:14 AM
(&^&

Going by past court appearances - are you kidding me?   Their version would get pulled apart- whooshing and moving doors searching for a child in her bedroom after telling people she is missing/abducted... good god  ^*&&

What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 14, 2019, 12:52:30 PM
Just show the crime scene photo of the unmissable crumpled curtain behind the sofa and then show the footage of both CSI dogs later alerting at that same location. Everybody on that jury would now sit up and listen!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 03:41:19 PM
Just show the crime scene photo of the unmissable crumpled curtain behind the sofa and then show the footage of both CSI dogs later alerting at that same location. Everybody on that jury would now sit up and listen!

Do sceptics still believe in 'blood platter'??

The area to which you refer has been exhaustively tested by forensic scientists and comprehensive results obtained which are detailed in the files.

Absolutely concise and unmistakable forensic findings were the result and guess what? ... no blood splatter ... or an iota showing that Madeleine or anyone else came to the slightest harm there ... or anywhere else in the apartment.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2019, 03:43:20 PM
Do sceptics still believe in 'blood platter'??

The area to which you refer has been exhaustively tested by forensic scientists and comprehensive results obtained which are detailed in the files.

Absolutely concise and unmistakable forensic findings were the result and guess what? ... no blood splatter ... or an iota showing that Madeleine or anyone else came to the slightest harm there ... or anywhere else in the apartment.

Now who mentioned blood splatter - other than you?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 03:45:44 PM
Now who mentioned blood splatter - other than you?

Do please try to keep up with the flow of the discussion ... your deflections are tiresome.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2019, 03:48:46 PM
Do please try to keep up with the flow of the discussion ... your deflections are tiresome.

No deflection. YOU are the one who mentioned blood splatter as a deflection, not me
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 14, 2019, 03:55:37 PM
Do sceptics still believe in 'blood platter'??

The area to which you refer has been exhaustively tested by forensic scientists and comprehensive results obtained which are detailed in the files.

Absolutely concise and unmistakable forensic findings were the result and guess what? ... no blood splatter ... or an iota showing that Madeleine or anyone else came to the slightest harm there ... or anywhere else in the apartment.

It's blood spatter.  Splatter is the 'act' of displacing fluid, not the pattern formed on surfaces by doing so.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 04:07:47 PM
No deflection. YOU are the one who mentioned blood splatter as a deflection, not me

Just show the crime scene photo of the unmissable crumpled curtain behind the sofa and then show the footage of both CSI dogs later alerting at that same location. Everybody on that jury would now sit up and listen!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520653#msg520653

What was it prompted the post above?
What was it that prompted the forensic team to check out that area for blood?
What prompts fora discussion on 'blood splatter'? https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/madeleine-blood-spatter-analysis-1/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7281.msg336675#msg336675

(http://holliegreigjustice.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/e45e4-blood2bon2bwall.jpg?w=246&h=170)

Do you really think that reference was made to anything other than allegations that Madeleine's blood spattered there?

The internet and Youtube is polluted with what is after all, yet another sceptic belief which is utterly wrong and which has been proven wrong.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 04:16:05 PM
It's blood spatter.  Splatter is the 'act' of displacing fluid, not the pattern formed on surfaces by doing so.

For the spatter to be there ... it has to be splattered.

The sceptic belief is that the stains consisted of Madeleine's blood.  That is wrong ... the stains were not blood.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 14, 2019, 04:17:47 PM
Just show the crime scene photo of the unmissable crumpled curtain behind the sofa and then show the footage of both CSI dogs later alerting at that same location. Everybody on that jury would now sit up and listen!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520653#msg520653

What was it prompted the post above?
What was it that prompted the forensic team to check out that area for blood?
What prompts fora discussion on 'blood splatter'? https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/madeleine-blood-spatter-analysis-1/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7281.msg336675#msg336675

Do you really think that reference was made to anything other than allegations that Madeleine's blood spattered there?

The internet and Youtube is polluted with what is after all, yet another sceptic belief which is utterly wrong and which has been proven wrong.

What is it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 04:26:05 PM
What is it?

Are you goading or deflecting? or are you genuinely making the attempt to add to forum discussion?  I'm afraid you've lost me as to which it is.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 14, 2019, 04:30:23 PM
Are you goading or deflecting? or are you genuinely making the attempt to add to forum discussion?  I'm afraid you've lost me as to which it is.
Why so spiky all the time? I'm relatively new to all this (only 3 or 4 years.....), but I've just re-read what it is, it's someone else's blood, some saliva and probably some bean juice flung by an impetuous child.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 14, 2019, 04:50:02 PM
Why so spiky all the time? I'm relatively new to all this (only 3 or 4 years.....), but I've just re-read what it is, it's someone else's blood, some saliva and probably some bean juice flung by an impetuous child.

Cause you are a sceptic posting sceptic views which is tanatamount to treason,tis like stop the myths.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 14, 2019, 05:27:04 PM
It's blood spatter.  Splatter is the 'act' of displacing fluid, not the pattern formed on surfaces by doing so.

Splatter can be a noun... The pattern formed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 14, 2019, 05:55:36 PM
Splatter can be a noun... The pattern formed
Jesus. It's spatter, I saw it on Rissoli and Isles.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 14, 2019, 06:07:19 PM
Cause you are a sceptic posting sceptic views which is tanatamount to treason,tis like stop the myths.

Isn't that sceptic beliefs? Do you believe that blood was spattered or splattered behind the blue couch in 5A? It's no use denying it, it seems all sceptics do;

snip/
The sceptic belief is that the stains consisted of Madeleine's blood.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520680#msg520680

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 14, 2019, 07:09:39 PM
Isn't that sceptic beliefs? Do you believe that blood was spattered or splattered behind the blue couch in 5A? It's no use denying it, it seems all sceptics do;

snip/
The sceptic belief is that the stains consisted of Madeleine's blood.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520680#msg520680

I'll bough to someones better knowledge of my thoughts.
"I once was lost but now I'm found"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 14, 2019, 07:13:40 PM
Isn't that sceptic beliefs? Do you believe that blood was spattered or splattered behind the blue couch in 5A? It's no use denying it, it seems all sceptics do;

snip/
The sceptic belief is that the stains consisted of Madeleine's blood.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520680#msg520680
Sceptics like to keep all possibilities on the table, I'm  fairly sure you wouldn't be happy to rule out Madeleine's blood spatter or splatter anywhere.  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2019, 07:18:40 PM
Did forensic science determine what it actually was spattered on the wall?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 14, 2019, 07:20:12 PM
Did forensic science determine what it actually was spattered on the wall?

Splatter.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2019, 07:23:03 PM
Splatter.

As you prefer  8)--))
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 14, 2019, 07:24:58 PM
As you prefer  8)--))

No, no.  Splatter was spattered.  Or is it spatter was splattered?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2019, 07:32:04 PM
No, no.  Splatter was spattered.  Or is it spatter was splattered?

Who cares? I just would like to know it's origins, biological or otherwise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 14, 2019, 07:42:08 PM
Who cares? I just would like to know it's origins, biological or otherwise.
Why would youlike to know that?  I thought you didn’t care enough about anything.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2019, 07:49:42 PM
Why would youlike to know that?  I thought you didn’t care enough about anything.

Caring and seeking knowledge for its own sake are not related.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 14, 2019, 08:02:20 PM
Caring and seeking knowledge for its own sake are not related.
Why do you seek knowledge about alleged blood spatter? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 14, 2019, 08:05:46 PM
Sceptics like to keep all possibilities on the table, I'm  fairly sure you wouldn't be happy to rule out Madeleine's blood spatter or splatter anywhere.  @)(++(*

Another one whose specialIist subject is 'The beliefs of sceptics". I think there's a good chance there was blood around because a blood detection dog alerted there. Whose blood? I've no idea.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 14, 2019, 08:17:10 PM
Another one whose specialIist subject is 'The beliefs of sceptics". I think there's a good chance there was blood around because a blood detection dog alerted there. Whose blood? I've no idea.

As keela alerts to specks of blood that cannot be seen... Or even detected by scientific  means Im sure there was blood there... Most sneezes would contain blood particles... The question I would like to ask grime is why isn't she alerting just about everywhere
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2019, 08:21:55 PM
Why do you seek knowledge about alleged blood spatter?

Why not?
There seems dispute over what they are, so someone must think they know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 14, 2019, 08:32:44 PM
Why not?
There seems dispute over what they are, so someone must think they know.
Really?  I don’t follow your logic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 10:57:26 PM
Did forensic science determine what it actually was spattered on the wall?

Haven't you read the files?  If not ... it might be something for you to do if only to pass the time.  Some people find them riveting.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2019, 11:13:59 PM
Another one whose specialIist subject is 'The beliefs of sceptics". I think there's a good chance there was blood around because a blood detection dog alerted there. Whose blood? I've no idea.

I think the problem may be that the people one would expect to know something about "Septics beliefs?" as per the thread title, appear to have nothing to say about it but denial or deflection from the meat and bones of the subject of the majority of the posts they chose to make.

Scoff if ye may ... but doesn't your knowledge of the files stretch to the name of the guys lifting the tiles for forensic examination one of whom seems to have chiselled his blood into the equation?

Doesn't really matter though does it?  There was no blood from anyone in the McCann family let alone Madeleine found in the apartment or any where else in Luz (key fob excepted where cellular material from Gerry was found).

Some sceptics believe otherwise ... and have absolutely no compunction about advertising their belief on the internet.  That you wish to disassociate from them is I think very sensible ... I would too.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 14, 2019, 11:26:09 PM
Another one whose specialIist subject is 'The beliefs of sceptics". I think there's a good chance there was blood around because a blood detection dog alerted there. Whose blood? I've no idea.
Like I said, you wouldn’t want to rule out that it was Madeleine’s would you?  That would be no fun at all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 08:02:48 AM
I think the problem may be that the people one would expect to know something about "Septics beliefs?" as per the thread title, appear to have nothing to say about it but denial or deflection from the meat and bones of the subject of the majority of the posts they chose to make.

Scoff if ye may ... but doesn't your knowledge of the files stretch to the name of the guys lifting the tiles for forensic examination one of whom seems to have chiselled his blood into the equation?

Doesn't really matter though does it?  There was no blood from anyone in the McCann family let alone Madeleine found in the apartment or any where else in Luz (key fob excepted where cellular material from Gerry was found).

Some sceptics believe otherwise ... and have absolutely no compunction about advertising their belief on the internet.  That you wish to disassociate from them is I think very sensible ... I would too.

There are people in the world who don't believe everything the McCann's say. You choose to refer to them as sceptics. That's OK as a way of distinguishing them from those who do believe the McCanns; their supporters.

All a sceotic is, therefore, is a non-supporter. Some have formed groups, but the majority are individuals with only one thing in common; they view the McCann's story, or parts of it, with scepticism.

For reasons known only to yourself, you have decided that sceptics have shared beliefs. Not only that, you know what those beliefs are and often refer to them as in 'sceptics believe'. In my opinion every time you write such statements you should include IMO because that's all you are expressng. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 08:16:19 AM
There are people in the world who don't believe everything the McCann's say. You choose to refer to them as sceptics. That's OK as a way of distinguishing them from those who do believe the McCanns; their supporters.

All a sceotic is, therefore, is a non-supporter. Some have formed groups, but the majority are individuals with only one thing in common; they view the McCann's story, or parts of it, with scepticism.

For reasons known only to yourself, you have decided that sceptics have shared beliefs. Not only that, you know what those beliefs are and often refer to them as in 'sceptics believe'. In my opinion every time you write such statements you should include IMO because that's all you are expressng.

You only have to read this and other forums to see that sceptics do have shared beliefs.. They believe the statements are reliable.... They believe the dog alerts are reliable... They believe amaral was an honourable policeman.... Which of those don't you agree with
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 08:24:09 AM
You only have to read this and other forums to see that sceptics do have shared beliefs.. They believe the statements are reliable.... They believe the dog alerts are reliable... They believe amaral was an honourable policeman.... Which of those don't you agree with

I don't agree with any of them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2019, 08:26:41 AM
I don't agree with any of them.
Then upon what do you base your scepticism?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 15, 2019, 08:29:32 AM
Just show the crime scene photo of the unmissable crumpled curtain behind the sofa and then show the footage of both CSI dogs later alerting at that same location. Everybody on that jury would now sit up and listen!

Wow a crumpled curtain,   well they must be guilty.    Gerry pushed the curtain back he says as the children were throwing cards behind it when they were playing.   As for the dog alerts nothing of any significance was found. IMO

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 15, 2019, 08:32:16 AM
Why so spiky all the time? I'm relatively new to all this (only 3 or 4 years.....), but I've just re-read what it is, it's someone else's blood, some saliva and probably some bean juice flung by an impetuous child.

Could be that the table was once situated under the window,  splashes from all sorts IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 15, 2019, 08:33:44 AM
Haven't you read the files?  If not ... it might be something for you to do if only to pass the time.  Some people find them riveting.

I really don't have the inclination to work through them. If on the other hand you were able to point to the appropriate section, I would be very grateful.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 08:48:46 AM
I don't agree with any of them.

So you don't believe that the statements or the dig alerts can be relied upon... Thanks for clarifying... Seems you are seeing sense at last
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 09:33:36 AM
So you don't believe that the statements or the dig alerts can be relied upon... Thanks for clarifying... Seems you are seeing sense at last

No, those are not my opinions either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2019, 09:37:27 AM
No, those are not my opinions either.
Jelly.  Wall. Nail.  Don’t try this at home folks!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 09:51:01 AM
No, those are not my opinions either.

You have already posted you accept the statements as being accurate, and drawn conclusions from them... You have already stated that the alert by keela shows blood must be present... Do you understand  what you believe
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 09:54:00 AM
Another one whose specialIist subject is 'The beliefs of sceptics". I think there's a good chance there was blood around because a blood detection dog alerted there. Whose blood? I've no idea.

So you do think the alerts are reliable even though you deny it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 10:12:52 AM
So you do think the alerts are reliable even though you deny it

English is a rich language and it's possible to express subtle and complex thoughts using it. In order to understand suble and complex thoughts it's necessary to pay close attention to what is actually said, not what you think is being said.

If you re-read my post you will see that I said "I think there's a good chance there was blood around". You have interpreted that as me saying "I believe there was blood around". Your interpretation of what I said is not correct; it seldom is imo.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:19:14 AM
English is a rich language and it's possible to express subtle and complex thoughts using it. In order to understand suble and complex thoughts it's necessary to pay close attention to what is actually said, not what you think is being said.

If you re-read my post you will see that I said "I think there's a good chance there was blood around". You have interpreted that as me saying "I believe there was blood around". Your interpretation of what I said is not correct; it seldom is imo.

If you think there is a good chance blood is present then you must think there is a good chance the dogs are correct... Ie that the dogs are reliable...
Perhaps it's you who needs to pay closer attention to words used... I said reliable.... Not 100% accurate
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 10:31:50 AM
If you think there is a good chance blood is present then you must think there is a good chance the dogs are correct... Ie that the dogs are reliable...
Perhaps it's you who needs to pay closer attention to words used... I said reliable.... Not 100% accurate

I would require more than a 'good chance' of accuracy to describe something as reliable.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2019, 10:42:20 AM
I would require more than a 'good chance' of accuracy to describe something as reliable.
Youre just playing semantics to avoid expressing any sort of firm opinion IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 10:51:20 AM
Youre just playing semantics to avoid expressing any sort of firm opinion IMO.

I think people need to accept the FACT that I don't have firm opinions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 12:17:31 PM
I would require more than a 'good chance' of accuracy to describe something as reliable.
So you don't consider the alerts reliable in that case by your own definition
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 01:20:37 PM
So you don't consider the alerts reliable in that case by your own definition

Why do some people have this burning urge to pigeonhole ohers? Why is it so difficult to accept that not everyone has a fixed set of beliefs to which they cling forever? My opinions vary depending on circumstances, topics, context and other factors. Is it beyond people's comprehension that I might find some dog alerts fairly reliable, others less so and some pretty unlikely?

I'm not Gerry McCann who declared that all cadaver dogs are unreliable. For those harrassing me for a firm opinion, here's one. Gerry McCann was very foolish to make that sweeping statement.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 01:27:44 PM
Why do some people have this burning urge to pigeonhole ohers? Why is it so difficult to accept that not everyone has a fixed set of beliefs to which they cling forever? My opinions vary depending on circumstances, topics, context and other factors. Is it beyond people's comprehension that I might find some dog alerts fairly reliable, others less so and some pretty unlikely?

I'm not Gerry McCann who declared that all cadaver dogs are unreliable. For those harrassing me for a firm opinion, here's one. Gerry McCann was very foolish to make that sweeping statement.

In the context of the forum we are talking about the alerts in 5a and the car... I think it's clear you are confused as to exactly what you think...
I don't think Gerry was... Very foolish... At all
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 15, 2019, 01:42:09 PM
Wow a crumpled curtain,   well they must be guilty.    Gerry pushed the curtain back he says as the children were throwing cards behind it when they were playing.   As for the dog alerts nothing of any significance was found. IMO

Gerry pushed the curtain back???? The sofa he said. This case is still open and if there's any decent detectives working on it they know what happened. This jigsaw is easy to put together.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 02:26:25 PM
In the context of the forum we are talking about the alerts in 5a and the car... I think it's clear you are confused as to exactly what you think...
I don't think Gerry was... Very foolish... At all

In my opinion you are the confused one. You seem utterly unable to grasp how I think. There were two dogs and a lot of alerts and why should I not have different opinions about different alerts? 

I have no problem if you have a different opinion of Gerry McCann's statement than I do. I've no desire to persuade you to change it, to pass judgement on your cognitive abilities, or to accuse you of adhering to a belief system. I don't care what you think. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 15, 2019, 02:48:14 PM
In my opinion you are the confused one. You seem utterly unable to grasp how I think. There were two dogs and a lot of alerts and why should I not have different opinions about different alerts? 

I have no problem if you have a different opinion of Gerry McCann's statement than I do. I've no desire to persuade you to change it, to pass judgement on your cognitive abilities, or to accuse you of adhering to a belief system. I don't care what you think.

None of us care about what someone else thinks.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 02:50:34 PM
In my opinion you are the confused one. You seem utterly unable to grasp how I think. There were two dogs and a lot of alerts and why should I not have different opinions about different alerts? 

I have no problem if you have a different opinion of Gerry McCann's statement than I do. I've no desire to persuade you to change it, to pass judgement on your cognitive abilities, or to accuse you of adhering to a belief system. I don't care what you think.
You must.. Like everybody else... have an opinion on the dogs... You just don't seem to have the conviction to admit it..
Either the alerts are a reliable indicators or they are not... What expertise do you have to decide which are more reliable than others...afaiac... We cannot rely on them as indicators without supporting forensic evidence.... now who said that
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 15, 2019, 02:56:20 PM
You must.. Like everybody else... have an opinion on the dogs... You just don't seem to have the conviction to admit it..
Either the alerts are a reliable indicators or they are not... What expertise do you have to decide which are more reliable than others...afaiac... We cannot rely on them as indicators without supporting forensic evidence....

I despair.  None of The Dog Videos would ever be admissible In Court, for more reasons than one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 15, 2019, 03:03:27 PM

I've always been intrigued as to why the dog videos have Levy's copyright stamped all over them and no time or date stamp either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 15, 2019, 03:10:24 PM
I've always been intrigued as to why the dog videos have Levy's copyright stamped all over them and no time or date stamp either.

Levy as a Journalist had right of access and Levy messed about with them, thereby cancelling the original date stamp.  I have never understood why he did this, but he did get caught out in the end.  Ultimately he got no fame and glory, but he did cause a bit of damage with his journalistic dishonesty.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 05:14:35 PM
In the context of the forum we are talking about the alerts in 5a and the car... I think it's clear you are confused as to exactly what you think...
I don't think Gerry was... Very foolish... At all
G-unit has asked you to stop hassling her.  Please respect that request. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 05:18:57 PM
G-unit has asked you to stop hassling her.  Please respect that request.

I'm not harrassing I'm simply replying to gunits posts as she has replied to mine... As long as gunit replies to my posts I'm entitled to respond.... Every post I have made has been in response to her post to me.... If she doesn't want me to respond I suggest s she ceases to direct posts ti me... For that reason please desist in accusing me of harassment
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 05:22:11 PM
G-unit has asked you to stop hassling her.  Please respect that request.

As far as I am concerned every poster has the right to respond to every post... Gunit has directed 8 posts towards me today... I have simply responded...with 8 posts.. That is not harassment ...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 15, 2019, 05:44:21 PM
As far as I am concerned every poster has the right to respond to every post... Gunit has directed 8 posts towards me today... I have simply responded...with 8 posts.. That is not harassment ...

Quality will outway quantity anytime of the day.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 05:52:46 PM
Quality will outway quantity anytime of the day.

I couldn't agree more but some of us have both... Your post could of course be described as hassling
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 06:22:35 PM
You must.. Like everybody else... have an opinion on the dogs... You just don't seem to have the conviction to admit it..
Either the alerts are a reliable indicators or they are not... What expertise do you have to decide which are more reliable than others...afaiac... We cannot rely on them as indicators without supporting forensic evidence.... now who said that

In my opinion you need to listen to yourself. You may have the right of reply, but you have no right to be insulting. You have no right to tell me what I must believe, think or opine. I think we have sufficient people here forcing their convictions on others without me joining in.
 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 06:33:55 PM
In my opinion you need to listen to yourself. You may have the right of reply, but you have no right to be insulting. You have no right to tell me what I must believe, think or opine. I think we have sufficient people here forcing their convictions on others without me joining in.

I don't see I've been insulting and have not told you what you should believe... I don't see I've been hassling you either so can't see why you have seemed to complain to the mods... It's a discussion  forum... If you don't like my responses then dont make posts to me...because I will reply if I choose
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 15, 2019, 06:40:50 PM
I don't see I've been insulting and have not told you what you should believe... I don't see I've been hassling you either so can't see why you have seemed to complain to the mods... It's a discussion  forum... If you don't like my responses then dont make posts to me...because I will reply if I choose
I post an aside, my posts are deleted; you post insults, that's right of reply, irrespective of whether or not any of it makes sense.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2019, 07:03:42 PM
I think people need to accept the FACT that I don't have firm opinions.
That’s not true though is it?  You are firmly of the opinion that abduction from the apartment in the time frame would have been “virtually impossible “.  You are firmly of the opinion that the McCanns did not act of behave the way you felt you would have acted or behaved if your child had disappeared and your remaining children seemed unresponsive.  I’m sure there are other firm opinions you have regarding this case, even if you don’t want to admit to them. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 07:10:55 PM
I don't see I've been insulting and have not told you what you should believe... I don't see I've been hassling you either so can't see why you have seemed to complain to the mods... It's a discussion  forum... If you don't like my responses then dont make posts to me...because I will reply if I choose

I'm not going to choose between 'cadaver dofs are reliable' and 'cadaver dogs are unreliable' just because you think those are the only choices. Gerry McCann used that simplistic approach and ended up looking silly imo

I don't complain to mods. 

I have no objection to discussing with you, but I won't be told what I think or what I should think. That's not discussion imo.   

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2019, 07:12:12 PM
I'm not going to choose between 'cadaver dofs are reliable' and 'cadaver dogs are unreliable' just because you think those are the only choices. Gerry McCann used that simplistic approach and ended up looking silly imo

I don't complain to mods. 

I have no objection to discussing with you, but I won't be told what I think or what I should think. That's not discussion imo.
You just told Davel what he thinks, how very dare you!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 07:26:54 PM
I'm not going to choose between 'cadaver dofs are reliable' and 'cadaver dogs are unreliable' just because you think those are the only choices. Gerry McCann used that simplistic approach and ended up looking silly imo

I don't complain to mods. 

I have no objection to discussing with you, but I won't be told what I think or what I should think. That's not discussion imo.

There are only two choices..... The alerts are either reliable or not..... If they are reliable sometimes but not others then by definition they are unreliable... Where did rob get the request that you had, asked me to stop hassling you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 07:32:39 PM
You just told Davel what he thinks, how very dare you!

I dare because he told me what he thinks;
snip/
Either the alerts are a reliable indicators or they are not
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520904#msg520904
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 07:34:53 PM
I dare because he told me what he thinks;
snip/
Either the alerts are a reliable indicators or they are not
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520904#msg520904

That's perfectly true... They can't be reliable sometimes and not others.... That makes then unreliable making Gerry perfectly correct
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 07:37:20 PM
I dare because he told me what he thinks;
snip/
Either the alerts are a reliable indicators or they are not
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520904#msg520904

And you have told me what you think on several occasions
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2019, 07:55:31 PM
I dare because he told me what he thinks;
snip/
Either the alerts are a reliable indicators or they are not
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520904#msg520904
What other options are there then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 15, 2019, 08:59:33 PM
None of us care about what someone else thinks.

Well that isn't entirly true is it... not long ago people who didn't buy into team McCann story were called and referred to as evil trolls.. so some do care.

 They cared enough to hound a woman with an opinion heaven forbid! RIP Brenda.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 09:24:54 PM
Well that isn't entirly true is it... not long ago people who didn't buy into team McCann story were called and referred to as evil trolls.. so some do care.

 They cared enough to hound a woman with an opinion heaven forbid! RIP Brenda.

What an absolute travesty of the truth
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 09:37:27 PM
There are only two choices..... The alerts are either reliable or not..... If they are reliable sometimes but not others then by definition they are unreliable... Where did rob get the request that you had, asked me to stop hassling you

You are entitled to believe what you wish. You're not entitled to impose your beliefs on me. Are you accusing me of lying when I said I don't report people to mods?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:00:49 PM
You are entitled to believe what you wish. You're not entitled to impose your beliefs on me. Are you accusing me of lying when I said I don't report people to mods?

What I said clearly was... Where did rob get the idea from that you had asked me to stop harassing you.. If you didn't ask him where did he get it from... Perhaps rob could answer
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:02:24 PM
G-unit has asked you to stop hassling her.  Please respect that request.

Could you point out where gunit has asked me to stop hassling her.... Or remove the accusations
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 10:22:41 PM
Could you point out where gunit has asked me to stop hassling her.... Or remove the accusations

Perhaps he read this post? It was addressed to you, and you were badgering me for a firm opinion. 

For those harrassing me for a firm opinion, here's one. Gerry McCann was very foolish to make that sweeping statement.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520871#msg520871
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 10:23:52 PM
That's perfectly true... They can't be reliable sometimes and not others.... That makes then unreliable making Gerry perfectly correct
If the reliability is in order of 95%, I'd accept there are times they alert incorrectly but correctly 95% of the time.  I don't accept the small number of incorrect responses allows for Eddie and Keela to be described as unreliable.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:24:52 PM
Perhaps he read this post? It was addressed to you, and you were badgering me for a firm opinion. 

For those harrassing me for a firm opinion, here's one. Gerry McCann was very foolish to make that sweeping statement.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520871#msg520871

So where are you asking me to stop hassling you.... You didn't.... Glad, we've got that clear
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 10:26:11 PM
Could you point out where gunit has asked me to stop hassling her.... Or remove the accusations
I read that from what she was saying in her posts to you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:30:36 PM
If the reliability is in order of 95%, I'd accept there are times they alert incorrectly but correctly 95% of the time.  I don't accept the small number of incorrect responses allows for Eddie and Keela to be described as unreliable.

You would need to a be a lot more precise in your wording.. I presume you mean a, test such as carpet squares....that's, a very easy test... You cannot extrapolate those figures to a completely different situation...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:32:50 PM
I read that from what she was saying in her posts to you.

Then you were mistaken... She never asked me to stop hassling her... It was only her opinion... And I was responding to posts, she directed at me... So a completely false, allegation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 10:33:58 PM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520875#msg520875 

"In the context of the forum we are talking about the alerts in 5a and the car... I think it's clear you are confused as to exactly what you think...
I don't think Gerry was... Very foolish... At all"

Saying to another member " I think it's clear you are confused as to exactly what you think... " is harassment in my opinion.
 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 10:35:53 PM
You would need to a be a lot more precise in your wording.. I presume you mean a, test such as carpet squares....that's, a very easy test... You cannot extrapolate those figures to a completely different situation...
Why not?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2019, 10:37:10 PM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520875#msg520875 

"In the context of the forum we are talking about the alerts in 5a and the car... I think it's clear you are confused as to exactly what you think...
I don't think Gerry was... Very foolish... At all"

Saying to another member " I think it's clear you are confused as to exactly what you think... " is harassment in my opinion.
That is not harrassment.  If people don’t like having their views challenged hard they should retreat to the safety of forums where everyone is more or less singing from the same hymn sheet, IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 10:40:47 PM
That is not harrassment.  If people don’t like having their views challenged hard they should retreat to the safety of forums where everyone is more or less singing from the same hymn sheet, IMO.
Of course challenge views, but not the person or be personal about it. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:43:04 PM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520875#msg520875 

"In the context of the forum we are talking about the alerts in 5a and the car... I think it's clear you are confused as to exactly what you think...
I don't think Gerry was... Very foolish... At all"

Saying to another member " I think it's clear you are confused as to exactly what you think... " is harassment in my opinion.

That's your opinion... There is no request from gunit as you claimed... That's a fact ...
There was no hassling.. 8 posts each...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 10:43:44 PM
That is not harrassment.  If people don’t like having their views challenged hard they should retreat to the safety of forums where everyone is more or less singing from the same hymn sheet, IMO.

I don't mind my views being challenged, I object to being told what they should be or that they are other than I say they are. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:44:37 PM
I don't mind my views being challenged, I object to being told what they should be or that they are other than I say they are. 
Of course challenge views, but not the person or be personal about it.

You have accused me oh harassment... That's personal and a false accusation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:46:15 PM
I don't mind my views being challenged, I object to being told what they should be or that they are other than I say they are.

I think you are misunderstanding  things... I'm entitled to comment on your posts... I'm entitled to reach conclusions based on your posts
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 15, 2019, 10:49:50 PM
If the reliability is in order of 95%, I'd accept there are times they alert incorrectly but correctly 95% of the time.  I don't accept the small number of incorrect responses allows for Eddie and Keela to be described as unreliable.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, Rob, and I am sure the digging up of Haute de la Garenne in Jersey at great expense is the epitome of that adage.

Looked at through the prism of common sense, I think much could be said of the hysteria associated with the twa dugs and the visit to Praia da Luz.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:50:40 PM
I don't mind my views being challenged, I object to being told what they should be or that they are other than I say they are.

If you say you don't agree with the, statement... The dogs are reliable..... It's perfectly reasonable to conclude you think the dogs are unreliable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 10:53:02 PM
You have accused me oh harassment... That's personal and a false accusation
That is the role of the moderator.  What did I say exactly?  Please don't harass G-unit.  Don't harass anyone.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:53:32 PM
Why not?

We've been through it all many times... Remember how poorly cadaver digs did in the one study into handler bias.... By your reasoning... 19 out of 20 alertd in PDL must be corect... If you think that I'll leave you to it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 10:55:01 PM
If you say you don't agree with the, statement... The dogs are reliable..... It's perfectly reasonable to conclude you think the dogs are unreliable
That conclusion should remain in your head.  You could ask another question to confirm it but don't tell the forum what you think someone else believes.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:55:43 PM
That is the role of the moderator.  What did I say exactly?  Please don't harass G-unit.  Don't harass anyone.

No that's not what you said... You said gunit had requested me to stop hassling her ..and I should comply with her request... that, wasn't true... I feel you are hassling me
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:57:04 PM
That conclusion should remain in your head.

No it shouldn't... I have every right to express it... It's not harassment or insulting... It's a reasonable conclusion ..I suggest you stop your harassment of me
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2019, 10:58:17 PM
That conclusion should remain in your head.  You could ask another question to confirm it but don't tell the forum what you think someone else believes.
Why not, what’s the problem?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
We've been through it all many times... Remember how poorly cadaver digs did in the one study into handler bias.... By your reasoning... 19 out of 20 alertd in PDL must be corect... If you think that I'll leave you to it
I don't understand what you are saying TBH.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 10:59:52 PM
That conclusion should remain in your head.  You could ask another question to confirm it but don't tell the forum what you think someone else believes.

It's perfectly reasonable to say what I think... Bases on the facts
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 11:00:38 PM
I don't understand what you are saying TBH.

It's all been discussed many times
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 11:01:17 PM
Why not, what’s the problem?
Because I'll class that as harassment and possibly delete your post etc.
It's perfectly reasonable to say what I think... Bases on the facts
Conclusions are not facts.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 11:03:07 PM
Because I'll class that as harassment and possibly delete your post etc.Conclusions are not facts.

The fact that I've started the statement with... I think... Indicates it's opinion not fact... You seem to be arguing for arguing sake
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 11:07:25 PM
No that's not what you said... You said gunit had requested me to stop hassling her ..and I should comply with her request... that, wasn't true... I feel you are hassling me
It was a subtle request.  I read it in what she was saying.  OK she never gave you a plain request "stop hassling  me", but there was enough.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 11:09:31 PM
It was a subtle request.  I read it in what she was saying.  OK she never gave you a plain request "stop hassling  me", but there was enough.

There was no request... But could you stop hassling me
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 11:11:05 PM
The fact that I've started the statement with... I think... Indicates it's opinion not fact... You seem to be arguing for arguing sake
I still don't think saying "I think you are a complete idiot" is allowable, just because it is expressed as an opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 15, 2019, 11:11:58 PM
I still don't think saying "I think you are a complete idiot" is allowable, just because it is expressed as an opinion.

Could you stop hassling me
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2019, 11:14:03 PM
Could you stop hassling me
Would you stop hassling me too please.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2019, 11:28:48 PM
It was a subtle request.  I read it in what she was saying.  OK she never gave you a plain request "stop hassling  me", but there was enough.

I was feeling harrassed and you were very kind to intervene. You were entitled to do so if you felt it was needed and I don't think you are required to publicly explain your actions or the reason for them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 15, 2019, 11:30:03 PM
I still don't think saying "I think you are a complete idiot" is allowable, just because it is expressed as an opinion.

Are you allowed to say that another poster "is somewhat arrogant", just because it is expressed as an opinion?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 15, 2019, 11:43:10 PM
Of course challenge views, but not the person or be personal about it.

A very personal post was directed at me on this thread a few days ago.
It's a pity this advice was not applicable in that instance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 12:00:46 AM
Are you allowed to say that another poster "is somewhat arrogant", just because it is expressed as an opinion?
there are so many words and different ways of saying things, it would be impossible to make rulings on all situations.  The words "is somewhat arrogant" would probably get through.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 12:03:28 AM
A very personal post was directed at me on this thread a few days ago.
It's a pity this advice was not applicable in that instance?
Some topics are very active and the occasional post will get through.  Everyone has the option of reporting a post themselves.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 16, 2019, 12:07:00 AM
there are so many words and different ways of saying things, it would be impossible to make rulings on all situations.  The words "is somewhat arrogant" would probably get through.

So I can call another poster "somewhat arrogant"?
Make personal comments?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 16, 2019, 12:11:45 AM
Some topics are very active and the occasional post will get through.  Everyone has the option of reporting a post themselves.

I believed it would be removed without my reporting it.
However as you seem to suggest that the wording was acceptable, there would have been no point.
I will remember for future reference that my opinions on other posters can be expressed.
Possibly the use of the word "somewhat" before the adjective does seem to make it more acceptable.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 12:39:09 AM
I believed it would be removed without my reporting it.
However as you seem to suggest that the wording was acceptable, there would have been no point.
I will remember for future reference that my opinions on other posters can be expressed.
Possibly the use of the word "somewhat" before the adjective does seem to make it more acceptable.
I'm not the most active moderator, so don't feel despondent.  If a post offends you report it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 03:50:30 AM
I believed it would be removed without my reporting it.
However as you seem to suggest that the wording was acceptable, there would have been no point.
I will remember for future reference that my opinions on other posters can be expressed.
Possibly the use of the word "somewhat" before the adjective does seem to make it more acceptable.
What I'm looking for is that the criticism is against the things being said, rather than against the person saying them.  Half the time I don't try or understand the argument or care about your view as long as it isn't ad hominem, abusive or harassment.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2019, 08:58:15 AM
I believed it would be removed without my reporting it.
However as you seem to suggest that the wording was acceptable, there would have been no point.
I will remember for future reference that my opinions on other posters can be expressed.
Possibly the use of the word "somewhat" before the adjective does seem to make it more acceptable.

You may be convinced that asking for a review is a sign that the McCanns are innocent and that their purpose was to continue the investigation into their missing child but those are your beliefs, not facts. I find it somewhat arrogant whenever someone presents their beliefs as if they were facts.

 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 09:30:11 AM
You may be convinced that asking for a review is a sign that the McCanns are innocent and that their purpose was to continue the investigation into their missing child but those are your beliefs, not facts. I find it somewhat arrogant whenever someone presents their beliefs as if they were facts.

I think it's a fact... Based on the evidence.. That the McCann's are not suspects in either investigation.....As I don't see any new, evidence against them arising I don't see that situation changing... I don't see that as arrogant
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 16, 2019, 09:31:01 AM
You may be convinced that asking for a review is a sign that the McCanns are innocent and that their purpose was to continue the investigation into their missing child but those are your beliefs, not facts. I find it somewhat arrogant whenever someone presents their beliefs as if they were facts.

What do you believe they were doing?

A straight to the point succinct answer would be gratefully received as it would help rule out the chance you might suffer from the misrepresentation you claimed from future discussion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 16, 2019, 09:32:03 AM
You may be convinced that asking for a review is a sign that the McCanns are innocent and that their purpose was to continue the investigation into their missing child but those are your beliefs, not facts. I find it somewhat arrogant whenever someone presents their beliefs as if they were facts.


When you made the original post accusing me of believing that I am always right and "somewhat  arrogant", I did reply that I found your post inappropriate.
Even though you read my response and noted it, you now repeat your somewhat offensive accusation..

Not only that but you choose to start a days discussion by repeating your accusation.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 09:34:04 AM
You may be convinced that asking for a review is a sign that the McCanns are innocent and that their purpose was to continue the investigation into their missing child but those are your beliefs, not facts. I find it somewhat arrogant whenever someone presents their beliefs as if they were facts.
Look I've been called arrogant too in the past, and I recall not even knowing what that meant. 
"arrogant

adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
"he's arrogant and opinionated""

Somewhat could be even to the smallest degree.  So it isn't a harsh criticism to call someone "somewhat arrogant" in the correct circumstances, IMO.   
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 16, 2019, 09:34:13 AM
I think it's a fact... Based on the evidence.. That the McCann's are not suspects in either investigation.....As I don't see any new, evidence against them arising I don't see that situation changing... I don't see that as arrogant

Indeed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 16, 2019, 09:35:09 AM
Look I've been called arrogant too in the past, and I recall not even knowing what that meant. 
"arrogant

adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
"he's arrogant and opinionated""

Somewhat could be even to the smallest degree.  So it isn't a harsh criticism to call someone "somewhat arrogant" in the correct circumstances, IMO.   

You continue to encourage name calling in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 09:35:28 AM
Look I've been called arrogant too in the past, and I recall not even knowing what that meant. 
"arrogant

adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
"he's arrogant and opinionated""

Somewhat could be even to the smallest degree.  So it isn't a harsh criticism to call someone "somewhat arrogant" in the correct circumstances, IMO.   

I will bear that in mind when replying to posts
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 09:37:02 AM
I also believe the McCann's are innocent and therefore believe anyone who disagrees with that is, wrong
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 16, 2019, 09:47:48 AM
Look I've been called arrogant too in the past, and I recall not even knowing what that meant. 
"arrogant

adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
"he's arrogant and opinionated""

Somewhat could be even to the smallest degree.  So it isn't a harsh criticism to call someone "somewhat arrogant" in the correct circumstances, IMO.   

Used in context I find the word to be abusive ...

The majority of members are I think mature enough to know what causes offence ... particularly when it is complained of ... and go out of their way to find another expression to use.

This hasn't happened in this instance.  Which I think means that as mods we have to remove the word from future usage as being ad hominem now it has been flagged up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 16, 2019, 10:14:56 AM

Accusing someone of Arrogance in any form is abusive in my book of rules on a discussion forum.  I try not to nit pick, but that obviously results in a lot of pointless bickering.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 16, 2019, 10:31:29 AM
Will you sanction people for being arrogant as well, or just for accusing others of it  ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 16, 2019, 10:43:53 AM
Will you sanction people for being arrogant as well, or just for accusing others of it  ?

I try mortally hard not to sanction anyone.  Perhaps I shouldn't try so hard.  In Fact, I won't in future.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2019, 10:49:46 AM
Accusing someone of Arrogance in any form is abusive in my book of rules on a discussion forum.  I try not to nit pick, but that obviously results in a lot of pointless bickering.

In my opinion I've had accusations levelled at me on this thread, albeit less directly.

That I only care about myself, not others
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520426#msg520426

That I lie about what I think.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520364#msg520364



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 16, 2019, 10:51:01 AM
I try mortally hard not to sanction anyone.  Perhaps I shouldn't try so hard.  In Fact, I won't in future.

So is that a yes or a no? Difficult to tell.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2019, 11:02:07 AM
Will you sanction people for being arrogant as well, or just for accusing others of it  ?

It seems to me that straight talking isn't acceptable but insinuations are fine. I have challenged what I see as insulting and abusive insinuations aimed at me but have had neither explanation or denial from those I challenged.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 11:07:53 AM
It seems to me that straight talking isn't acceptable but insinuations are fine. I have challenged what I see as insulting and abusive insinuations aimed at me but have had neither explanation or denial from those I challenged.

You are not the only person to have insulting or abusive accusations directed at you... Might be best to draw a line, and move on... Other wise the thread is totally derailed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2019, 11:09:29 AM

When you made the original post accusing me of believing that I am always right and "somewhat  arrogant", I did reply that I found your post inappropriate.
Even though you read my response and noted it, you now repeat your somewhat offensive accusation..

Not only that but you choose to start a days discussion by repeating your accusation.

I'm sorry my post offended you, that wasn't my imtention. I was trying to explain how you sometimes make me feel and I accept I worded it badly.  *%^^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 16, 2019, 11:09:48 AM
In my opinion I've had accusations levelled at me on this thread, albeit less directly.

That I only care about myself, not others
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520426#msg520426

That I lie about what I think.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg520364#msg520364

Oh what a bore! ... but since I am referred to ... needs must ...

You said
You have to believe that the police know more than you do! They haven't suggested there's evidence which rules the McCanns out, they've said there's no evidence which suggests their involvement. Anyone who thinks there is is making things up because they're nasty trolls. Any sensible person knows that the police know the truth, tell the truth and don't make mistakes. Have faith!

I said
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.

You said
Are you accusing me of lying? You seem to be saying I disbelieve the police who wrote the PJ final report, but I believed Amaral, adopted his beliefs, made them the cornerstone of my beliefs and still believe him. You seem to believe you know what I think and whatever I say to the contrary I'm lying.

I find that pretty insulting.
_______________________________________________________________________-


No I did not accuse you of lying.

In my opinion you asked the question of me knowing that full well ... but you are using the factoid of your creation to make false accusations against me as per your invention.

I have an On Topic opinion on that ... but suffice it to say ... quite often your posting style leaves a lot to be desired.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 16, 2019, 11:12:08 AM
You are not the only person to have insulting or abusive accusations directed at you... Might be best to draw a line, and move on... Other wise the thread is totally derailed

It is my opinion that is not entirely unintended. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 16, 2019, 11:17:17 AM
Why would anyone want to derail such an entertaining and informative thread ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2019, 11:21:13 AM
You are not the only person to have insulting or abusive accusations directed at you... Might be best to draw a line, and move on... Other wise the thread is totally derailed

I'm used to being insulted, abused and accused, but this thread has been devoted to sceptic bashing in my opinon.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2019, 11:32:13 AM
Oh what a bore! ... but since I am referred to ... needs must ...

You said
You have to believe that the police know more than you do! They haven't suggested there's evidence which rules the McCanns out, they've said there's no evidence which suggests their involvement. Anyone who thinks there is is making things up because they're nasty trolls. Any sensible person knows that the police know the truth, tell the truth and don't make mistakes. Have faith!

I said
I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics.

You said
Are you accusing me of lying? You seem to be saying I disbelieve the police who wrote the PJ final report, but I believed Amaral, adopted his beliefs, made them the cornerstone of my beliefs and still believe him. You seem to believe you know what I think and whatever I say to the contrary I'm lying.

I find that pretty insulting.
_______________________________________________________________________-


No I did not accuse you of lying.

In my opinion you asked the question of me knowing that full well ... but you are using the factoid of your creation to make false accusations against me as per your invention.

I have an On Topic opinion on that ... but suffice it to say ... quite often your posting style leaves a lot to be desired.

As you say, you said;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics."

A simple question for you; do you believe me when I say those are not my beliefs or do you not?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 12:18:37 PM
You continue to encourage name calling in my opinion.
No, it is the general interaction between the members that results in the name calling.  It is then a moderator's call as to what to do about it.  I have my doubts that all name calling can be stopped.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 12:21:53 PM
So is that a yes or a no? Difficult to tell.
I had to read it twice too. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 16, 2019, 12:46:22 PM
As you say, you said;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics."

A simple question for you; do you believe me when I say those are not my beliefs or do you not?

When have you ever said what you believe or what you don't believe?  A precis would be helpful.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 16, 2019, 12:50:39 PM
I had to read it twice too.

I think you and Jassie have just provided an example of bullying and I also think it is well past the time that the thread title was being addressed rather than all this pettiness which seems to have replaced informative debate.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 12:58:34 PM
It’s not that I want to think you are pretending....it’s simply that you’ve given myself, and this forum, no other choice. You say that there is plenty of evidence, then when asked to supply that evidence you prevericate, insult and frankly act like a child. The forum rules state the cites must be supplied for claims yet you have consistently failed to provide any for your constant claim that there is evidence of an abduction. TBH I’d have thought you’d be champing at the bit to provide your evidence, imagine the joy you’d feel to shut us sceptics up, but no, not so much as a whisper of tangible proof.

So I’ll leave it there....but if you ever feel the need to claw back your credibility, don’t hesitate to let us know.

So faithlilly accusing me of acting like a child is acceptable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 01:04:37 PM
Not answering my original question?
Why after so many years and the ongoing current  investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese police and without any shred of tangible evidence, do you still believe the parents of Madeleine are guilty of whatever the diverse views of sceptics believe?
You do obviously believe they are guilty of some part in their daughters disappearance?
I'm just wondering what keeps you so steadfast in your belief?

"Why after so many years and the ongoing current  investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese police and without any shred of tangible evidence, do you still believe the parents of Madeleine are guilty of whatever the diverse views of sceptics believe?
You do obviously believe they are guilty of some part in their daughters disappearance?
I'm just wondering what keeps you so steadfast in your belief?"

That is the question. 

The way I see it is if there was nothing to hide, why have the McCanns appeared to hide certain facts?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 16, 2019, 01:08:29 PM
"Why after so many years and the ongoing current  investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese police and without any shred of tangible evidence, do you still believe the parents of Madeleine are guilty of whatever the diverse views of sceptics believe?
You do obviously believe they are guilty of some part in their daughters disappearance?
I'm just wondering what keeps you so steadfast in your belief?"

That is the question. 

The way I see it is if there was nothing to hide, why have the McCanns appeared to hide certain facts?

What facts are those?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 01:10:34 PM
"Why after so many years and the ongoing current  investigation by both NSY and the Portuguese police and without any shred of tangible evidence, do you still believe the parents of Madeleine are guilty of whatever the diverse views of sceptics believe?
You do obviously believe they are guilty of some part in their daughters disappearance?
I'm just wondering what keeps you so steadfast in your belief?"

That is the question. 

The way I see it is if there was nothing to hide, why have the McCanns appeared to hide certain facts?

They've appeared to hide things.. In your opinion... Not in others
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 01:14:02 PM
So faithlilly accusing me of acting like a child is acceptable
Yes I believe so for she is criticising what is coming from you .  Like criticism of words is OK and so must actions then be allowed to be criticised. 
If she said "you are a child", then that would be ad hominem IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 01:16:09 PM
Yes I believe so for she is criticising what is coming from you .  Like criticism of words is OK and so must actions then be allowed to be criticised. 
If she said "you are a child", then that would be ad hominem IMO.

So if I say someones acting like they are in denial... That's acceptable... Thanks for clearing that up
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 01:16:39 PM
They've appeared to hide things.. In your opinion... Not in others
The thread is about beliefs.  There will be a variety of beliefs which all are opinions of the holder.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 01:19:08 PM
So if I say someones acting like they are in denial... That's acceptable... Thanks for clearing that up
If it is possible to act like they are in denial. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 01:19:48 PM
The thread is about beliefs.  There will be a variety of beliefs which all are opinions of the holder.

Don't we need to make it clear if we are, stating opinion
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 01:24:11 PM
If it is possible to act like they are in denial.

Act in this situation means.. Behaving like a child.... So I'm OK to day a member is behaving as though they are in denial
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 01:25:01 PM
What facts are those?
Well there were the 49 unanswered questions in Kate's interview.  There are more examples but it is well past my bedtime.  https://omny.fm/shows/maddie/a-door-marked-closed  has examples through it. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 01:26:06 PM
Act in this situation means.. Behaving like a child.... So I'm OK to day a member is behaving as though they are in denial
You are going to become a perfect poster one day at the rate you are going.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2019, 01:28:30 PM
Don't we need to make it clear if we are, stating opinion
Beliefs are opinions aren't they?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2019, 01:34:38 PM
When have you ever said what you believe or what you don't believe?  A precis would be helpful.

Was that a yes or a no?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 01:47:58 PM
You are going to become a perfect poster one day at the rate you are going.

Not if I accuse gunit if being child-like  and behaving as though she's in denial.. But who knows
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2019, 02:03:01 PM
Beliefs are opinions aren't they?

Strictly speaking they are but some beliefs are based on faith rather than evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 16, 2019, 02:18:17 PM

With reference to the opening post and the title of the thread ... Re: Sceptics  beliefs ? ...

Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg518505#msg518505


Please note that from now on I shall delete everything else which I consider is Off Topic ... thank you

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 02:27:13 PM
Strictly speaking they are but some beliefs are based on faith rather than evidence.

I think you are, wrong.... In this case there is plenty of evidence to support beliefs
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2019, 02:51:04 PM
I think you are, wrong.... In this case there is plenty of evidence to support beliefs

My definition of the word belief is correct. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 16, 2019, 03:18:51 PM
My definition of the word belief is correct.

I never said it wasn't.... But imo it's belief based on evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 16, 2019, 04:25:16 PM
With reference to the opening post and the title of the thread ... Re: Sceptics  beliefs ? ...

Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg518505#msg518505


Please note that from now on I shall delete everything else which I consider is Off Topic ... thank you

The guilt has to be qualified? LOL ask the supporters to qualify their belief.

The parents are guilty of leaving their children alone every night to go and drink, socialise, and eat.  This is not a belief this is an actual fact.

The mother claims she put the children to bed and in particular recalls Madeleine was snuggled UNDER the covers as it was a cold night. The father claims He last saw Madeleine alive in bed on top of the covers where he left her as it was a Warm night

The mother claims the curtains were blowing as it was a windy night The searchers never claimed that to be the case.

This is not a belief this is FACT.


The parents both claimed a door had been moved -which was the main reason MBM was allegedly abducted.

We cannot establish how wide the door was open/closed. how would Gerry on his visit know the door was moved AND as Gerry did look in he could only see Madeleine- which means the door was only ajar/slightly open. So, was it really moved on his visit?

Door was more open on Kates visit, why would it be more open if an abductor came and went out of a window?

These are written facts -not beliefs- by people who see these FACTS do not suggest an abduction in the way it was described by the mother.

So to sum up:   As I wasn't there. I have no idea what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann, I BELIEVE she was a victim of some horrific crime- I don't know what that crime was- as the police have failed to ascertain it I do not pretend to know.

The circumstantial evidence could include the dogs to enforce a particular theory. The supporters point blank refuse to believe that the theory of walk and wandered is plausible- even though it is more believable that the whooshing curtain, jemmied shutters version.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: John on April 17, 2019, 10:55:44 AM
The slightly opened bedroom door would also suggest support for the woke and wandered theory.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 17, 2019, 11:11:29 AM
The guilt has to be qualified? LOL ask the supporters to qualify their belief.

The parents are guilty of leaving their children alone every night to go and drink, socialise, and eat.  This is not a belief this is an actual fact.

The mother claims she put the children to bed and in particular recalls Madeleine was snuggled UNDER the covers as it was a cold night. The father claims He last saw Madeleine alive in bed on top of the covers where he left her as it was a Warm night

The mother claims the curtains were blowing as it was a windy night The searchers never claimed that to be the case.

This is not a belief this is FACT.


The parents both claimed a door had been moved -which was the main reason MBM was allegedly abducted.

We cannot establish how wide the door was open/closed. how would Gerry on his visit know the door was moved AND as Gerry did look in he could only see Madeleine- which means the door was only ajar/slightly open. So, was it really moved on his visit?

Door was more open on Kates visit, why would it be more open if an abductor came and went out of a window?

These are written facts -not beliefs- by people who see these FACTS do not suggest an abduction in the way it was described by the mother.

So to sum up:   As I wasn't there. I have no idea what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann, I BELIEVE she was a victim of some horrific crime- I don't know what that crime was- as the police have failed to ascertain it I do not pretend to know.

The circumstantial evidence could include the dogs to enforce a particular theory. The supporters point blank refuse to believe that the theory of walk and wandered is plausible- even though it is more believable that the whooshing curtain, jemmied shutters version.

I've never understood how Kate could claim the door had moved, considering that both Gerry & Matt had visited since she left .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2019, 11:21:52 AM
I've never understood how Kate could claim the door had moved, considering that both Gerry & Matt had visited since she left .

Precisely why the alarm bells didn't ring immediately ... she thought exactly as you did in the knowledge others had been in the apartment before her.
It was only in retrospect that the changes in the door positions took on a chilling significance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 12:33:21 PM
When have you ever said what you believe or what you don't believe?  A precis would be helpful.

There are beliefs galore on the internet about this case. Some people are quite happy to tell the world what they believe about it. Some are utterly convinced of the McCann's innocence, others of their guilt. I'm not convinced of either because I think the evidence can be used to support both opinions. A lot of my posts address this subject. 

Those who are convinced of the McCann's innocence, for example, firmly believe that the police advised them to show no emotion during appeals and that they were able to comply.

Others wonder if the police really give such advice and, if they do, whether such self control is possible.

My opinion? I don't know, but on balance I find it unlikely that such advice was given and I think it would be very difficult to follow.

My opinions, therefore are not beliefs imo. I can't prove I'm right and I accept I may be wrong. All my opinions are similarly vague.

You, on the other hand, do have beliefs, one of which is;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics." 

You seem convinced that you know what sceptics believe and why. You appear reluctant to accept that you may be wrong, which, imo, is why you didn't answer my question.

Therefore there's no point in me explaining my position because you won't believe what I say anyway imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 12:35:47 PM
There are beliefs galore on the internet about this case. Some people are quite happy to tell the world what they believe about it. Some are utterly convinced of the McCann's innocence, others of their guilt. I'm not convinced of either because I think the evidence can be used to support both opinions. A lot of my posts address this subject. 

Those who are convinced of the McCann's innocence, for example, firmly believe that the police advised them to show no emotion during appeals and that they were able to comply.

Others wonder if the police really give such advice and, if they do, whether such self control is possible.

My opinion? I don't know, but on balance I find it unlikely that such advice was given and I think it would be very difficult to follow.

My opinions, therefore are not beliefs imo. I can't prove I'm right and I accept I may be wrong. All my opinions are similarly vague.

You, on the other hand, do have beliefs, one of which is;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics." 

You seem convinced that you know what sceptics believe and why. You appear reluctant to accept that you may be wrong, which, imo, is why you didn't answer my question.

Therefore there's no point in me explaining my position because you won't believe what I say anyway imo.
Perhaps you could provide some cites of posts you have made that support the opinion that the parents are innocent.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 12:48:08 PM
There are beliefs galore on the internet about this case. Some people are quite happy to tell the world what they believe about it. Some are utterly convinced of the McCann's innocence, others of their guilt. I'm not convinced of either because I think the evidence can be used to support both opinions. A lot of my posts address this subject. 

Those who are convinced of the McCann's innocence, for example, firmly believe that the police advised them to show no emotion during appeals and that they were able to comply.

Others wonder if the police really give such advice and, if they do, whether such self control is possible.

My opinion? I don't know, but on balance I find it unlikely that such advice was given and I think it would be very difficult to follow.

My opinions, therefore are not beliefs imo. I can't prove I'm right and I accept I may be wrong. All my opinions are similarly vague.

You, on the other hand, do have beliefs, one of which is;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics." 

You seem convinced that you know what sceptics believe and why. You appear reluctant to accept that you may be wrong, which, imo, is why you didn't answer my question.

Therefore there's no point in me explaining my position because you won't believe what I say anyway imo.

Sceptics believe the alerts are evidence.... You I seem to recall have referred to them as circumstantial evidence..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 17, 2019, 01:05:51 PM
Sceptics believe the alerts are evidence.... You I seem to recall have referred to them as circumstantial evidence..
If you keep trotting that out, maybe everyone will start to believe it.
'Sceptics believe' - all of them? All believe the same? No grey, no slightly differing views? No divergence on a particular aspect? All singing along in harmony?
I think this is officially a wind up now dAveL.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 01:31:04 PM
If you keep trotting that out, maybe everyone will start to believe it.
'Sceptics believe' - all of them? All believe the same? No grey, no slightly differing views? No divergence on a particular aspect? All singing along in harmony?
I think this is officially a wind up now dAveL.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a MCCann sceptic (ie those who believe the McCanns covered up Madeleines death) who doesn’t believe the dog alerts are highly significant. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 17, 2019, 01:40:42 PM
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a MCCann sceptic (ie those who believe the McCanns covered up Madeleines death) who doesn’t believe the dog alerts are highly significant.
Could be. My point is, I'm sure there's loads of people who maybe are just sceptical about the whole thing seemingly not tying together, but have formed no real opinion either way - they're still sceptical though.
I get your drift though and actually, perhaps that's a decent definition - those who believe the McCann's covered up Maddie's demise
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 01:50:22 PM
If you keep trotting that out, maybe everyone will start to believe it.
'Sceptics believe' - all of them? All believe the same? No grey, no slightly differing views? No divergence on a particular aspect? All singing along in harmony?
I think this is officially a wind up now dAveL.
Ive yet to come accross a sceptic who acccepts that the, alerts have no evidential value... That's my personal experience...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 01:52:30 PM
There are beliefs galore on the internet about this case. Some people are quite happy to tell the world what they believe about it. Some are utterly convinced of the McCann's innocence, others of their guilt. I'm not convinced of either because I think the evidence can be used to support both opinions. A lot of my posts address this subject. 

Those who are convinced of the McCann's innocence, for example, firmly believe that the police advised them to show no emotion during appeals and that they were able to comply.

Others wonder if the police really give such advice and, if they do, whether such self control is possible.

My opinion? I don't know, but on balance I find it unlikely that such advice was given and I think it would be very difficult to follow.

My opinions, therefore are not beliefs imo. I can't prove I'm right and I accept I may be wrong. All my opinions are similarly vague.

You, on the other hand, do have beliefs, one of which is;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics." 

You seem convinced that you know what sceptics believe and why. You appear reluctant to accept that you may be wrong, which, imo, is why you didn't answer my question.

Therefore there's no point in me explaining my position because you won't believe what I say anyway imo.
Are you a sceptic?  or more of an a McCann agnostic?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 01:57:43 PM
Ive yet to come accross a sceptic who acccepts that the, alerts have no evidential value... That's my personal experience...
95% reliability of evidence of something.  But evidence of what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 02:18:30 PM
Perhaps you could provide some cites of posts you have made that support the opinion that the parents are innocent.

I don't think I've made any and why should I? I don't know if they are innocent or not. There are, however, many such posts by others. In my opinion many of those posts are either expressing opinions or are misunderstanding or misquoting the evidence. My input has often been to point these things out.

For example the fact that the parents howled, cried and prayed on 3rd May isn't evidence which supports the theory that their daughter was abducted imo. I think those who believe that it is are ignoring other possible reasons.

It was suggested for a while that no tracker dogs were used by the GNR in the search for Madeleine. It took me ages to show that some of the search and rescue dogs from Lisbon were actually trained tracker dogs. That was a case of evidence being misunderstood imo.

Misquoting and paraphrasing can change the meaning of evidence. In my opinion cites are very important in case people are deliberately or accidentally getting the evidence to say somthing it doesn't.   
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 02:27:04 PM
95% reliability of evidence of something.  But evidence of what?

I don't agree... They have no evidential value or reliability.... According to the experts
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 02:27:25 PM
Are you a sceptic?  or more of an a McCann agnostic?

It depends how you define sceptic. I'm not a sceptic as defined by some supporters, but I'm sceptical of aspects of the McCann's version of events. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 02:29:38 PM
I don't think I've made any and why should I? I don't know if they are innocent or not. There are, however, many such posts by others. In my opinion many of those posts are either expressing opinions or are misunderstanding or misquoting the evidence. My input has often been to point these things out.

For example the fact that the parents howled, cried and prayed on 3rd May isn't evidence which supports the theory that their daughter was abducted imo. I think those who believe that it is are ignoring other possible reasons.

It was suggested for a while that no tracker dogs were used by the GNR in the search for Madeleine. It took me ages to show that some of the search and rescue dogs from Lisbon were actually trained tracker dogs. That was a case of evidence being misunderstood imo.

Misquoting and paraphrasing can change the meaning of evidence. In my opinion cites are very important in case people are deliberately or accidentally getting the evidence to say somthing it doesn't.
Would it be an accurate assertion that you very rarely if ever question evidence put forward by other sceptics to supprt their belief that the parents are complicit in some way, even if said evidence can also be evidence of something else, eg abduction? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2019, 02:31:12 PM
There are beliefs galore on the internet about this case. Some people are quite happy to tell the world what they believe about it. Some are utterly convinced of the McCann's innocence, others of their guilt. I'm not convinced of either because I think the evidence can be used to support both opinions. A lot of my posts address this subject. 

Those who are convinced of the McCann's innocence, for example, firmly believe that the police advised them to show no emotion during appeals and that they were able to comply.

Others wonder if the police really give such advice and, if they do, whether such self control is possible.

My opinion? I don't know, but on balance I find it unlikely that such advice was given and I think it would be very difficult to follow.

My opinions, therefore are not beliefs imo. I can't prove I'm right and I accept I may be wrong. All my opinions are similarly vague.

You, on the other hand, do have beliefs, one of which is;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics." 

You seem convinced that you know what sceptics believe and why. You appear reluctant to accept that you may be wrong, which, imo, is why you didn't answer my question.

Therefore there's no point in me explaining my position because you won't believe what I say anyway imo.

I have firm opinions based on what some might refer to as 'research' ... and I am not so ashamed of my opinions that I fear to voice them.

You have admitted that McCann sceptics exist in your posts.

You have posted that some of these sceptics have formed themselves into groups to express and promote their scepticism of the McCanns.

You don't seem to be able to bring yourself to admit that either as individuals or groups these sceptics hold certain beliefs the similarity of which is apparent to most observers.

The thread topic is 'sceptic beliefs' of which there is a myriad of research material to chose from: fora ~ newspaper comment sections ~ social media ~ ebooks ~ podcasts and videos; which makes it a valid topic for discussion.

I am interested in what motivates sceptics ... quite obviously you are not ... but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from ad homs directed at me ... telling me what I do and do not believe ... or forecasting that I "will not believe" you.

Your 'question' is unanswerable since you are very careful not to express your opinion ... therefore without you telling the forum what you do or don't believe ( which is what I asked for clarification) please don't invite presumptive and speculative answers referring to you personally at which I have no doubt you may take offence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 02:32:33 PM
I don't think I've made any and why should I? I don't know if they are innocent or not. There are, however, many such posts by others. In my opinion many of those posts are either expressing opinions or are misunderstanding or misquoting the evidence. My input has often been to point these things out.

For example the fact that the parents howled, cried and prayed on 3rd May isn't evidence which supports the theory that their daughter was abducted imo. I think those who believe that it is are ignoring other possible reasons.

It was suggested for a while that no tracker dogs were used by the GNR in the search for Madeleine. It took me ages to show that some of the search and rescue dogs from Lisbon were actually trained tracker dogs. That was a case of evidence being misunderstood imo.

Misquoting and paraphrasing can change the meaning of evidence. In my opinion cites are very important in case people are deliberately or accidentally getting the evidence to say somthing it doesn't.

You accuse others of misunderstanding the evidence... I think you and others misunderstand the evidence...

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 02:33:50 PM
Sceptics believe the alerts are evidence.... You I seem to recall have referred to them as circumstantial evidence..

I can see no reason why alerts can't be used as part of a case made up of circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 02:38:08 PM
I can see no reason why alerts can't be used as part of a case made up of circumstantial evidence.

Because the expert says they have no evidential value and Harrison says no inference can be drawn from them
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2019, 02:38:31 PM
95% reliability of evidence of something.  But evidence of what?

Did you watch the Netflix episode featuring Martin Grime?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 02:46:30 PM
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog ...

Grime is quite clear that the cadaver alerts can only be corroborated by human remains
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 17, 2019, 02:48:37 PM
Because the expert says they have no evidential value and Harrison says no inference can be drawn from them

If I recall correctly the word used was reliability and not value.  There is a subtle difference between evidential value and evidential reliability.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 02:54:24 PM
If I recall correctly the word used was reliability and not value.  There is a subtle difference between evidential value and evidential reliability.

I do recall correctly.... There were statements by grime and Harrison..... Each used a different word... One value.... And one reliability
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 03:00:57 PM
performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.


That's Harrison's report.... No evidential value without supporting physical evidence....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 03:17:37 PM
I have firm opinions based on what some might refer to as 'research' ... and I am not so ashamed of my opinions that I fear to voice them.

You have admitted that McCann sceptics exist in your posts.

You have posted that some of these sceptics have formed themselves into groups to express and promote their scepticism of the McCanns.

You don't seem to be able to bring yourself to admit that either as individuals or groups these sceptics hold certain beliefs the similarity of which is apparent to most observers.

The thread topic is 'sceptic beliefs' of which there is a myriad of research material to chose from: fora ~ newspaper comment sections ~ social media ~ ebooks ~ podcasts and videos; which makes it a valid topic for discussion.

I am interested in what motivates sceptics ... quite obviously you are not ... but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from ad homs directed at me ... telling me what I do and do not believe ... or forecasting that I "will not believe" you.

Your 'question' is unanswerable since you are very careful not to express your opinion ... therefore without you telling the forum what you do or don't believe ( which is what I asked for clarification) please don't invite presumptive and speculative answers referring to you personally at which I have no doubt you may take offence.

I've noticed both your firm opinions and your willingness to shre them. Why anyone might fear sharing their opinions I can't imagine. Do you know any such people?

I have used the word sceptic because it's in general use and I can't think of another we would all recognise. I don't agree that they hold shared beliefs which observers can identify, however. Some may, but certainly not all.

You may think you can see enough evidence of shared beliefs to justify discussing 'sceptics beliefs' but I don't. I don't think they're similar enough to be discussed as a group.

I didn't tell you what you believe, you told me. Given what you said you believe and given that you had already rejected my assurance that I didn't beieve what you said sceptics do believe, it was reasonable in my opinion to assume you would continie to disbelieve me. If you are willing to accept that I'm telling the truth then say so and I will apologise ummediately for misjudging you.

As I'm not a supporter I have no choice but to assume anything said about 'sceptics' includes me. Yherefore I respond and will continue to respond when people make statements about sceptics. It's quite easy to stop me by adding 'some' to the word sceptic. I won't always assume I'm included then.  8**8:/:
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 03:35:13 PM
Because the expert says they have no evidential value and Harrison says no inference can be drawn from them

As I understand it these experts don't decide which evidence will be used in a case. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2019, 04:01:30 PM
Ive yet to come accross a sceptic who acccepts that the, alerts have no evidential value... That's my personal experience...

I'm a sceptic & I'm aware the dog alerts aren't evidence.
They aren't evidence that Maddie died in the apartment.
But I'm yet to see any proof that she didn't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 04:05:39 PM
I'm a sceptic & I'm aware the dog alerts aren't evidence.
They aren't evidence that Maddie died in the apartment.
But I'm yet to see any proof that she didn't.

Maddie may have died in the apartment... She may not... We simply don't know
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 04:07:06 PM
As I understand it these experts don't decide which evidence will be used in a case.

Can you see any judge allowing the alerts as evidence when the expert responsible for the evidence has stated it has no evidential reliability
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2019, 04:14:49 PM
I've noticed both your firm opinions and your willingness to shre them. Why anyone might fear sharing their opinions I can't imagine. Do you know any such people?

I have used the word sceptic because it's in general use and I can't think of another we would all recognise. I don't agree that they hold shared beliefs which observers can identify, however. Some may, but certainly not all.

You may think you can see enough evidence of shared beliefs to justify discussing 'sceptics beliefs' but I don't. I don't think they're similar enough to be discussed as a group.

I didn't tell you what you believe, you told me. Given what you said you believe and given that you had already rejected my assurance that I didn't beieve what you said sceptics do believe, it was reasonable in my opinion to assume you would continie to disbelieve me. If you are willing to accept that I'm telling the truth then say so and I will apologise ummediately for misjudging you.

As I'm not a supporter I have no choice but to assume anything said about 'sceptics' includes me. Yherefore I respond and will continue to respond when people make statements about sceptics. It's quite easy to stop me by adding 'some' to the word sceptic. I won't always assume I'm included then.  8**8:/:

Just a reminder ... the thread topic is 'Sceptic beliefs?' ... that and the OP gives plenty of room for discussion in the abstract about any aspect whatsoever of what the forum has decided are called "sceptics" and what they wish to publish and promulgate on the internet.

I think sometimes you tend to get caught up in the personae for arguments sake ... which deflects from the intention of this thread and quite often some others.
So I won't be discussing me or discussing you ... particularly when there is such a fruitful harvest of sceptic beliefs out there to peruse and post about.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 17, 2019, 04:15:13 PM
The guilt has to be qualified? LOL ask the supporters to qualify their belief.

The parents are guilty of leaving their children alone every night to go and drink, socialise, and eat.  This is not a belief this is an actual fact.

The mother claims she put the children to bed and in particular recalls Madeleine was snuggled UNDER the covers as it was a cold night. The father claims He last saw Madeleine alive in bed on top of the covers where he left her as it was a Warm night

The mother claims the curtains were blowing as it was a windy night The searchers never claimed that to be the case.

This is not a belief this is FACT.


The parents both claimed a door had been moved -which was the main reason MBM was allegedly abducted.

We cannot establish how wide the door was open/closed. how would Gerry on his visit know the door was moved AND as Gerry did look in he could only see Madeleine- which means the door was only ajar/slightly open. So, was it really moved on his visit?

Door was more open on Kates visit, why would it be more open if an abductor came and went out of a window?

These are written facts -not beliefs- by people who see these FACTS do not suggest an abduction in the way it was described by the mother.

So to sum up:   As I wasn't there. I have no idea what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann, I BELIEVE she was a victim of some horrific crime- I don't know what that crime was- as the police have failed to ascertain it I do not pretend to know.

The circumstantial evidence could include the dogs to enforce a particular theory. The supporters point blank refuse to believe that the theory of walk and wandered is plausible- even though it is more believable that the whooshing curtain, jemmied shutters version.

Can you give me a link to where Gerry said Madeleine was on top of the covers because it was a warm night please.

I believe Gerry was explaining how Madeleine was lying in the bed rather than whether the cover was over her or not.


There were gusts of wind,  not continually windy.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2019, 04:29:01 PM
I'm a sceptic & I'm aware the dog alerts aren't evidence.
They aren't evidence that Maddie died in the apartment.
But I'm yet to see any proof that she didn't.

I think it is usual to find evidence that there has been an occurrence before deciding that there was one.  Amaral did it in reverse.  He decided a drugged Madeleine had fallen off the sofa and had died as a result ... then he set about finding the evidence to prove it ... and there was none.

Yet even today sceptics adhere to his original flawed thesis ... and the OP asks why would they do that in the face of two active police investigations which started off in 2013 looking for an abductor which continues into the here and now of 2019?
I think that is a valid question to ask which I think you do try to answer in your own way.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2019, 04:34:01 PM
Can you give me a link to where Gerry said Madeleine was on top of the covers because it was a warm night please.

I believe Gerry was explaining how Madeleine was lying in the bed rather than whether the cover was over her or not.


There were gusts of wind,  not continually windy.




"States that his daughter slept without the covers, as was normal, due to the heat, with the bed sheets folded towards the foot of the bed."

(GM statement May 10th)


"So, I actually came in and Madeleine was just at the top of the bed here, where I'd left her lying, and the covers were folded down and she had her cuddle cat and blanket, were just by her head."

(GM Madeleine Was Here)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2019, 04:42:29 PM

"States that his daughter slept without the covers, as was normal, due to the heat, with the bed sheets folded towards the foot of the bed."

(GM statement May 10th)


"So, I actually came in and Madeleine was just at the top of the bed here, where I'd left her lying, and the covers were folded down and she had her cuddle cat and blanket, were just by her head."

(GM Madeleine Was Here)

Without covers ... ?
The covers were folded down ...? same difference as far as I can see.  The child was sleeping without covers because they were folded down.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2019, 05:21:33 PM
As I recall, the PJ photos show a made up bed. No covers folded down.

Nice touch from the abductor there, making the bed after he took Maddie.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesbed.jpg)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2019, 05:29:31 PM


"Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers, with the soft toy and the blanket, both pink, next to her head, not knowing if they were placed in the position in which one can see them in the photograph attached to the files."

(GM 7th September)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 05:31:10 PM
As I recall, the PJ photos show a made up bed. No covers folded down.

Nice touch from the abductor there, making the bed after he took Maddie.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesbed.jpg)
That does not looks like a made bed to me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2019, 05:40:37 PM
That does not looks like a made bed to me.

It doesn't look slept in to me.
Nor would I describe it as having sheets folded towards the foot of the bed, as one of Gerry's statements describes.

Was Madeleine sleeping under them covers or on top of them?

Who knows, another one of those pesky translation problems.

 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 05:43:24 PM
Can you see any judge allowing the alerts as evidence when the expert responsible for the evidence has stated it has no evidential reliability

Such evidence has been used in the US and in Scotland. In the correct context it is admissible. Those who decide are lawyers and judges, not dog handlers and searcgh advisers.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 05:51:19 PM
It doesn't look slept in to me.
Nor would I describe it as having sheets folded towards the foot of the bed, as one of Gerry's statements describes.

Was Madeleine sleeping under them covers or on top of them?

Who knows, another one of those pesky translation problems.
It looks like someone was in it to me, albeit briefly.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 05:52:25 PM
Would it be an accurate assertion that you very rarely if ever question evidence put forward by other sceptics to supprt their belief that the parents are complicit in some way, even if said evidence can also be evidence of something else, eg abduction?
I guess that’s a yes then. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 06:00:08 PM

"States that his daughter slept without the covers, as was normal, due to the heat, with the bed sheets folded towards the foot of the bed."

(GM statement May 10th)


"So, I actually came in and Madeleine was just at the top of the bed here, where I'd left her lying, and the covers were folded down and she had her cuddle cat and blanket, were just by her head."

(GM Madeleine Was Here)

But he rold hus wife;

 Madeleine was lying there, on her left-hand side,
her legs under the covers, in exactly the same
position as we’d left her [madeleine]



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 06:03:53 PM
Such evidence has been used in the US and in Scotland. In the correct context it is admissible. Those who decide are lawyers and judges, not dog handlers and searcgh advisers.
They have been admitted a couple of times outside of England... Never in England...the bark of a dog is not admissable... It would need to be backed by it's handler... That has always been the case... In this case the handler says no evidential reliability.... I'm sure no alert has been admitted where the handler said that.... There is also evidence that the review of the Scottish case criticised the admissibility of the dog.. I think given the testimony of grime and Harrison the idea of the alerts being seen as evidence  is laughable..

Given the statements Re the digs I cannot see any lawyer even attempting to present them as evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 06:15:02 PM
As I recall, the PJ photos show a made up bed. No covers folded down.

Nice touch from the abductor there, making the bed after he took Maddie.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesbed.jpg)

I have some experience of moving sleeping children and taking one from that bed would be easy if the child was lying on top of the covers because you need to get one arm under the knees. You could lift, turn and go very easily. If the child's legs were under the covers it's not so easy. Wouldn't the arm then have to slide under the covers to get behind her knees? The next movement would then be more complicated imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 06:27:42 PM
Just a reminder ... the thread topic is 'Sceptic beliefs?' ... that and the OP gives plenty of room for discussion in the abstract about any aspect whatsoever of what the forum has decided are called "sceptics" and what they wish to publish and promulgate on the internet.

I think sometimes you tend to get caught up in the personae for arguments sake ... which deflects from the intention of this thread and quite often some others.
So I won't be discussing me or discussing you ... particularly when there is such a fruitful harvest of sceptic beliefs out there to peruse and post about.

The forum can do as it wishes but I will continue to object if I think I'm being included in sweeping statements with which I disagree.

I don't know what the bolded bit means. What personas do I get caight up in?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 07:10:26 PM
The forum can do as it wishes but I will continue to object if I think I'm being included in sweeping statements with which I disagree.

I don't know what the bolded bit means. What personas do I get caight up in?

whether you like it or not some here consider you a sceptic...why should that bother you...it doesnt bother me in the slightest what others here think of me. Of course not all the traits apply to every sceptic .......its a generalisation...if you dont like being labelled a sceptic you could show how open minded you are by making some posts in support of the mccanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2019, 07:40:58 PM
whether you like it or not some here consider you a sceptic...why should that bother you...it doesnt bother me in the slightest what others here think of me. Of course not all the traits apply to every sceptic .......its a generalisation...if you dont like being labelled a sceptic you could show how open minded you are by making some posts in support of the mccanns

That's an unenviable task if ever I saw one.
I've tried to come up with something positive to say about the McCanns & the best I can think of is, at least they've managed not to lose any more children.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2019, 07:59:59 PM
The slightly opened bedroom door would also suggest support for the woke and wandered theory.

Nobody saw the door slightly open. Matt and Emma Knight saw it half-open - the position Gerry said it moved to when he checked. That door is a red herring.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 08:00:27 PM
That's an unenviable task if ever I saw one.
I've tried to come up with something positive to say about the McCanns & the best I can think of is, at least they've managed not to lose any more children.
A
A post liked by G-Unit, therefore somewhat proving the point.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 17, 2019, 08:00:30 PM
That's an unenviable task if ever I saw one.
I've tried to come up with something positive to say about the McCanns & the best I can think of is, at least they've managed not to lose any more children.

I can only imagine that they thank God they didn't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 08:04:09 PM
whether you like it or not some here consider you a sceptic...why should that bother you...it doesnt bother me in the slightest what others here think of me. Of course not all the traits apply to every sceptic .......its a generalisation...if you dont like being labelled a sceptic you could show how open minded you are by making some posts in support of the mccanns

I don't care what people think of me either, but I reserve the right to correct them if they're wrong about me. I don't see how posting in support of the McCanns makes someone open minded, sorry.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
A
A post liked by G-Unit, therefore somewhat proving the point.

I like wit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 08:09:36 PM
I don't care what people think of me either, but I reserve the right to correct them if they're wrong about me. I don't see how posting in support of the McCanns makes someone open minded, sorry.

It doesn't... But sometimes seing both sides of the situation does show open-mindedness.. All your posts are very one sided indicating a certain bias.. Imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2019, 08:11:56 PM
Nobody saw the door slightly open. Matt and Emma Knight saw it half-open - the position Gerry said it moved to when he checked. That door is a red herring.

I think Pegasus put it succinctly when saying ... 
"It is important to seperate crime scene description by witness (truthful fact), from amateur deduction by witness (often incorrect) IMO.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg255631#msg255631
I think it is something well worth thinking about.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2019, 08:15:19 PM
I like wit.
That type of humour at Madeleine and her family's expense appears to be something quite a few sceptics believe to be acceptable.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 08:17:26 PM
I like wit.
There was nothing witty about that post IMO.  Spiteful yes, witty no.  It’s very clear to me what floats your boat, and any pretense of objectivity on your part is revealed by your preferences.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 17, 2019, 08:18:18 PM
That type of humour at Madeleine and her family's expense appears to be something quite a few sceptics believe to be acceptable.

Please, spare us your sanctimony.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 17, 2019, 08:19:21 PM
I like wit.

I'm unsure if a post saying the McCanns were lucky not to lose their three children is really an example of a  a clever and incisive wit.?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 17, 2019, 08:19:50 PM
Please, spare us your sanctimony.

Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 17, 2019, 08:20:27 PM
Why?

Because it gets tiresome after a while.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 08:20:39 PM
I like wit.

so if i was to come up with a witty comment re Brenda leylands death you would like it.....your like confirms your sceptic status....i think your support for such a post is appalling and disrepectful towards madeleine....the phrase ..true colours...was never more apt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 17, 2019, 08:24:41 PM
Because it gets tiresome after a while.

I'm sure you can find a solution.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 08:25:46 PM
I think we can add another sceptic beleif that gunit cannot deny.....sceptics find jokes about madeleine's fate funny.....I really dont understand that
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 08:27:09 PM
It doesn't... But sometimes seing both sides of the situation does show open-mindedness.. All your posts are very one sided indicating a certain bias.. Imo

Open mindedness is required when deciding which 'side' I find most convincing. The McCanns have failed to convince me of anything much.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 08:28:12 PM
Open mindedness is required when deciding which 'side' I find most convincing. The McCanns have failed to convince me of anything much.

you have certainly convinced me
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 08:30:42 PM
Open mindedness is required when deciding which 'side' I find most convincing. The McCanns have failed to convince me of anything much.
What, if anything, has convinced you of anything much?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 17, 2019, 08:32:54 PM
Open mindedness is required when deciding which 'side' I find most convincing. The McCanns have failed to convince me of anything much.
Y
Does the fact  that as to this day and after both concurrent investigations  have been ongoing for many years and with both investigations having declared them not to be suspects  not give you any doubt?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 08:34:50 PM
That type of humour at Madeleine and her family's expense appears to be something quite a few sceptics believe to be acceptable.

You're not a fan of black humour then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 08:36:07 PM
You're not a fan of black humour then?

I dont see how you can describe a joke about a missing...presumed dead...child ....humerous.... actually I  beleive if the victim of the joke was someone else...you would be appalled
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 17, 2019, 08:42:28 PM
You're not a fan of black humour then?

Yes  it depends on the subject.
I found the Notre Dame fire quite emotional for a variety of reasons.
However there were a few humourous quips that were funny.
But never ever any black humour jokes or quips about a missing child.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 08:42:44 PM
Because the expert says they have no evidential value and Harrison says no inference can be drawn from them
Do you understand circumstantial evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 08:43:36 PM
Did you watch the Netflix episode featuring Martin Grime?
Not yet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 08:44:45 PM
You're not a fan of black humour then?
Got anymore jokes about Madeleine you care to share?  There are loads on the internet, in case you are in need of a good giggle.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 08:45:39 PM
Do you understand circumstantial evidence?
do you understand the statements made by grime and harrison...have you read them
do you understand what no evidential reliablility or value means...do you undersatnd...as no remains were found the only alerts that can become  corroborated are the CSI dogs...

based on those statements from the number one expert...how can anyone regard the alerts as any type of evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 08:52:32 PM
Yes  it depends on the subject.
I found the Notre Dame fire quite emotional for a variety of reasons.
However there were a few humourous quips that were funny.
But never ever any black humour jokes or quips about a missing child.

The whole point of black humour is to make jokes about taboo subjects. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 08:53:33 PM
Do you understand circumstantial evidence?

the dogs scored 95% on the contamination carpet tiles test...you obviously understand how awful a cadaver smells


I reckon if you put 5 pieces of cloth that had been wiped on a cadavr and 5 taht hadnt....I could do as good as the dogs
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 08:54:40 PM
The whole point of black humour is to make jokes about taboo subjects.

i think you are just digging a deeper hole
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 08:57:58 PM
Nobody saw the door slightly open. Matt and Emma Knight saw it half-open - the position Gerry said it moved to when he checked. That door is a red herring.
I'm surprised you raise Emma Knight.  She didn't get to the apartment till at least half an hour after the alarm was raised.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2019, 09:01:24 PM
Got anymore jokes about Madeleine you care to share?  There are loads on the internet, in case you are in need of a good giggle.

It wasn't about Madeleine, it was about her parents.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 09:03:11 PM
It wasn't about Madeleine, it was about her parents.

it related to madeleines fate...It was about madeleine being lost...I dont undersatnd how you can find taht funny...absolutely appalling
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 09:04:39 PM
do you understand the statements made by grime and harrison...have you read them
do you understand what no evidential reliablility or value means...do you undersatnd...as no remains were found the only alerts that can become  corroborated are the CSI dogs...

based on those statements from the number one expert...how can anyone regard the alerts as any type of evidence
You seem to be missing witness testimony.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 09:05:18 PM
You seem to be missing witness testimony.

Im missing nothing...what witness
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 09:07:06 PM
the dogs scored 95% on the contamination carpet tiles test...you obviously understand how awful a cadaver smells


I reckon if you put 5 pieces of cloth that had been wiped on a cadavr and 5 taht hadnt....I could do as good as the dogs
What about "5 pieces of cloth that had been wiped on a cadavr and 5 taht hadnt" and put them all through a washing machine and then test them?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 17, 2019, 09:07:25 PM
The whole point of black humour is to make jokes about taboo subjects.

Yes, I appreciate that!
But surely not a missing little girl?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 09:09:00 PM
Im missing nothing...what witness
Potential witness testimony , i.e. if someone confesses.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 09:10:07 PM
What about "5 pieces of cloth that had been wiped on a cadavr and 5 taht hadnt" and put them all through a washing machine and then test them?

is that what grime did in his test...  id have to try it......it doesnt matter what you say...grime as a witness...and Harrison are clear...no evidential relaibility or value
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 09:11:39 PM
Potential witness testimony , i.e. if someone confesses.

im considering the evidence we have..you are speculating....im talking about evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 09:13:08 PM
is that what grime did in his test...  id have to try it......it doesnt matter what you say...grime as a witness...and Harrison are clear...no evidential relaibility or value
I have my doubts that you could match a cadaver dog in reliability. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 09:16:03 PM
I have my doubts that you could match a cadaver dog in reliability.

I dont
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 09:27:13 PM
I dont
Well we will test it sometime.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 09:30:46 PM
Well we will test it sometime.

test what ....I said i didnt have any doubt....not that i was as reliable as the dogs...i have no doubt im not as relaible as the dogs....the point i am making is taht the dogs are tested on very simple tests...on those tests...fresh cadaver....I may well be quite reliable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 17, 2019, 09:34:12 PM
test what ....I said i didnt have any doubt....not that i was as reliable as the dogs...i have no doubt im not as relaible as the dogs....the point i am making is taht the dogs are tested on very simple tests...on those tests...fresh cadaver....I may well be quite reliable
wellwe will get a dead piglet and test your ability to find which carpet square were in contact.  See if you can do better than 75% correct.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 09:45:51 PM
wellwe will get a dead piglet and test your ability to find which carpet square were in contact.  See if you can do better than 75% correct.

nope....we need a cadaver ...dead for at least acouple of hours and starting to stink..... adead piglet would only test my ability to detect....a dead piglet...sorry Rob but my background is in science
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 10:01:14 PM
It wasn't about Madeleine, it was about her parents.
If you enjoy black humour about the parents of a missing child, then why not about the child herself?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2019, 10:15:44 PM

I've only just caught up with this thread. I notice my joke caused some upset.

It wasn't about Madeleine, it was about her parents.

Indeed it was, the crux of the joke being, there is little positive to say about them IMO.

It may not be to everyone's taste, but it made me laugh & that's all that matters.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 10:21:28 PM
I've only just caught up with this thread. I notice my joke caused some upset.

Indeed it was, the crux of the joke being, there is little positive to say about them IMO.

It may not be to everyone's taste, but it made me laugh & that's all that matters.

its all that matters to you ...but its not all that matters... you are not the centre of the universe...you may think you are
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2019, 10:21:54 PM
If you enjoy black humour about the parents of a missing child, then why not about the child herself?

I remember seeing the age progressed Image of Maddie & thinking,...... doesn't she look well.
Someone must have been taking really good care of her, well, better than her parents did anyway.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 10:23:01 PM
I've only just caught up with this thread. I notice my joke caused some upset.

Indeed it was, the crux of the joke being, there is little positive to say about them IMO.

It may not be to everyone's taste, but it made me laugh & that's all that matters.
Your “hilarious “ joke caused me no upset, I enjoyed the fact that it proved so popular with a sceptic who hates that label, thus showing she is really not all that different from your average sceptic McCann basher.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 10:23:21 PM
I remember seeing the age progressed Image of Maddie & thinking,...... doesn't she look well.
Someone must have been taking really good care of her, well, better than her parents did anyway.
no doubt the sceptics will love your post
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 17, 2019, 10:27:34 PM
I remember seeing the age progressed Image of Maddie & thinking,...... doesn't she look well.
Someone must have been taking really good care of her, well, better than her parents did anyway.
Have you not got any really sick jokes about Madeleine?  That one is a bit tame, we have fans of black humour here apparently and that one wasn’t really all that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 10:28:45 PM
Your “hilarious “ joke caused me no upset, I enjoyed the fact that it proved so popular with a sceptic who hates that label, thus showing she is really not all that different from your average sceptic McCann basher.

It does give me cause for concern but not upset me...I already realise what a nasty world we live in...people can rationise their nastiness ...nazis ...isis...it doesnt make it right
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2019, 10:36:42 PM
Have you not got any really sick jokes about Madeleine?  That one is a bit tame, we have fans of black humour here apparently and that one wasn’t really all that.

Nope sorry. You've had 3 jokes out of me in the past few days. That's about the extent of my repertoire.
I'm not into really sick jokes.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 17, 2019, 10:42:45 PM
Nope sorry. You've had 3 jokes out of me in the past few days. That's about the extent of my repertoire.
I'm not into really sick jokes.
don't worry your contribution is appreciated.. It really has exposed some posters today
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2019, 11:44:27 PM
I think Pegasus put it succinctly when saying ... 
"It is important to seperate crime scene description by witness (truthful fact), from amateur deduction by witness (often incorrect) IMO.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg255631#msg255631
I think it is something well worth thinking about.

Peggy would know all about incorrect deductions. My deductions are based on actual evidence, crime scene, statements not a burglar who opened the window leaving no evidence then ran away as Peggy invented.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 18, 2019, 12:39:24 AM
no doubt the sceptics will love your post

Unlike supporters who appear to have little sense of humour, despite the copious laughing emoticons, and are a bit....well...poe-faced.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 18, 2019, 07:17:59 AM
Unlike supporters who appear to have little sense of humour, despite the copious laughing emoticons, and are a bit....well...poe-faced.
got any good jokes about Antony Sharples?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 18, 2019, 08:05:44 AM
wellwe will get a dead piglet and test your ability to find which carpet square were in contact.  See if you can do better than 75% correct.

The thing is ... under test conditions ... it is known what the sample consists of and exactly where it will be placed ... and the dogs don't get it right often enough for a dog alert to be considered as evidence.

In the field ... the only confirmation there is of a dog alert is if some vestige of human remains or a complete body is recovered.

Human remains can lie undiscovered for many years to be found entirely by chance despite intensive dog searches for the missing person the at the time of disappearance and subsequently.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 18, 2019, 08:17:32 AM
got any good jokes about Antony Sharples?

Isn't he dead? The McCanns aren't. Did he mislay a child? The McCanns did. Why mention him? Who knows.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 18, 2019, 08:22:23 AM
Peggy would know all about incorrect deductions. My deductions are based on actual evidence, crime scene, statements not a burglar who opened the window leaving no evidence then ran away as Peggy invented.

Pegasus is one of those rare posters who I think actually is what it says on the tin and posts the evidence to back up the fact of his/her impartiality and fairness.

S/he has looked at and presented both sides of the argument on occasion and has an open minded, rational explanation for Madeleine exiting the apartment in conjunction with the open window as described by Kate.
Whom s/he describes as an "honest witness" ... which totally flies in the face of sceptic belief, so I can see the difficulty you may have with that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 18, 2019, 08:52:51 AM
Pegasus is one of those rare posters who I think actually is what it says on the tin and posts the evidence to back up the fact of his/her impartiality and fairness.

S/he has looked at and presented both sides of the argument on occasion and has an open minded, rational explanation for Madeleine exiting the apartment in conjunction with the open window as described by Kate.
Whom s/he describes as an "honest witness" ... which totally flies in the face of sceptic belief, so I can see the difficulty you may have with that.

Can it be proved that a witmess is honest? If not then assuming that they are is a sign of bias imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 18, 2019, 09:36:06 AM
Can it be proved that a witmess is honest? If not then assuming that they are is a sign of bias imo.

The majority of posters on fora lean towards an opinion one way or another.
Some do that relying on "gut reaction" ... others like Pegasus post an opinion based on knowledge using an almost forensic study and analysis of what evidence there is.

When posting Pegasus was an invaluable asset to the forum mainly as a result of an enquiring mind put to good use and insight.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 18, 2019, 11:01:59 AM
The majority of posters on fora lean towards an opinion one way or another.
Some do that relying on "gut reaction" ... others like Pegasus post an opinion based on knowledge using an almost forensic study and analysis of what evidence there is.

When posting Pegasus was an invaluable asset to the forum mainly as a result of an enquiring mind put to good use and insight.

According to Pegasus KM was a truthful witness because;

snip/
The crime-scene description by the witness fits with the hard evidence in this room...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg255653#msg255653

As the only person who claimed to see this evidence was the witness it can hardly be used to confirm the truthfulness of the witness.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 18, 2019, 11:04:58 AM
According to Pegasus KM was a truthful witness because;

snip/
The crime-scene description by the witness fits with the hard evidence in this room...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg255653#msg255653

As the only person who claimed to see this evidence was the witness it can hardly be used to confirm the truthfulness of the witness.

personally i look at all the facts and then base my decision on truthfulness on that....to me kate is truthful
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 18, 2019, 11:21:58 AM
personally i look at all the facts and then base my decision on truthfulness on that....to me kate is truthful

Pegasus believed KM was truthful because Pegasus believed KM described the scene truthfully. Pegasus appears to have believed that KM described the scene truthfuly purely because it was possible that it looked as KM described it. In my opinion that isn't an opinion based on evidence, hard or otherwise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 18, 2019, 11:32:22 AM
Pegasus believed KM was truthful because Pegasus believed KM described the scene truthfully. Pegasus appears to have believed that KM described the scene truthfuly purely because it was possible that it looked as KM described it. In my opinion that isn't an opinion based on evidence, hard or otherwise.

Pegasus had an opinion based on the facts and was not ashamed to claim what was posted as his/her opinion.

IMO absolutely no-one went in or out the window.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg117550#msg117550

The apartment looked like no-one was in.
Lights (except one dim light) were turned out when adults went out.
From inside comes no noise, no voices, no shower noise, no TV noise.
If I was a petty thief I would certainly assume everyone was out.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg117760#msg117760

Mr Amarals film has video footage in which a young actress first wakes up,  and then goes into the lounge.
The footage IMO provides no plausible reasons why the actress did these two things.
No waking noise of shutter being opened from outside, no seeing silhouette outside.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg118165#msg118165
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 18, 2019, 11:49:27 AM
I wasn't aware that it was a sceptic belief (the title of this thread) that anyone entered or left via the window.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 18, 2019, 11:52:39 AM
Pegasus had an opinion based on the facts and was not ashamed to claim what was posted as his/her opinion.

IMO absolutely no-one went in or out the window.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg117550#msg117550

The apartment looked like no-one was in.
Lights (except one dim light) were turned out when adults went out.
From inside comes no noise, no voices, no shower noise, no TV noise.
If I was a petty thief I would certainly assume everyone was out.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg117760#msg117760

Mr Amarals film has video footage in which a young actress first wakes up,  and then goes into the lounge.
The footage IMO provides no plausible reasons why the actress did these two things.
No waking noise of shutter being opened from outside, no seeing silhouette outside.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg118165#msg118165

All of which, Pegasus suggests, fit with a burglar opening the shutters and window. It may fit, but there's no evidence that it happened.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 18, 2019, 11:59:49 AM
All of which, Pegasus suggests, fit with a burglar opening the shutters and window. It may fit, but there's no evidence that it happened.

Exactly,its not set in stone.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on April 18, 2019, 12:00:35 PM
All of which, Pegasus suggests, fit with a burglar opening the shutters and window. It may fit, but there's no evidence that it happened.

How did the crime scene found by the GNR/PJ (closed window, almost closed shutters) fit with the theory of a staged abduction?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 18, 2019, 12:05:23 PM
Exactly,its not set in stone.

I don't think the supporters agree with Pegasus's opinion, despite admiring his/her methods.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 18, 2019, 12:23:53 PM
How did the crime scene found by the GNR/PJ (closed window, almost closed shutters) fit with the theory of a staged abduction?

I thought we were discussing Pefasus's theory?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 18, 2019, 12:26:47 PM
According to Pegasus KM was a truthful witness because;

snip/
The crime-scene description by the witness fits with the hard evidence in this room...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg255653#msg255653

As the only person who claimed to see this evidence was the witness it can hardly be used to confirm the truthfulness of the witness.
Either that or the other person was there as well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on April 18, 2019, 12:31:12 PM
I thought we were discussing Pefasus's theory?

Pegasus's theory uses the eye-witness evidence of Kate McCann & provides an explanation of the crime scene. Many sceptics do not believe Kate found the window & shutter as she described yet adhere to the theory the crime scene was staged. So, I ask again - how does the scene found by the GNR/PJ fit with the narrative of a staged crime scene? It can't work both ways.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 18, 2019, 12:38:00 PM
Pegasus's theory uses the eye-witness evidence of Kate McCann & provides an explanation of the crime scene. Many sceptics do not believe Kate found the window & shutter as she described yet adhere to the theory the crime scene was staged. So, I ask again - how does the scene found by the GNR/PJ fit with the narrative of a staged crime scene? It can't work both ways.
The PJ/GNR seem to accept that others had altered the original scene.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on April 18, 2019, 12:45:24 PM
The PJ/GNR seem to accept that others had altered the original scene.

Certain items were no doubt moved during the course of internal searches prior to GNR's arrival. However, why do many sceptics cling to the belief the window & shutters were not found as described by Kate but they were consistent with a staged abduction because the PJ said so?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 18, 2019, 12:49:19 PM
The PJ/GNR seem to accept that others had altered the original scene.

I think you are correct ... unfortunately the lie was created with the headline of 'A badly told story' leaked to the Portuguese press by the police before some of those who were present at the scene had even been interviewed.

With that ... I think the die was cast ... and the foundation of many sceptic beliefs was laid.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2019, 01:59:12 PM
Pegasus's theory uses the eye-witness evidence of Kate McCann & provides an explanation of the crime scene. Many sceptics do not believe Kate found the window & shutter as she described yet adhere to the theory the crime scene was staged. So, I ask again - how does the scene found by the GNR/PJ fit with the narrative of a staged crime scene? It can't work both ways.

Actual evidence vs Peggy invented burglar opening a window and doing a runner

The curtains stayed closed all week in that bedroom and Kate never touched it. How did her fingerprints (only 2 fingers) magically appear on the window behind non-touched curtains? It's not surprising that people don't believe her. The shutters falls back down when raised so how did Kate see them in a fully raised position? They don't even fully raise and the crime scene revealed they were stuck in a nearly closed position. Investigate the crime scene as witnesses will lie if involved.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 18, 2019, 02:01:34 PM
Pegasus's theory uses the eye-witness evidence of Kate McCann & provides an explanation of the crime scene. Many sceptics do not believe Kate found the window & shutter as she described yet adhere to the theory the crime scene was staged. So, I ask again - how does the scene found by the GNR/PJ fit with the narrative of a staged crime scene? It can't work both ways.


Why is a supposed open window the sole reserve of an alleged abduction?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 18, 2019, 02:26:30 PM
Actual evidence vs Peggy invented burglar opening a window and doing a runner

The curtains stayed closed all week in that bedroom and Kate never touched it. How did her fingerprints (only 2 fingers) magically appear on the window behind non-touched curtains? It's not surprising that people don't believe her. The shutters falls back down when raised so how did Kate see them in a fully raised position? They don't even fully raise and the crime scene revealed they were stuck in a nearly closed position. Investigate the crime scene as witnesses will lie if involved.

It really is very simple how Kate's fingerprints appeared on the window glass ... I think you and Pegasus already discussed this at some length.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 18, 2019, 06:56:25 PM

"States that his daughter slept without the covers, as was normal, due to the heat, with the bed sheets folded towards the foot of the bed."

(GM statement May 10th)


"So, I actually came in and Madeleine was just at the top of the bed here, where I'd left her lying, and the covers were folded down and she had her cuddle cat and blanket, were just by her head."

(GM Madeleine Was Here)

Thank you.

So in Gerry's statement of the 10th of may he says -

----- With respect to the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when she was hot, with the bedclothes folded down. With respect to the other bed next to the window in the children's bedroom he says that it showed no signs that anyone had put their feet on it, namely, dirt or shoe prints.


So Madeleine slept uncovered when she was hot.   Kate says Madeleine was under the covers when they left 5a she thinks because she was cold.   So between them leaving her at half past eight,  and Gerry's at about 10 past 9,   Madeleine had tossed the covers off,  probably because she was hot.

So there is no mystery about any of that.  IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 18, 2019, 06:58:51 PM
Thank you.

So in Gerry's statement of the 10th of may he says -

----- With respect to the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when she was hot, with the bedclothes folded down. With respect to the other bed next to the window in the children's bedroom he says that it showed no signs that anyone had put their feet on it, namely, dirt or shoe prints.


So Madeleine slept uncovered when she was hot.   Kate says Madeleine was under the covers when they left 5a she thinks because she was cold.   So between them leaving her at half past eight,  and Gerry's at about 10 past 9,   Madeleine had tossed the covers off,  probably because she was hot.

So there is no mystery about any of that.  IMO

You suggesting that she folded the covers back, as described by Gerry,  herself ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2019, 07:03:10 PM
It really is very simple how Kate's fingerprints appeared on the window glass ... I think you and Pegasus already discussed this at some length.

Yes we discussed a lot of things.

It would be very simple if she said it in her statement at the time or any reconstruction. As soon as the curtains whooshed she knew her daughter had been abducted but didn't go immediately outside to check the car park open window side but ran through the patio door in the opposite direction for help.

"The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 18, 2019, 07:58:33 PM
Yes we discussed a lot of things.

It would be very simple if she said it in her statement at the time or any reconstruction. As soon as the curtains whooshed she knew her daughter had been abducted but didn't go immediately outside to check the car park open window side but ran through the patio door in the opposite direction for help.

"The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

After looking out of the window Kate's very normal reaction was a panicked search of the apartment for Madeleine;  she then raised the alarm.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2019, 08:27:10 PM
That is NOT in her statement even after it was read back to her.

"Faced with this situation,she verified that the twins were in their respective beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared. The cover was pulled back and the toys were on the pillow as usual. After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, the interviewee went back, scared and shocked, to the restaurant, to alert her husband and the others to the disappearance." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

She could see the twins in their cots and an open window without going to it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 18, 2019, 08:47:24 PM
Thank you.

So in Gerry's statement of the 10th of may he says -

----- With respect to the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when she was hot, with the bedclothes folded down. With respect to the other bed next to the window in the children's bedroom he says that it showed no signs that anyone had put their feet on it, namely, dirt or shoe prints.


So Madeleine slept uncovered when she was hot.   Kate says Madeleine was under the covers when they left 5a she thinks because she was cold.   So between them leaving her at half past eight,  and Gerry's at about 10 past 9,   Madeleine had tossed the covers off,  probably because she was hot.

So there is no mystery about any of that.  IMO


Of course there's no mystery.
Mine could be under the covers, on top of the covers, even  a few times in one of their brother's bed or even sometimes having slid out of their bed fast asleep on the floor.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2019, 09:00:05 PM
"Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

Same position when he later checked. How did Kate see it so differently?

 *%87
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 18, 2019, 09:03:20 PM
"Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

Same position when he later checked. How did Kate see it so differently?

 *%87

To answer your question.
I don't know.
Do you have an explanation?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2019, 09:05:14 PM
Yep and it connects to another room.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 18, 2019, 09:06:49 PM
Yep and it connects to another room.

And?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2019, 09:28:52 PM
And?

It will stay AND on a public forum but if the parents can't agree then you have to question if she was in bed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 18, 2019, 09:53:44 PM
It will stay AND on a public forum but if the parents can't agree then you have to question if she was in bed.

Do you believe NSY have noted this disagreement in your opinion in the parents testimony?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 19, 2019, 06:21:32 AM
Do you believe NSY have noted this disagreement in your opinion in the parents testimony?
I don't think there is a real disagreement.  It is like saying the glass is half empty or is it half full.  Maybe she was lying half in and half out.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 19, 2019, 08:59:46 AM
I don't think there is a real disagreement.  It is like saying the glass is half empty or is it half full.  Maybe she was lying half in and half out.

It is perfectly possible that Kate and Gerry saw the children at slightly different times when they were leaving the apartment, Gerry looking into the bedroom after Madeleine had had time to push her bedclothes down.

I don't think both parents would be jammed in the bedroom doorway at the same time to allow for the same description.  Far more likely Kate left Madeleine well covered and shortly afterwards gerry saw her as he described.

Damned shoddy 'simulation' what?  closing the shutter left open ... not getting the story straight about how Madeleine was lying in her bed?  Whatever next?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 19, 2019, 09:40:23 AM
"Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

Same position when he later checked. How did Kate see it so differently?

 *%87

SAME POSITION !!!   as in 'sleeping on her side'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 19, 2019, 09:42:52 AM
It will stay AND on a public forum but if the parents can't agree then you have to question if she was in bed.

Kate saw Madeleine tucked under the cover,   a while later when Gerry checked she had tossed the cover off.  What's the problem?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 19, 2019, 09:45:41 AM
Actual evidence vs Peggy invented burglar opening a window and doing a runner

The curtains stayed closed all week in that bedroom and Kate never touched it. How did her fingerprints (only 2 fingers) magically appear on the window behind non-touched curtains? It's not surprising that people don't believe her. The shutters falls back down when raised so how did Kate see them in a fully raised position? They don't even fully raise and the crime scene revealed they were stuck in a nearly closed position. Investigate the crime scene as witnesses will lie if involved.

How did Amaral manage to get the shutters to stay up when he filmed his 'Truth of the Lie'  video?

Kate obviously looked out of the window when she found it open.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 19, 2019, 09:53:42 AM
I was going to say something, but what would be the point with so much nit picking going on?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 10:02:23 AM
I was going to say something, but what would be the point with so much nit picking going on?

Well you just did!

"Its hard to dance with the devil on your back"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 19, 2019, 10:12:20 AM
Well you just did!

"Its hard to dance with the devil on your back"

This is true.  But then I don't suppose that you would want to be a Moderator.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 10:12:47 AM
How did Amaral manage to get the shutters to stay up when he filmed his 'Truth of the Lie'  video?

Kate obviously looked out of the window when she found it open.

What for,much of a view was it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 10:15:43 AM
This is true.  But then I don't suppose that you would want to be a Moderator.


Been there,seen that,done it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 19, 2019, 10:18:17 AM
What for,much of a view was it.

The window was open her child was missing,  wouldn't you look out of the window?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 19, 2019, 10:21:45 AM

Been there,seen that,done it.

So it didn't go well then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 19, 2019, 10:40:32 AM
The window was open her child was missing,  wouldn't you look out of the window?

She probably opened it herself to look outside, at least that's what the forensics tell us.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 11:06:17 AM
So it didn't go well then.

You base that on? strange another mod likes the reply or there again maybe not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 11:08:03 AM
The window was open her child was missing,  wouldn't you look out of the window?

$64k quetsion is who opened it,like I've asked before why is an open window the sole reserve of an imagined abductor?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 19, 2019, 11:08:36 AM
$64k quetsion is who opened it,like I've asked before why is an open window the sole reserve of an imagined abductor?

it isnt....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 19, 2019, 12:14:21 PM
You base that on? strange another mod likes the reply or there again maybe not.

Why would it be strange?  We are both Mods.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 12:25:16 PM
$64k quetsion is who opened it,like I've asked before why is an open window the sole reserve of an imagined abductor?

There is no evidence of an intruder opening the window. The evidence speaks for itself!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 19, 2019, 12:28:59 PM
There is no evidence of an intruder opening the window. The evidence speaks for itself!

Sorry.  No it doesn't.  But you do try to twist the evidence, or lack of, to suit your own blind prejudice.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 19, 2019, 12:46:48 PM
She probably opened it herself to look outside, at least that's what the forensics tell us.

So lets imagine the scene.   Kate is enjoying dinner with friends,  she is laughing and joking and generally having a good time.   It is her turn to check on Madeleine and the twins.   Kate enters the bedroom as a gust of wind blew the door shut,  she finds the window open and Madeleine missing,  she searches 5a and looks out of the bedroom window.    Or,  she enters 5a Madeleine isn't there,  she checks the living room finds Madeleine dead by the sofa,  manages to hide her somewhere no one can find her clears up and sets the scene for an abduction.  No one can find Madeleine,  where has Kate managed to hide her?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 12:48:50 PM
Sorry.  No it doesn't.  But you do try to twist the evidence, or lack of, to suit your own blind prejudice.


Isn't that what supporters do,although granted, sceptics see no need of a thread attacking their view.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 12:53:10 PM
it isnt....


Steady on,thats approaching sceptic territory.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 19, 2019, 12:53:52 PM

Isn't that what supporters do,although granted, sceptics see no need of a thread attacking their view.

Sceptics don't need one.  But you could always try starting a Thread on Supporters Views.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 01:00:48 PM
Sceptics don't need one.  But you could always try starting a Thread on Supporters Views.

I'm sure theres one somewhere along with another of the sceptic attack's,which I posted a link to earlier in this one.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 19, 2019, 01:01:47 PM
Sceptics don't need one.  But you could always try starting a Thread on Supporters Views.

That’d be shorter than the King Herod Book of Babysitting Advice.......because the parents said so.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 19, 2019, 01:03:57 PM

Isn't that what supporters do,although granted, sceptics see no need of a thread attacking their view.


That is the way you choose to view this thread.
My intention in starting the thread was to find out why sceptics continue to view Madeleine's parents as being complicit in her disappearance after twelve years of no new indication that they are and after two lengthy police investigations both police forces have said the parents are not suspects.

The same myths, theories,  and supposed evidence has been discussed for nearly twelve years with nothing new to indicate the parents involvement..

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 19, 2019, 01:04:40 PM
That’d be shorter than the King Herod Book of Babysitting Advice.......because the parents said so.

Is that one of your beliefs?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 01:08:20 PM
Sceptics don't need one.  But you could always try starting a Thread on Supporters Views.


Here you are,fill thy boots.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9996.0
And the other one.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9990.0
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 01:12:35 PM

That is the way you choose to view this thread.
My intention in starting the thread was to find out why sceptics continue to view Madeleine's parents as being complicit in her disappearance after twelve years of no new indication that they are and after two lengthy police investigations both police forces have said the parents are not suspects.

The same myths, theories,  and supposed evidence has been discussed for nearly twelve years with nothing new to indicate the parents involvement..

Nor any one else,although I believe SY lead the PJ 4-3 on Arguidos.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 19, 2019, 01:22:10 PM

That is the way you choose to view this thread.
My intention in starting the thread was to find out why sceptics continue to view Madeleine's parents as being complicit in her disappearance after twelve years of no new indication that they are and after two lengthy police investigations both police forces have said the parents are not suspects.

The same myths, theories,  and supposed evidence has been discussed for nearly twelve years with nothing new to indicate the parents involvement..

Or anyone else’s.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 19, 2019, 01:48:57 PM
Or anyone else’s.

Possibly a much easier task in finding evidence of the parent's involvemrnt than "anyone else".
But no evidence, almost twelve years on and with two lengthy police investigations!
Yet you cling to your belief that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 19, 2019, 01:59:28 PM
There is no evidence of an intruder opening the window. The evidence speaks for itself!

If Kate had opened the window to stage an abduction I think she would have had the common sense to wipe her finger prints off,  as the abductor obviously did.  Either that or they were eliminated when Kate looked out of the window.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 19, 2019, 02:18:49 PM
If Kate had opened the window to stage an abduction I think she would have had the common sense to wipe her finger prints off,  as the abductor obviously did.  Either that or they were eliminated when Kate looked out of the window.
 
As the abductor obviously did? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 19, 2019, 02:25:54 PM
 
As the abductor obviously did?
They wore gloves in their original guise of professional burglars, but discarded them for child abductions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 19, 2019, 03:36:53 PM
 
As the abductor obviously did? I think you make it up as you gp along.

You are free to think whatever you like.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 19, 2019, 03:40:18 PM

Okay.  I have been missing some Insults here.  But please try not to reply to Insulting Innuendo.  You only make my life more difficult.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 19, 2019, 03:58:34 PM
Possibly a much easier task in finding evidence of the parent's involvemrnt than "anyone else".
But no evidence, almost twelve years on and with two lengthy police investigations!
Yet you cling to your belief that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.

How many times do I have to say it......that we know of.

We have no idea what the PJ and OG is investigating....absolutely none....which it as it should....and your repeating time and time again that the parents are not suspects does not make it so.

As an aside I do find it interesting that there was a shout out on the OFM Facebook page for photographs of supporters efforts in the search for Madeleine. Apparently they are going to put them on the official campaign page. This begs two questions.....one if photographs, car stickers etc are helpful in the search why did Kate stop sending them out and two, when a new age progressed photo, paid for from the fund, or afresh appeal for information would be a sensible course of action, why are the parents asking for unhelpful photographs and anecdotes. It’s almost as if they need to prove they that the still have support.....mmmmm.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 19, 2019, 05:31:23 PM
How many times do I have to say it......that we know of.

We have no idea what the PJ and OG is investigating....absolutely none....which it as it should....and your repeating time and time again that the parents are not suspects does not make it so.

As an aside I do find it interesting that there was a shout out on the OFM Facebook page for photographs of supporters efforts in the search for Madeleine. Apparently they are going to put them on the official campaign page. This begs two questions.....one if photographs, car stickers etc are helpful in the search why did Kate stop sending them out and two, when a new age progressed photo, paid for from the fund, or afresh appeal for information would be a sensible course of action, why are the parents asking for unhelpful photographs and anecdotes. It’s almost as if they need to prove they that the still have support.....mmmmm.
They do still have plenty of support, as you will see from your close monitoring of their facebook page.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 06:00:16 PM
Possibly a much easier task in finding evidence of the parent's involvemrnt than "anyone else".
But no evidence, almost twelve years on and with two lengthy police investigations!
Yet you cling to your belief that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.

It doesn't have to be the parents - every case is different. They would have been investigating every possible lead.

If Kate had opened the window to stage an abduction I think she would have had the common sense to wipe her finger prints off,  as the abductor obviously did.  Either that or they were eliminated when Kate looked out of the window.


Panic mode. Tell me where Kate said I looked out of the window in the PJ files?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 19, 2019, 06:44:34 PM
It doesn't have to be the parents - every case is different. They would have been investigating every possible lead.
 

Panic mode. Tell me where Kate said I looked out of the window in the PJ files?

Where in the PJ files did Kate give a verbatim statement?  You can't ask for what it is impossible to provide.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 06:54:18 PM
She should have provided it then instead of answering no comment to every question put to her about her actions on discovering her daughter gone. She studies the files religiously and then writes a book that now explains her fingerprints. Do you think any competent detective will be using her book as the facts of this case?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 19, 2019, 06:57:33 PM
She should have provided it then instead of answering no comment to every question put to her about her actions on discovering her daughter gone. She studies the files religiously and then writes a book that now explains her fingerprints. Do you think any competent detective will be using her book as the facts of this case?

You aren't a Competent Detective.  Obviously.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 19, 2019, 07:04:17 PM
It doesn't have to be the parents - every case is different. They would have been investigating every possible lead.
 

Panic mode. Tell me where Kate said I looked out of the window in the PJ files?

We have a detailed account, written when memories were fresh and given to the PJ on 10th May.

After the bedroom door slemmed as Kate was closing it she re-opened it to make sure it hadn't woken the children. That's when she noticed Madeleine's bed was empty.
She first checks the other single bed then her and her husband's beds.
She checks again that her daughter's bed is empty. That's when the curtains billow.
She runs over, pulls the curtain back, and sees the open window and shutters.
She decides to check the bathroom, kitchen and wardrobes.
She leaves the apartment to raise the alarm.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 07:11:51 PM
You aren't a Competent Detective.  Obviously.

I was referring to the detectives in the UK and Portugal working on the case but thanks for the laugh  8)--))
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 19, 2019, 07:17:29 PM
We have a detailed account, written when memories were fresh and given to the PJ on 10th May.

After the bedroom door slemmed as Kate was closing it she re-opened it to make sure it hadn't woken the children. That's when she noticed Madeleine's bed was empty.
She first checks the other single bed then her and her husband's beds.
She checks again that her daughter's bed is empty. That's when the curtains billow.
She runs over, pulls the curtain back, and sees the open window and shutters.
She decides to check the bathroom, kitchen and wardrobes.
She leaves the apartment to raise the alarm.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

Didn’t she also say at a later date that it was door slam, open door and curtains billow....no mention of checking her bedroom ?

From Madeleine Was Here.


K: I did my check about 10.00 ‘clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see S and A in the cot and then I was looking at M’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that M or is that the bedding. and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 19, 2019, 07:23:28 PM
Not only do we not know who supposedly opened this damned window its a mystery who shut the blessed thing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 19, 2019, 07:27:37 PM
Not only do we not know who supposedly opened this damned window its a mystery who shut the blessed thing.
Schrödinger's Window
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 07:28:34 PM
Police wanted to get all these facts about her check but she refused to answer their questions.

Her first 5 questions:

1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?

3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine’s disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 19, 2019, 07:32:30 PM
Police wanted to get all these facts about her check but she refused to answer their questions.

Her first 5 questions:

1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?

3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine’s disappearance?

Interesting that Kate was willing to tell Oprah the answer to those questions but not the investigators who were looking for her daughter.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 07:42:31 PM
They had noticed the crumpled curtain in crime scene photos for question 4 and it wasn't the PJ or GNR that tampered with it. A Key to this case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on April 19, 2019, 10:03:40 PM
They had noticed the crumpled curtain in crime scene photos for question 4 and it wasn't the PJ or GNR that tampered with it. A Key to this case.

In what way was the crumpled curtain a key to the case? The McCanns were not the only two people to have searched the interior of 5A after the alarm was raised. Surely you aren't suggesting the curtain was left as shown in the crime scene photos to advertise a place where a suspicious disturbance had occurred? If that is the case, perhaps you could suggest why Grime was not instructed by PJ to examine the underside of the sofa using the CSI dog.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 10:45:58 PM
Of course the curtain relates to what happened to Madeleine and the dog alerts confirm it. You will find no evidence of it being moved in the search. Why would they need to search underneath a sofa when it was behind the sofa which was important and tells me it was moved to hide what had happened there! Mistakes happen! Whoever is involved knows what happened there.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 19, 2019, 10:52:51 PM
Of course the curtain relates to what happened to Madeleine and the dog alerts confirm it. You will find no evidence of it being moved in the search. Why would they need to search underneath a sofa when it was behind the sofa which was important and tells me it was moved to hide what had happened there! Mistakes happen!

What had happened there?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 10:53:52 PM
Whoever is involved knows what happened there! Being in panic mode they missed the curtain.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 19, 2019, 10:55:58 PM
Whoever is involved knows what happened there! Being in panic mode they missed the curtain.

But you obviously don't know "what happened there"
Enough said!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 11:00:14 PM
Cadaver scent was there so I have a good idea and it doesn't look good for whoever is involved.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 19, 2019, 11:10:58 PM
Cadaver scent was there so I have a good idea and it doesn't look good for whoever is involved.

There always comes a point in any exchange of views that one of the contributors decides that any further discussion is futile because that contributor realises that he/she is involved in a discussion with someone who hasn't quite grasped that he\ she is stuck in a mindset which has lasted for almost twelve years.
I wish you good night.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on April 19, 2019, 11:15:22 PM
Cadaver scent was there so I have a good idea and it doesn't look good for whoever is involved.

Who said cadaver scent was behind the couch in addition to the blood alerted to by the CSI dog in the same area?
IMO if the Portuguese forensic team examined the walls, curtains, back of sofa & floor tiles then they should also have examined the covering on the underside of the sofa. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 19, 2019, 11:32:02 PM
That’d be shorter than the King Herod Book of Babysitting Advice.......because the parents said so.

I did ask you earlier if this is one of your beliefs?
Do you really believe that is true?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2019, 11:36:11 PM
There always comes a point in any exchange of views that one of the contributors decides that any further discussion is futile because that contributor realises that he/she is involved in a discussion with someone who hasn't quite grasped that he\ she is stuck in a mindset which has lasted for almost twelve years.
I wish you good night.

Keela did not alert to their clothes. Good night.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 19, 2019, 11:50:54 PM
I did ask you earlier if this is one of your beliefs?
Do you really believe that is true?

There seems to be no other tangible evidence but I’m all ears if you know differently.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 20, 2019, 12:14:26 AM
Cadaver scent was there so I have a good idea and it doesn't look good for whoever is involved.
"Whoever" - yeah right!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 20, 2019, 07:01:52 AM
There seems to be no other tangible evidence but I’m all ears if you know differently.



Thank you for confirming that this is indeed one of your beliefs!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: John on April 20, 2019, 11:28:28 AM
A quick reminder this holiday weekend to keep posts on topic, factual but above all, convivial.

Happy Easter everyone!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 20, 2019, 11:47:11 AM
"Whoever" - yeah right!

Maybe it was pot belly funny smelly man.

"Police said he appeared to have "a very, very, unhealthy interest" in young white girls."
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 20, 2019, 12:22:26 PM
There seems to be no other tangible evidence but I’m all ears if you know differently.


I do sometimes laugh out loud at some of the excuses pushed as facts by supporters.  THEY have no evidence of an abductor- none at all.   Theirs is a belief based on what the parents said- even when what they say is contradictory they still 'invent' excuses'  Pure joy at times.

One of my favorites is ;it felt safe to leave three children under 4 alone in that apartment. and then we had supporters shouting off about they should have been warned it was a dangerous area?  What a hoot.

They all planned to leave the children alone at night while they dined WAY BEFORE they left the UK- Hence why DP took a baby listening device!

Gentelmen and respected doctors looked at a picture in a brochure and said yeah it looks safe... ^*&&

Heehee

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 20, 2019, 01:06:06 PM

I do sometimes laugh out loud at some of the excuses pushed as facts by supporters.  THEY have no evidence of an abductor- none at all.   Theirs is a belief based on what the parents said- even when what they say is contradictory they still 'invent' excuses'  Pure joy at times.

One of my favorites is ;it felt safe to leave three children under 4 alone in that apartment. and then we had supporters shouting off about they should have been warned it was a dangerous area?  What a hoot.

They all planned to leave the children alone at night while they dined WAY BEFORE they left the UK- Hence why DP took a baby listening device!

Gentelmen and respected doctors looked at a picture in a brochure and said yeah it looks safe... ^*&&

Heehee

Yeah but,there was an open window you know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2019, 01:11:58 PM
Maybe it was pot belly funny smelly man.

"Police said he appeared to have "a very, very, unhealthy interest" in young white girls."

Due to the reluctance of sceptics now and in the past to accept that burglaries were rife in the Algarve as a whole and in the resort at Praia da Luz; the defence of burglars; the denial that a molester of young girls was at large who thought nothing of entering premises to carry out his assaults while the children's parents slept ... I think it would be safe to say that sceptics beliefs do not include a regard for the law or the safety of children.

"Pot belly funny smelly man" is a description used by child victims of assault who does very unfortunately for his victims, exist.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 20, 2019, 01:20:22 PM
Due to the reluctance of sceptics now and in the past to accept that burglaries were rife in the Algarve as a whole and in the resort at Praia da Luz; the defence of burglars; the denial that a molester of young girls was at large who thought nothing of entering premises to carry out his assaults while the children's parents slept ... I think it would be safe to say that sceptics beliefs do not include a regard for the law or the safety of children.

"Pot belly funny smelly man" is a description used by child victims of assault who does very unfortunately for his victims, exist.

Which has absolutely nothing to with the girls disappearence much to annoyance of supporters.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 20, 2019, 01:27:11 PM
Due to the reluctance of sceptics now and in the past to accept that burglaries were rife in the Algarve as a whole and in the resort at Praia da Luz; the defence of burglars; the denial that a molester of young girls was at large who thought nothing of entering premises to carry out his assaults while the children's parents slept ... I think it would be safe to say that sceptics beliefs do not include a regard for the law or the safety of children.

"Pot belly funny smelly man" is a description used by child victims of assault who does very unfortunately for his victims, exist.

Could I have a cite for ALL sceptics or better still perhaps you could furbish me with those of whom you speak of?

Your  command of grammar is becoming  rather boring and used in an unnatural state.  The word to prefix sceptic is 'Some'- unless you wish to name them all.

I am very well aware that any holiday resort is rife with thieves and such- only the Parents of The children are claiming it felt safe.  They chise the childcare system from many on offer so don't come all high and mighty about sceptics being 'nasty' about burglaries and such.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2019, 01:27:49 PM
Which has absolutely nothing to with the girls disappearence much to annoyance of supporters.

Another sceptic belief that it actually isn't worth actually investigating evidence since they already 'know' whodunnit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 20, 2019, 01:30:51 PM
Another sceptic belief that it actually isn't worth actually investigating evidence since they already 'know' whodunnit.


Can you cite the sceptic who believe that please.

Thanks in advance...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2019, 01:32:10 PM
Could I have a cite for ALL sceptics or better still perhaps you could furbish me with those of whom you speak of?

Your  command of grammar is becoming  rather boring and used in an unnatural state.  The word to prefix sceptic is 'Some'- unless you wish to name them all.

I am very well aware that any holiday resort is rife with thieves and such- only the Parents of The children are claiming it felt safe.  They chise the childcare system from many on offer so don't come all high and mighty about sceptics being 'nasty' about burglaries and such.

The fact is we are not allowed to discuss MBM being alledgedly abused while she slept by belly men or anyone else. So no point in  pursuing that idea.

I make no apology for my syntax criticism of which I think illustrates the sceptic belief in bad mouthing all and sundry who dare to go against the sceptic line.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 01:38:14 PM
Due to the reluctance of sceptics now and in the past to accept that burglaries were rife in the Algarve as a whole and in the resort at Praia da Luz; the defence of burglars; the denial that a molester of young girls was at large who thought nothing of entering premises to carry out his assaults while the children's parents slept ... I think it would be safe to say that sceptics beliefs do not include a regard for the law or the safety of children.

"Pot belly funny smelly man" is a description used by child victims of assault who does very unfortunately for his victims, exist.

Where is the evidence?  I recall seeing evidence of one burglary and one attempted burglary being reported. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 01:40:51 PM
Where is the evidence?  I recall seeing evidence of one burglary and one attempted burglary being reported.

It may well be the police did not keep records of the reported crimes
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 20, 2019, 01:41:39 PM
I make no apology for my syntax criticism of which I think illustrates the sceptic belief in bad mouthing all and sundry who dare to go against the sceptic line.


The scptics have a line? what really? wow
Nobody tells me anything!

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 20, 2019, 01:46:51 PM
It may well be the police did not keep records of the reported crimes

 (&^&

used a chip shop wrappers perhaps?

 @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 01:51:42 PM
It may well be the police did not keep records of the reported crimes

Are you accusing the Portuguese police of ignoring reported crimes? Do you have any evidence that they do that?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 02:32:10 PM
Are you accusing the Portuguese police of ignoring reported crimes? Do you have any evidence that they do that?

I seem to remember it being said by the parents and perhaps the UK police that the local police did not record the crimes
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 20, 2019, 03:01:58 PM
I seem to remember it being said by the parents and perhaps the UK police that the local police did not record the crimes

Cite please ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 20, 2019, 03:06:05 PM
Cite please ?

Insignificant Comment.  No Cite Required.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 20, 2019, 03:09:23 PM
Insignificant Comment.  No Cite Required.

As Davel never/hardy ever provides cites when requested, can we assume that none of his claims are significant ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 20, 2019, 03:14:12 PM
As Davel never/hardy ever provides cites when requested, can we assume that none of his claims are significant ?

You can assume whatever you like.  Most of Davel's comments are significant, and he does often provide a Cite.

There will be No Bullying because I won't have it, no matter towards whom it is directed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 03:22:25 PM
I seem to remember it being said by the parents and perhaps the UK police that the local police did not record the crimes

Yes, that's an accusation made by Kate McCann in her book. She says she found details of these crimes when searching the PJ files. She says she also learned from the files that some of them hadn't been recorded when they were reported. The problem is that none of that can be found in the files.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 03:29:22 PM
Yes, that's an accusation made by Kate McCann in her book. She says she found details of these crimes when searching the PJ files. She says she also learned from the files that some of them hadn't been recorded when they were reported. The problem is that none of that can be found in the files.

The pj are hardly goimg to admit to it are they
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 03:31:12 PM
Cite please ?


If i say....i seem to remember...im obviously not stating a fact so no cite required....if i say I remember...then acite is required...gunit has now supplied the cite...i seem to remember..its from kates book
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 03:32:15 PM
As Davel never/hardy ever provides cites when requested, can we assume that none of his claims are significant ?

you need a cite to make that claim...I provide lots of cites...that makes your post an ad hom
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 20, 2019, 03:34:25 PM
you need a cite to make that claim...I provide lots of cites...that makes your post an ad hom

Dealt with already.  Moving On.

God, if only you knew for how long I have wanted to say that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2019, 05:22:58 PM
Where is the evidence?  I recall seeing evidence of one burglary and one attempted burglary being reported.

A mention of 4 burglaries of OC apartments in 2006

"Travel Date: August 2006. i have just returned from our holiday with Thomas cook ocean club apartments praia da luz ... we got there on the 19th aug and by the 20th we had been burgled we found out later 3 other familys had allso been burgled from the same apartments"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aZ0ZSkv559QJ:www.holidays-uncovered.co.uk/portugal/algarve/praia-da-luz/ocean-club-page-2.html%3FsortOrder%3DsubmittedAsc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg165689#msg165689

Unfortunately the link no longer works ... but that would appear to be four that we've not heard about ... on top of those most of us have.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 05:35:31 PM
The pj are hardly goimg to admit to it are they

You seem to think someone asked them about these cases and got a reply. What evidence do you base that belief on?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 06:01:00 PM
A mention of 4 burglaries of OC apartments in 2006

"Travel Date: August 2006. i have just returned from our holiday with Thomas cook ocean club apartments praia da luz ... we got there on the 19th aug and by the 20th we had been burgled we found out later 3 other familys had allso been burgled from the same apartments"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aZ0ZSkv559QJ:www.holidays-uncovered.co.uk/portugal/algarve/praia-da-luz/ocean-club-page-2.html%3FsortOrder%3DsubmittedAsc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg165689#msg165689

Unfortunately the link no longer works ... but that would appear to be four that we've not heard about ... on top of those most of us have.

She really didn't like PdL;

...other familys had allso been burgled from the same apartmentents praia da luz reminds me of alcatraz everywere you turn there are metal shutters and bars over every window. make sure you get a safty deposit box at reception as soon as you arrive .praia da luz is more for older couples with out children very quiet lots of resturants with great food at a good price however if your looking to find bars with sum music you will be looking for 2 weeks and you still wont find any”
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/burglaries-luz/

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 20, 2019, 06:02:09 PM

I do sometimes laugh out loud at some of the excuses pushed as facts by supporters.  THEY have no evidence of an abductor- none at all.   Theirs is a belief based on what the parents said- even when what they say is contradictory they still 'invent' excuses'  Pure joy at times.

One of my favorites is ;it felt safe to leave three children under 4 alone in that apartment. and then we had supporters shouting off about they should have been warned it was a dangerous area?  What a hoot.

They all planned to leave the children alone at night while they dined WAY BEFORE they left the UK- Hence why DP took a baby listening device!

Gentelmen and respected doctors looked at a picture in a brochure and said yeah it looks safe... ^*&&

Heehee
There is very little sense in what you have posted IMO but I guess if your own funny little thoughts amuse you then who am I to point out the nonsense. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 06:03:49 PM
You seem to think someone asked them about these cases and got a reply. What evidence do you base that belief on?
Based on the attitude and behaviour of the Portuguese police I believe they were sloppy enough not to record the events
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 06:30:03 PM
Based on the attitude and behaviour of the Portuguese police I believe they were sloppy enough not to record the events

Always ready to believe the worst of them, even though there's no evidence they were ever informed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 20, 2019, 06:43:27 PM
Always ready to believe the worst of them, even though there's no evidence they were ever informed.
no evidence that you will accept you mean.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 06:51:52 PM
Always ready to believe the worst of them, even though there's no evidence they were ever informed.

Kates statement is evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 06:54:58 PM
no evidence that you will accept you mean.

Gossip isn't evidence. Nor are unconnected things. The fact that the McCanns aren't arguidos, for example, isn't evidence that they aren't being investigated
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 20, 2019, 06:58:59 PM
Insignificant Comment.  No Cite Required.

Fair enough.....life really is too short.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 07:03:05 PM
Gossip isn't evidence. Nor are unconnected things. The fact that the McCanns aren't arguidos, for example, isn't evidence that they aren't being investigated

Why would they be investigated if they are not suspects... It is evidence.. Not proof... But evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 07:14:20 PM
Why would they be investigated if they are not suspects... It is evidence.. Not proof... But evidence

I said that not being arguidos isn't evidence that they're not being investigated, as was claimed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8490.msg521584#msg521584
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 07:17:48 PM
I said that not being arguidos isn't evidence that they're not being investigated, as was claimed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8490.msg521584#msg521584

In your opinion... IMO it certainly is... Along with everything else
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 07:54:38 PM
In your opinion... IMO it certainly is... Along with everything else

So on September 1st 2007 the fact that the McCanns were not arguidos was evidence that they weren't being investigated? No it wasn't, any more than it is now.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 08:00:47 PM
So on September 1st 2007 the fact that the McCanns were not arguidos was evidence that they weren't being investigated? No it wasn't, any more than it is now.
Yes it was... It wasn't proof... But. It was evidence... Evidence and proof are two different things
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 20, 2019, 08:01:29 PM
Dealt with already.  Moving On.

God, if only you knew for how long I have wanted to say that.
Easter 2019 was a good time to say that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 20, 2019, 08:04:22 PM
"The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”

“We have a significant inquiry which could give an answer.”

“Ourselves and the Portuguese are doing a critical piece of work and we don’t want to spoil it by putting titbits of information out."

“We’ve got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be and we are pursuing those.”

“I know we have a significant line of inquiry which is worth pursuing."

“Because it’s worth pursuing it could provide an answer, but until we’ve gone through it I won’t know whether we are going to get there or not. He said the team were examining a “particular hypotheses” but refused to reveal what it was so as not to compromise a “live investigation”.

The officer added that however Madeleine left the flat, she was abducted.

“She wasn’t old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life,”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-british-cop-says-madeleine-10295917
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 20, 2019, 08:10:11 PM
to me that clearly spells it out that OG believe Madeleine was abducted, possible from outside the flat.

however Madeleine left the flat, she was abducted.

"Left the flat then abducted" is how I take that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 08:12:34 PM
Yes it was... It wasn't proof... But. It was evidence... Evidence and proof are two different things

If people thought the fact that the McCanns weren't arguidos was evidence that they weren't being investigated they were very wrong.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2019, 08:14:58 PM
If people thought the fact that the McCanns weren't arguidos was evidence that they weren't being investigated they were very wrong.

No they weren't... It was evidence but not proof... Thers much more evidence now they are not being investigated and that they are innocent
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 20, 2019, 08:15:07 PM
I said that not being arguidos isn't evidence that they're not being investigated, as was claimed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8490.msg521584#msg521584
Of course it is.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 20, 2019, 08:16:23 PM
If people thought the fact that the McCanns weren't arguidos was evidence that they weren't being investigated they were very wrong.
I think even after all these years you still don’t understand the meaning of evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 20, 2019, 08:17:36 PM
to me that clearly spells it out that OG believe Madeleine was abducted, possible from outside the flat.

however Madeleine left the flat, she was abducted.

"Left the flat then abducted" is how I take that.

Not to me.
To me this clearly spells out that Maddie Wasn't abducted.
The parents are suspects, is what I take from that, since Rowley was keen to stress that the team were examining a “particular hypotheses” but refused to reveal what it was so as not to compromise a “live investigation”.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 08:18:35 PM
"The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”

“We have a significant inquiry which could give an answer.”

“Ourselves and the Portuguese are doing a critical piece of work and we don’t want to spoil it by putting titbits of information out."

“We’ve got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be and we are pursuing those.”

“I know we have a significant line of inquiry which is worth pursuing."

“Because it’s worth pursuing it could provide an answer, but until we’ve gone through it I won’t know whether we are going to get there or not. He said the team were examining a “particular hypotheses” but refused to reveal what it was so as not to compromise a “live investigation”.

The officer added that however Madeleine left the flat, she was abducted.

“She wasn’t old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life,”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-british-cop-says-madeleine-10295917

OG's mistaken belief. The first investigation coulldn't even identify the crime.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 20, 2019, 08:19:29 PM
Not to me.
To me this clearly spells out that Maddie Wasn't abducted.
The parents are suspects, is what I take from that, since Rowley was keen to stress that the team were examining a “particular hypotheses” but refused to reveal what it was so as not to compromise a “live investigation”.
OK that might happen to someone who is super-suspicious.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2019, 08:36:17 PM
I think even after all these years you still don’t understand the meaning of evidence.

There are no arguidos therefore no-one is being investigated.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 20, 2019, 08:42:06 PM
There are no arguidos therefore no-one is being investigated.
There is no evidence that any specific person is being investigated at this moment in time.  There is evidence that the McCanns aren’t suspects now, nor ever have been since the investigation reopened.  I realise you don’t accept that because it would seem you don’t understand what evidence is. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 20, 2019, 08:43:42 PM
There are no arguidos therefore no-one is being investigated.

"This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was."



They're not going to give a running commentary.

It could be that there are suspects, but they can't divulge as much since that could harm the investigation.

All we know for sure is, the burglars did it, then they didn't, & the McCanns definitely didn't do it, even though it hasn't been established what "it" is.  Oh no wait, it was an abduction, either that or murder. It's all so confusing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 20, 2019, 08:48:12 PM
"This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was."



They're not going to give a running commentary.

It could be that there are suspects, but they can't divulge as much since that could harm the investigation.

All we know for sure is, the burglars did it, then they didn't, & the McCanns definitely didn't do it, even though it hasn't been established what "it" is.  Oh no wait, it was an abduction, either that or murder. It's all so confusing.
The last time there were suspects they were divulged.  How come?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 20, 2019, 08:49:21 PM
The last time there were suspects they were divulged.  How come?

Grange said they had suspects, they didn't name who, the press did.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 20, 2019, 08:53:51 PM
Grange said they had suspects, they didn't name who, the press did.
My point still stands.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2019, 10:56:21 PM
She really didn't like PdL;

...other familys had allso been burgled from the same apartmentents praia da luz reminds me of alcatraz everywere you turn there are metal shutters and bars over every window. make sure you get a safty deposit box at reception as soon as you arrive .praia da luz is more for older couples with out children very quiet lots of resturants with great food at a good price however if your looking to find bars with sum music you will be looking for 2 weeks and you still wont find any”
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/burglaries-luz/

I don't think being burgled would help her attitude any.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2019, 11:01:51 PM
Not to me.
To me this clearly spells out that Maddie Wasn't abducted.
The parents are suspects, is what I take from that, since Rowley was keen to stress that the team were examining a “particular hypotheses” but refused to reveal what it was so as not to compromise a “live investigation”.

I think quite a few sceptics hold that belief ... thanks for articulating it for me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2019, 11:07:32 PM
Grange said they had suspects, they didn't name who, the press did.
  ... and Scotland Yard went to Portugal to sit in on the arguido interviews conducted on their behalf by the Judicial police.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 20, 2019, 11:23:29 PM
I don't think being burgled would help her attitude any.

Or her spelling.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 20, 2019, 11:23:41 PM
  ... and Scotland Yard went to Portugal to sit in on the arguido interviews conducted on their behalf by the Judicial police.

....and here we are, 5 years later, No new arguidos, No searching, No more digging, No new appeals, No new age progression images. The team reduced from 30 to 4.
I wonder what Grange are actually doing to find Maddie.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 20, 2019, 11:26:33 PM
....and here we are, 5 years later, No new arguidos, No searching, No more digging, No new appeals, No new age progression images. The team reduced from 30 to 4.
I wonder what Grange are actually doing to find Maddie.
Apparently they’re waiting patiently for the McCanns to admit they dunnit.   @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 20, 2019, 11:28:36 PM
Apparently they’re waiting patiently for the McCanns to admit they dunnit.   @)(++(*

They should try chucking them down some stairs or hitting them with a cardboard tube.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 20, 2019, 11:33:46 PM
They should try chucking them down some stairs or hitting them with a cardboard tube.
Perhaps when they finally get bored of waiting.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 20, 2019, 11:55:03 PM

MADDIE HOPE Madeleine McCann case could be solved in just ‘ONE week thanks to vital DNA evidence’
Dr Mark Perlin has offered to re-analyse 18 'inconclusive' DNA samples from the Madeleine McCann investigation

Dr Mark Perlin has offered to re-analyse 18 "inconclusive" DNA samples from the investigation – but Met Police detectives have so far snubbed the suggestion.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8906844/madeleine-mccann-case-solved-one-week-dna-evidence/

The MET are far too busy doing whatever it is they are doing to respond to Dr Perlin.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 21, 2019, 12:11:16 AM
MADDIE HOPE Madeleine McCann case could be solved in just ‘ONE week thanks to vital DNA evidence’
Dr Mark Perlin has offered to re-analyse 18 'inconclusive' DNA samples from the Madeleine McCann investigation

Dr Mark Perlin has offered to re-analyse 18 "inconclusive" DNA samples from the investigation – but Met Police detectives have so far snubbed the suggestion.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8906844/madeleine-mccann-case-solved-one-week-dna-evidence/

The MET are far too busy doing whatever it is they are doing to respond to Dr Perlin.
Yawn.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 21, 2019, 08:05:28 AM
There is no evidence that any specific person is being investigated at this moment in time.  There is evidence that the McCanns aren’t suspects now, nor ever have been since the investigation reopened.  I realise you don’t accept that because it would seem you don’t understand what evidence is.

I understand rubbish when I hear/read it, and that's what your opinion of what can be used as evidence is rubbisg in my opinion.

The McCanns 'continue to do well in their professional lives'. How is that evidence that they're not being investigated? What is Kate McCann's job, by the way? It's certainly not high profile as you suggest, it's a well kept secret imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 21, 2019, 08:35:48 AM
I understand rubbish when I hear/read it, and that's what your opinion of what can be used as evidence is rubbisg in my opinion.

The McCanns 'continue to do well in their professional lives'. How is that evidence that they're not being investigated? What is Kate McCann's job, by the way? It's certainly not high profile as you suggest, it's a well kept secret imo.
As you clearly DON’T accept the meaning of the word evidence (the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and completely rubbish my view that the available body of facts and information points to the fact that they are not being investigated, I really see little point in continuing to discuss this with you.  If it’s only evidence when you see fit to call it so then that is the opinion of the close minded.  IMO. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 21, 2019, 08:48:15 AM
What about evidence that isn't true, eg a false statement/ How do you classify that ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 21, 2019, 09:18:07 AM
MADDIE HOPE Madeleine McCann case could be solved in just ‘ONE week thanks to vital DNA evidence’
Dr Mark Perlin has offered to re-analyse 18 'inconclusive' DNA samples from the Madeleine McCann investigation

Dr Mark Perlin has offered to re-analyse 18 "inconclusive" DNA samples from the investigation – but Met Police detectives have so far snubbed the suggestion.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8906844/madeleine-mccann-case-solved-one-week-dna-evidence/

The MET are far too busy doing whatever it is they are doing to respond to Dr Perlin.


The met is to busy still being at the dead-end they were 12 years ago.


quote
Cops reached a dead end when the tests came back inconclusive 12 years ago.


Wouldnt you think the mcs would want this DNA - being retested

you would think they would try anything.

What harm could it do - if they found the truth of what happened?




Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 21, 2019, 09:19:55 AM

The met is to busy still being at the dead-end they were 12 years ago.


quote
Cops reached a dead end when the tests came back inconclusive 12 years ago.


Wouldnt you think the mcs would want this DNA - being retested

you would think they would try anything.

What harm could it do - if they found the truth of what happened?

Finding a few cells of maddies DNA in the boot of the car would be insignificant and would not solve the case in a week... It's total rubbish... Colin Sutton seems to be making a fool of himself Re DNA although some can't see it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 21, 2019, 09:27:52 AM
Finding a few cells of maddies DNA in the boot of the car would be insignificant and would not solve the case in a week... It's total rubbish... Colin Sutton seems to be making a fool of himself Re DNA although some can't see it


There again as a former MET police inspector,his knowledge probably outweighs those that think he may be making a fool of himself,nothing like an armchair detective in all things forensic it seems.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 21, 2019, 09:31:32 AM

There again as a former MET police inspector,his knowledge probably outweighs those that think he may be making a fool of himself,nothing like an armchair detective in all things forensic it seems.

Sutton is a detective but has a poor knowledge of the latest trends in DNA... Rather than just accept what he, says it's worth doing some research... Which shows his knowledge of DNA transference is woefully lacking
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 21, 2019, 09:46:21 AM

The met is to busy still being at the dead-end they were 12 years ago.


quote
Cops reached a dead end when the tests came back inconclusive 12 years ago.


Wouldnt you think the mcs would want this DNA - being retested

you would think they would try anything.

What harm could it do - if they found the truth of what happened?

The Met weren't involved in the case 12 years, ago... It was the inept PJ who were, at a dead end becausevthey couldn't pin it in the parents
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 21, 2019, 09:48:19 AM
Finding a few cells of maddies DNA in the boot of the car would be insignificant and would not solve the case in a week... It's total rubbish... Colin Sutton seems to be making a fool of himself Re DNA although some can't see it

That is just your opinion.

How do you know what will happen until it is tried. How do you no it would only be a few cells

As for insignificant if DNA was found in the boot - the case would be solved in less than a week.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 21, 2019, 09:49:36 AM
What about evidence that isn't true, eg a false statement/ How do you classify that ?
Evidence of lying or forgetfulness or misunderstanding of course.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 21, 2019, 09:50:51 AM
That is just your opinion.

How do you know what will happen until it is tried. How do you no it would only be a few cells

As for insignificant if DNA was found in the boot - the case would be solved in less than a week.

I'm sure that in that case, a helpful spokesperson/family friend would come a long with a perfectly innocent explanation.  8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 21, 2019, 09:51:31 AM
The Met weren't involved in the case 12 years, ago... It was the inept PJ who were, at a dead end becausevthey couldn't pin it in the parents

Correct - but they are still no further - I'm sure you know how much they have spent getting to their dead end.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 21, 2019, 09:53:09 AM
Correct - but they are still no further - I'm sure you know how much they have spent getting to their dead end.

I don't know what the net, are investigating.. And neither do you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 21, 2019, 10:28:21 AM
I don't know what the net, are investigating.. And neither do you


So we are at a dead end too -  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 21, 2019, 10:33:33 AM
The Met weren't involved in the case 12 years, ago... It was the inept PJ who were, at a dead end because they couldn't pin it in the parents.

Yet Rowley was more than happy  in how they dealt with the McCanns,not needing to reinvestigate them. 8(>((

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 21, 2019, 10:41:39 AM
Yet Rowley was more than happy  in how they dealt with the McCanns,not needing to reinvestigate them. 8(>((

Rowley says he looked at all the evidence Re the mccanns and was happy it had all been dealt with... There us Ni evidence tbe mccanns have not been reinterviewed... It would be standard practice... Any anomolies in their statements would have come to light
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 21, 2019, 11:34:01 AM
Rowley says he looked at all the evidence Re the mccanns and was happy it had all been dealt with... There us Ni evidence tbe mccanns have not been reinterviewed... It would be standard practice... Any anomolies in their statements would have come to light

Just a reminder what Rowley said of the parents.

"firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation".


So theres no evidence that the parents have been interviewed by SY.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 21, 2019, 11:57:03 AM
Just a reminder what Rowley said of the parents.

"firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation".


So theres no evidence that the parents have been interviewed by SY.

I said there's no evidence they haven't... I find it hard to believe they haven't been
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 21, 2019, 12:16:38 PM
I said there's no evidence they haven't... I find it hard to believe they haven't been

I'm sure some kindly spokesman would have let it be known if it were the case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 21, 2019, 12:22:39 PM
I'm sure some kindly spokesman would have let it be known if it were the case.

we have been told they have not been interviewed under caution but not told tehy have not been interviewed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 21, 2019, 12:39:44 PM
we have been told they have not been interviewed under caution but not told tehy have not been interviewed

But you choose to believe they have been.  8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 21, 2019, 12:52:17 PM
we have been told they have not been interviewed under caution but not told tehy have not been interviewed


We were told fast enough about a visit,I'm sure an interview would illicit the same.

The Operation Grange team, who had been thought to be focusing on just one, told Kate and Gerry during a meeting thought to be at their Leicestershire home, that they had 'two specific and active' lines of inquiry.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6402835/Fresh-hope-Kate-Gerry-McCann-police-pursue-two-leads.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 21, 2019, 03:42:36 PM
Just a reminder what Rowley said of the parents.

"firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation".


So theres no evidence that the parents have been interviewed by SY.
And yet apparently this statement cannot be counted as evidence that the McCanns are not being investigated according to G-Unit.  Go figure!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2019, 04:02:02 PM
But you choose to believe they have been.  8(0(*

Do you really believe that the police have not already interviewed material witnesses?  What about Dr Totman et al?

Just because the police have played their cards very close to their chest doesn't mean they have neglected procedure.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 21, 2019, 05:17:23 PM
Do you really believe that the police have not already interviewed material witnesses?  What about Dr Totman et al?

Just because the police have played their cards very close to their chest doesn't mean they have neglected procedure.


What of Totman,Redwood never indentified him.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 21, 2019, 05:46:32 PM
Do you really believe that the police have not already interviewed material witnesses?  What about Dr Totman et al?

Just because the police have played their cards very close to their chest doesn't mean they have neglected procedure.

I don't believe I gave my opinion. I was discussing what the evidence says. I don't know what OG have doneand neither does anyone else.

Perhaps you can tell me where these 'procedures' can be found?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2019, 07:33:04 PM

What of Totman,Redwood never indentified him.

How terribly remiss of him. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2019, 07:46:46 PM
I don't believe I gave my opinion. I was discussing what the evidence says. I don't know what OG have doneand neither does anyone else.

Perhaps you can tell me where these 'procedures' can be found?

Actually, did my post say anything about 'opinion'?  You were discussing belief which I took up and asked you a question about belief ... a fairly innocuous one I would have thought at that: "Do you really believe ... " which I would have thought was fine on the current thread on 'sceptic belief'.
But there you go ... seems not.

By the way, don't police have standard procedures which they follow in your neck of the woods?  Well there's a thing 🐱‍👓 as I know for certain they do in mine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 21, 2019, 07:49:35 PM
Actually, did my post say anything about 'opinion'?  You were discussing belief which I took up and asked you a question about belief ... a fairly innocuous one I would have thought at that: "Do you really believe ... " which I would have thought was fine on the current thread on 'sceptic belief'.
But there you go ... seems not.

By the way, don't police have standard procedures which they follow in your neck of the woods?  Well there's a thing 🐱‍👓 as I know for certain they do in mine.

Well up on police procedure?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 21, 2019, 08:00:06 PM
How terribly remiss of him.

Why?,it may well have not been Totman,but what is known by being able to indentify whoever it was allowed a complete shift of emphasis.

He said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 21, 2019, 08:41:01 PM
Actually, did my post say anything about 'opinion'?  You were discussing belief which I took up and asked you a question about belief ... a fairly innocuous one I would have thought at that: "Do you really believe ... " which I would have thought was fine on the current thread on 'sceptic belief'.
But there you go ... seems not.

By the way, don't police have standard procedures which they follow in your neck of the woods?  Well there's a thing 🐱‍👓 as I know for certain they do in mine.

The only belief I can see is a belief that OG have interviewed the McCanns. If it's a standard procedure of some kind then no doubt they have. Where is the evidence of the nature of these procedures?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 21, 2019, 08:50:31 PM
Why?,it may well have not been Totman,but what is known by being able to indentify whoever it was allowed a complete shift of emphasis.

He said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530

McCann supporters believe Tannerman was the abductor. They think Matt missed the open window after hearing no sounds and feeling no draught. And here is Tannerman on their masters site:

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 21, 2019, 09:05:43 PM
McCann supporters believe Tannerman was the abductor. They think Matt missed the open window after hearing no sounds and feeling no draught. And here is Tannerman on their masters site:

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

And no word of protest from Jane Tanner since Tannerman was eliminated. She was happy to talk to the media previously. Not a peep from her since. If she was still convinced she witnessed Maddie's abduction she would have spoken out by now imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2019, 09:37:07 PM
Why?,it may well have not been Totman,but what is known by being able to indentify whoever it was allowed a complete shift of emphasis.

He said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530

The 'almost certain' is what jumps out at me ...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 21, 2019, 09:38:14 PM
And no word of protest from Jane Tanner since Tannerman was eliminated. She was happy to talk to the media previously. Not a peep from her since. If she was still convinced she witnessed Maddie's abduction she would have spoken out by now imo

Tannerman is most important to the McCanns abduction theory because Jane saw Gerry at the same time. Then Gerry noticed the moving door but Madeleine hasn't changed position since the beginning of the night so it wasn't her. Who does that leave? Abductor Tannerman! He will remain on their site Forever!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2019, 09:55:10 PM
The only belief I can see is a belief that OG have interviewed the McCanns. If it's a standard procedure of some kind then no doubt they have. Where is the evidence of the nature of these procedures?

When your Google thingy starts working again ... you will be able to get all the information you require by performing a search ... my area is covered by Police Scotland and they have put relevant information about procedures on line ... eg Missing Persons and Child Protection
Maybe your lot have done the same?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 08:41:54 AM
When your Google thingy starts working again ... you will be able to get all the information you require by performing a search ... my area is covered by Police Scotland and they have put relevant information about procedures on line ... eg Missing Persons and Child Protection
Maybe your lot have done the same?

My Google thingy is in perfect working order thank you. As I understand forum protocol however, those making a claim are required to provide a cite.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10544.msg511056#msg511056
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: carlymichelle on April 22, 2019, 09:28:03 AM
g unit i havent  posted  here  awhile because  it seems very hostile to me??  with  supporters anyway i just  figured they were  spooked by marks podcasts  and the  DNA breakthough in the news??
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 10:06:43 AM
g unit i havent  posted  here  awhile because  it seems very hostile to me??  with  supporters anyway i just  figured they were  spooked by marks podcasts  and the  DNA breakthough in the news??

I take no notice carlymichelle, but then I just assume it's a tactic. Having spent years trying to convince people that there was no useful evidence in the car it's understandible that they don't want Perlin's input imp.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2019, 10:15:24 AM
I take no notice carlymichelle, but then I just assume it's a tactic. Having spent years trying to convince people that there was no useful evidence in the car it's understandible that they don't want Perlin's input imp.

What is it  ... you believe (in the context of the thread) ... that Scotland Yard and the Judicial police "don't want Perlin's input" in relation to the evidence from the car?

I believe that the evidence from the car was useful in the extreme  ... Perlin will alter that in what way given the chance do you think?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2019, 10:31:03 AM
What is it  ... you believe (in the context of the thread) ... that Scotland Yard and the Judicial police "don't want Perlin's input" in relation to the evidence from the car?

I believe that the evidence from the car was useful in the extreme  ... Perlin will alter that in what way given the chance do you think?

A belief the hope of which has never quite gone away  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10631.msg522031#msg522031  is that Scotland Yard have their main suspects in plain sight.  I don't think that hope will ever be abandoned ... although I think it would be a better thing to hope for the resolution of what actually happened to Madeleine as opposed to what they think happened.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 11:16:06 AM
What is it  ... you believe (in the context of the thread) ... that Scotland Yard and the Judicial police "don't want Perlin's input" in relation to the evidence from the car?

I believe that the evidence from the car was useful in the extreme  ... Perlin will alter that in what way given the chance do you think?

Sorry, I was referring to McCann supporters, not police forces.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2019, 11:26:50 AM
Sorry, I was referring to McCann supporters, not police forces.

How can McCann supporters ... do you believe (in the context of the thread) ... have any influence and  "don't want Perlin's input" in relation to the evidence from the car ... that is the province of Scotland Yard and the Judicial police?

I believe that the evidence from the car was useful in the extreme  ... Perlin will alter that in what way given the chance do you think?

Any chance of an answer to anything?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 11:28:36 AM
A belief the hope of which has never quite gone away  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10631.msg522031#msg522031  is that Scotland Yard have their main suspects in plain sight.  I don't think that hope will ever be abandoned ... although I think it would be a better thing to hope for the resolution of what actually happened to Madeleine as opposed to what they think happened.

Operation Grange stated from the beginning that they were investigating 'the abduction'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 22, 2019, 11:33:18 AM
How can McCann supporters ... do you believe (in the context of the thread) ... have any influence and  "don't want Perlin's input" in relation to the evidence from the car ... that is the province of Scotland Yard and the Judicial police?

I believe that the evidence from the car was useful in the extreme  ... Perlin will alter that in what way given the chance do you think?

Any chance of an answer to anything?

I agree that supporters have no influence, but observe that they definitely don't want Perlin's input  -  having seen nothing but negativity from supporters on this forum thread.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2019, 11:33:54 AM
Operation Grange stated from the beginning that they were investigating 'the abduction'.
Do sceptics agree ... do you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2019, 11:38:52 AM
I agree that supporters have no influence, but observe that they definitely don't want Perlin's input  -  having seen nothing but negativity from supporters on this forum thread.

I would be more than happy to have perlins input...more than happy to have an investigation into SY...more tham happy to have a public enquiry into the whole case....you are quite wrong
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2019, 11:39:38 AM
I take no notice carlymichelle, but then I just assume it's a tactic. Having spent years trying to convince people that there was no useful evidence in the car it's understandible that they don't want Perlin's input imp.

there isnt any useful evidence in the car...for those of us who understand
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2019, 11:40:18 AM
I agree that supporters have no influence, but observe that they definitely don't want Perlin's input  -  having seen nothing but negativity from supporters on this forum thread.

I think the majority of supporters have moved on from the police failures of the past and have moved along into 2019 with the only remaining chance Madeleine has to be found before she is eligible to draw her pension.

The chance to find out what happened to Madeleine was botched way back then ... why bother repeating the errors?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 11:41:08 AM
How can McCann supporters ... do you believe (in the context of the thread) ... have any influence and  "don't want Perlin's input" in relation to the evidence from the car ... that is the province of Scotland Yard and the Judicial police?

I believe that the evidence from the car was useful in the extreme  ... Perlin will alter that in what way given the chance do you think?

Any chance of an answer to anything?

I was discussing the attitude of supporters on this forum, not the opinions of the police. I've no idea what Perlin can add but it would be interesting to see what he came up with. .

Speaking of answers, how about my request for a cite as per forum protocol?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg521996#msg521996
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 22, 2019, 12:03:43 PM
Operation Grange stated from the beginning that they were investigating 'the abduction'.

Was that the review and the investigation or simply the review ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 12:15:27 PM
Do sceptics agree ... do you?

That's what their remit says and I've seen nothing to suggest they're interested in investigating other possible scenarios. The PJ, on the other hand, haven't named a specific crime.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 12:19:00 PM
Was that the review and the investigation or simply the review ?

Investigate, according to Brietta's tagline.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2019, 12:20:14 PM
That's what their remit says and I've seen nothing to suggest they're interested in investigating other possible scenarios. The PJ, on the other hand, haven't named a specific crime.
The fact that the remit says, abduction doesn't limit them to abduction.. Weren't they investigating woke and wandered a little while back
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 22, 2019, 12:34:48 PM
Investigate, according to Brietta's tagline.

The remit was posted on SY website at the time of the review. It has never been clear whether the remit changed when the status of the case changed from review to investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 12:38:08 PM
The fact that the remit says, abduction doesn't limit them to abduction.. Weren't they investigating woke and wandered a little while back

Thank you for your opinion, but I think a remit is a bit more prescriptive than you think it is. Wasn't that just one of those mewspaper stories many of which are rubbish, according to Rowley?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 12:40:16 PM
The remit was posted on SY website at the time of the review. It has never been clear whether the remit changed when the status of the case changed from review to investigation.

Is this a case of sceptics not sharing their beliefs? Oh dear!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2019, 12:40:48 PM
Thank you for your opinion, but I think a remit is a bit more prescriptive than you think it is. Wasn't that just one of those mewspaper stories many of which are rubbish, according to Rowley?
Redwood, said Maddie may not have left the apartment alive

...that isn't abduction... So the remit does not limit them... Fact
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2019, 03:22:52 PM
The fact that the remit says, abduction doesn't limit them to abduction.. Weren't they investigating woke and wandered a little while back

They will follow the evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2019, 03:47:38 PM
I was discussing the attitude of supporters on this forum, not the opinions of the police. I've no idea what Perlin can add but it would be interesting to see what he came up with. .

Speaking of answers, how about my request for a cite as per forum protocol?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg521996#msg521996

Did you ever supply the cite I requested in January? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg521996#msg521996

You can provide a cite for it if you don't mind when you are in the process of telling me exactly what you are asking for from me.
That would certainly clarify your requirement and prevent the goalposts being moved by you as in my opinion they so often are.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 05:07:28 PM
Did you ever supply the cite I requested in January? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg521996#msg521996

You can provide a cite for it if you don't mind when you are in the process of telling me exactly what you are asking for from me.
That would certainly clarify your requirement and prevent the goalposts being moved by you as in my opinion they so often are.

I haven't a clue what you wanted cites for because you deleted my post. Why not just do the same to your own and we'll call it quits? That seems fair to me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2019, 05:25:37 PM
I haven't a clue what you wanted cites for because you deleted my post. Why not just do the same to your own and we'll call it quits? That seems fair to me.

You seem very keen to have your cite ... please indicate exactly what you require as per my post ... and I shall endeavour to full-fill the task ...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 22, 2019, 06:41:10 PM
I take no notice carlymichelle, but then I just assume it's a tactic. Having spent years trying to convince people that there was no useful evidence in the car it's understandible that they don't want Perlin's input imp.
Who is “they”?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 22, 2019, 06:42:06 PM
Sorry, I was referring to McCann supporters, not police forces.
You’re not making a sweeping generalisation here are you?  Heavens above!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 07:57:09 PM
You seem very keen to have your cite ... please indicate exactly what you require as per my post ... and I shall endeavour to full-fill the task ...

A cite from the source of your knowledge would be nice. The procedures laid down for Police Scotland saying they must interview material witnesses when carrying out an investigative review of a previously investigated missng child case. Or delete your post, I really don't mind which.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2019, 08:06:40 PM
A cite from the source of your knowledge would be nice. The procedures laid down for Police Scotland saying they must interview material witnesses when carrying out an investigative review of a previously investigated missng child case. Or delete your post, I really don't mind which.
/www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/victims-and-witnesses/

The success of any investigation depends largely on the accuracy and detail of the material obtained from witnesses. Investigators, whether tasked with a volume crime or major investigation, must recognise the individual needs and concerns of witnesses and treat them with dignity and respect. This can have a significant impact on how witnesses cooperate with the investigation and any subsequent prosecution.

based on this are you suggesting grange would simply rely on statements taht the mccanns have said are inaccurate
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 22, 2019, 08:15:57 PM
/www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/victims-and-witnesses/

The success of any investigation depends largely on the accuracy and detail of the material obtained from witnesses. Investigators, whether tasked with a volume crime or major investigation, must recognise the individual needs and concerns of witnesses and treat them with dignity and respect. This can have a significant impact on how witnesses cooperate with the investigation and any subsequent prosecution.

based on this are you suggesting grange would simply rely on statements taht the mccanns have said are inaccurate

Cite for the McCanns saying their statements were inaccurate? Kate McCann said 'lost in translation' which is slightly different. Control Risks got her statement wrong, apparently, and that was done in the same language. I don't think Gerry McCann has said anything.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2019, 08:20:13 PM
Cite for the McCanns saying their statements were inaccurate? Kate McCann said 'lost in translation' which is slightly different. Control Risks got her statement wrong, apparently, and that was done in the same language. I don't think Gerry McCann has said anything.

innaccurate ...lost in translation...is there a SIGNIFICANT difference...you really are clutching at straws...no cite required
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 22, 2019, 08:21:45 PM
innaccurate ...lost in translation...is there a SIGNIFICANT difference...you really are clutching at straws...no cite required

Agreed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 22, 2019, 08:26:19 PM


"Kate and Gerry have always said there are innocent explanations for any alleged inconsistencies in their statements because they are innocent."

-CM

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2019, 08:53:18 PM
A cite from the source of your knowledge would be nice. The procedures laid down for Police Scotland saying they must interview material witnesses when carrying out an investigative review of a previously investigated missng child case. Or delete your post, I really don't mind which.

What an arrogant post.

Moving goalposts ???  I didn't say you could build a new stadium.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2019, 08:53:55 PM
Cite for the McCanns saying their statements were inaccurate? Kate McCann said 'lost in translation' which is slightly different. Control Risks got her statement wrong, apparently, and that was done in the same language. I don't think Gerry McCann has said anything.

They gave statements to control risks because of the lost in translation problem and Kate said these contained inaccuracies TOO... confirming the inaccuracies in the original statements given to the PJ... It just shows how difficult it must be to get an accurate account... The PJs method didn't stand a chance imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 22, 2019, 08:59:26 PM
They gave statements to control risks because of the lost in translation problem and Kate said these contained inaccuracies TOO... confirming the inaccuracies in the original statements given to the PJ... It just shows how difficult it must be to get an accurate account... The PJs method didn't stand a chance imo

The main inaccuracy I see in the McCann's statements is the inclusion of the word "abducted"......
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 22, 2019, 09:49:42 PM
They gave statements to control risks because of the lost in translation problem and Kate said these contained inaccuracies TOO... confirming the inaccuracies in the original statements given to the PJ... It just shows how difficult it must be to get an accurate account... The PJs method didn't stand a chance imo

They paid 100,000 to get them translated so where is their evidence of translation errors?  They could say anything and you would believe them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 22, 2019, 09:54:24 PM

They paid 100,000 to get them translated so where is their evidence of translation errors?  They could say anything and you would believe them.

It'd not often I'm lost for words... Just realised I'm not lost for words just can't use the ones that spring to mind
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 06:22:55 AM
What an arrogant post.

Moving goalposts ???  I didn't say you could build a new stadium.

Why the fuss? You either have a cite or you don't. Just provide it or admit you don't know what police procedures are in a case like this instead of messing around as is your wont imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 23, 2019, 07:08:15 AM
Why the fuss? You either have a cite or you don't. Just provide it or admit you don't know what police procedures are in a case like this instead of messing around as is your wont imo.
Just who made you the boss around here?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 23, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Just who made you the boss around here?
The old boss.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 23, 2019, 08:10:23 AM
The old boss.
If only the new boss was quite so tenacious about chasing up cites when I ask for them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 08:11:56 AM
Just who made you the boss around here?

All I ask is equal treatment. If I don't provide a cite my post is deleted. The same rule should apply to others who don't provide cites.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 23, 2019, 08:55:45 AM
All I ask is equal treatment. If I don't provide a cite my post is deleted. The same rule should apply to others who don't provide cites.
I’ve asked for numerous cites and simply been ignored.  I got over it. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 23, 2019, 09:16:41 AM
All I ask is equal treatment. If I don't provide a cite my post is deleted. The same rule should apply to others who don't provide cites.

Not by any Moderator that I have seen.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2019, 09:26:09 AM
I’ve asked for numerous cites and simply been ignored.  I got over it.

Me too..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 09:30:28 AM
Not by any Moderator that I have seen.

It happens;

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10544.msg511027#msg511027
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 23, 2019, 10:01:06 AM
It happens;

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10544.msg511027#msg511027

That was in January.  Good heavens.  I've had more comments deleted than you have.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 10:19:36 AM
That was in January.  Good heavens.  I've had more comments deleted than you have.

I didn't even know it had happened myself until I was given a link to that discussion as what seemed to be some kind of justification for the lack of a cite in the latest incident. In my opinion you can't demand cites from others if you refuse to supply them yourself.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 23, 2019, 10:29:18 AM
I didn't even know it had happened myself until I was given a link to that discussion as what seemed to be some kind of justification for the lack of a cite in the latest incident. In my opinion you can't demand cites from others if you refuse to supply them yourself.

It has to depend on the discussion itself.  Cites are being demanded in the most ridiculous cases sometimes.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 23, 2019, 10:44:19 AM
It has to depend on the discussion itself.  Cites are being demanded in the most ridiculous cases sometimes.

Seconded.   8((()*/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 11:26:35 AM
It has to depend on the discussion itself.  Cites are being demanded in the most ridiculous cases sometimes.

I think it's fairly simple. Statements of fact need cites. Statements of opinion don't. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 23, 2019, 11:30:02 AM
The problem arises when opinion is passed off as fact.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2019, 11:32:40 AM
I think it's fairly simple. Statements of fact need cites. Statements of opinion don't.

I have provided a cite to support Brietta stating how important accurate witness statements are stressed in police training... It would be odd if SY didn't realize this... We can't prove the mccanns have been reinterviewed but it would be very odd if they haven't...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 12:11:57 PM
I have provided a cite to support Brietta stating how important accurate witness statements are stressed in police training... It would be odd if SY didn't realize this... We can't prove the mccanns have been reinterviewed but it would be very odd if they haven't...

Operation Grange may indeed have asked questions of those involved. Reinterviewing witnesses would make sense whoever interviewed them originally. You may believe OG did those things, but as you admit you can't prove it, it remains opinion.  One thing we do know is that both the McCanns and Op Grange paid to have the PJ files translated, so they certainly weren't dismissing the contents.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 23, 2019, 12:35:32 PM
It would be fascinated to know if these translations differed significantly from those we have seen on line.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 01:07:13 PM
It would be fascinated to know if these translations differed significantly from those we have seen on line.

Even the most talented translator can't translate 'entered using the key, the door beiing locked' as 'entered via the unlocked patio door'
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2019, 01:18:41 PM
Even the most talented translator can't translate 'entered using the key, the door beiing locked' as 'entered via the unlocked patio door'

Its not verbatim... I think the translator may have used some artistic licence... You can claim what you want... Due to the, way the accounts, were taken nothing can be confirmed either way
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 01:42:39 PM
Its not verbatim... I think the translator may have used some artistic licence... You can claim what you want... Due to the, way the accounts, were taken nothing can be confirmed either way

You have opinion, rumour, innuendo and guesswork. I have a signed statement.

(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_37.jpg)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2019, 02:00:58 PM
You have opinion, rumour, innuendo and guesswork. I have a signed statement.

(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_37.jpg)

Whatever.... It's a witness statement to so can't be used in evidence against as I understand
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 02:08:30 PM
Another piece of evidence suggesting that Gerry McCann had used the locked front door;

2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 23, 2019, 03:24:49 PM
All I ask is equal treatment. If I don't provide a cite my post is deleted. The same rule should apply to others who don't provide cites.

I have just checked back to the date in question to find that the comment I temporarily removed on 23rd Jan because a cite had been refused on request has in fact been re-posted to the board on Jan 25th with the original content intact but some of the wording jumbled around and the cite which should have been appended on the 23rd attached to the new post on the 25th.

In my opinion the present episode is nasty and smacks of mischief making.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 23, 2019, 03:33:04 PM
I didn't even know it had happened myself until I was given a link to that discussion as what seemed to be some kind of justification for the lack of a cite in the latest incident. In my opinion you can't demand cites from others if you refuse to supply them yourself.

You had obviously mis-remembered that you had posted again ... this time with the cite you would not post when I asked for it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 23, 2019, 04:32:23 PM
Even the most talented translator can't translate 'entered using the key, the door beiing locked' as 'entered via the unlocked patio door'
Was the most talented translator used?  Do you have a cite to prove your statement that mistakes of this nature are impossible or is it simply your opinion?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2019, 04:42:06 PM
Another piece of evidence suggesting that Gerry McCann had used the locked front door;

2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

I seem to remember if we look at kste and gerrys statement sone parts are almost identical... Did they both say the same things OE were they asked a series of loaded questions
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 23, 2019, 04:53:27 PM
I seem to remember if we look at kste and gerrys statement sone parts are almost identical... Did they both say the same things OE were they asked a series of loaded questions

Yes, they almost certainly were asked loaded questions.  Nothing wrong with that.  But the fact remains that Arguidos don't have to answer questions.

I will never understand why Amaral, or anyone else did that.  Arguido.  End of.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 05:50:25 PM
Was the most talented translator used?  Do you have a cite to prove your statement that mistakes of this nature are impossible or is it simply your opinion?

I don't know who the McCanns and OG used, but they weren't free and they would have translated Gery's 4th May statement exactly as the vounteers did. It says he opened the door with the key because it was locked;

entrou no quarto munido da chave respectiva estando a porta trancada
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 06:06:15 PM
I have just checked back to the date in question to find that the comment I temporarily removed on 23rd Jan because a cite had been refused on request has in fact been re-posted to the board on Jan 25th with the original content intact but some of the wording jumbled around and the cite which should have been appended on the 23rd attached to the new post on the 25th.

In my opinion the present episode is nasty and smacks of mischief making.

I have no memory of the incident and less interest. In my opinion cites are demanded from me on a regular basis but it I request them a mighty fuss ensues. Where did you get your information about police procedures by the way?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2019, 06:47:19 PM
Another piece of evidence suggesting that Gerry McCann had used the locked front door;

2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

why does gerry say at 10 Kate entered the apartment using the key
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 07:00:19 PM
why does gerry say at 10 Kate entered the apartment using the key

I think the only person who can answer that is Gerry McCann and that isn't going to hapoen imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2019, 07:21:50 PM
I think the only person who can answer that is Gerry McCann and that isn't going to hapoen imo.

Perhaps he never said it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 08:14:09 PM
Perhaps he never said it

What a daft suggestion imo. What possible motive would the interpreter have for lying?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 23, 2019, 08:31:22 PM
What a daft suggestion imo. What possible motive would the interpreter have for lying?
Who said he lied?  Is there no other explanation?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2019, 08:51:45 PM
What a daft suggestion imo. What possible motive would the interpreter have for lying?

What a daft reply... Imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 09:05:13 PM
Who said he lied?  Is there no other explanation?

Gerry McCann speaks to the interpreter in English.
The interpreter rells Joao Carlos what he said in Portuguese.
Joao Catlos types it up.
When they've finished the statement is read back to Gerry McCann in English.
He signs each page to say it's correct.

The only way the statement can differ from what Gerry McCann said is if the onterpreter told Joao Carlos the wtong words after Gerry spoke, then told Gerry the correct words when reading it back imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2019, 09:27:47 PM
Gerry McCann speaks to the interpreter in English.
The interpreter rells Joao Carlos what he said in Portuguese.
Joao Catlos types it up.
When they've finished the statement is read back to Gerry McCann in English.
He signs each page to say it's correct.

The only way the statement can differ from what Gerry McCann said is if the onterpreter told Joao Carlos the wtong words after Gerry spoke, then told Gerry the correct words when reading it back imo.

Saying the wrong words is not necessarily lying

The typist doesn't type what Gerry said once translated into Portuguese.. He paraphrased in Portuguese what Gerry has, said in English... Simple.. No room for error there
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2019, 09:38:25 PM
Saying the wrong words is not necessarily lying

If someone tells me they entered through an open sliding door and I tell someone ellse they entered through a locked door using a key I am lying in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 23, 2019, 10:02:56 PM
If someone tells me they entered through an open sliding door and I tell someone ellse they entered through a locked door using a key I am lying in my opinion.
What a strange post IMO.  You would know whether you were lying or not, it wouldn’t be a matter of opinion.  You could also simply be mistaken.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 23, 2019, 11:07:57 PM
What a strange post IMO.  You would know whether you were lying or not, it wouldn’t be a matter of opinion.  You could also simply be mistaken.
Semantics.   &%%6
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 12:53:51 AM
What a daft suggestion imo. What possible motive would the interpreter have for lying?

The Interpreter quite possibly assumed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 24, 2019, 12:56:53 AM
The Interpreter quite possibly assumed.

If that assumption was wrong Gerry would have said so and requested it be altered. He has never struck me as backwards at coming forward.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 07:09:43 AM
If that assumption was wrong Gerry would have said so and requested it be altered. He has never struck me as backwards at coming forward.
How he strikes you is of no consequence and adds nothing to the discussion IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 07:51:04 AM
How he strikes you is of no consequence and adds nothing to the discussion IMO.

Suggesting that the interpreter couldn't do the job is pure speculation and adds nothing to the discussion either imo. It seems the only way the McCanns can be defended is by suggesting that everyone else is lacking in some way.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 07:55:19 AM
Suggesting that the interpreter couldn't do the job is pure speculation and adds nothing to the discussion either imo. It seems the only way the McCanns can be defended is by suggesting that everyone else is lacking in some way.

The system was lacking... Suggesting the statements are accurate is pure speculation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 08:58:11 AM
Suggesting that the interpreter couldn't do the job is pure speculation and adds nothing to the discussion either imo. It seems the only way the McCanns can be defended is by suggesting that everyone else is lacking in some way.
Rubbish IMO.  IMO there is a good reason why why the statements may have been inaccurate apart from lying on anyone’s part, and that is simple human fallibility, either Gerry’s or the interpreters.  Not everyone has to by lying every time there is a discrepancy fgs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 09:02:29 AM
The whole thing was always going to be debatable.  Amaral never had a hope in hells chance, so he resorted to lying and leaking, probably because no one was ever going to get near to beating Kate McCann.  But don't kid yourselves that he wouldn't have done.

Amaral is a lying, phillandering, thieving disgrace, which all occurred  long before Madeleine was abducted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 09:22:59 AM
The whole thing was always going to be debatable.  Amaral never had a hope in hells chance, so he resorted to lying and leaking, probably because no one was ever going to get near to beating Kate McCann.  But don't kid yourselves that he wouldn't have done.

Amaral is a lying, phillandering, thieving disgrace, which all occurred  long before Madeleine was abducted.

And through all this, knowing that this case had grown arms, legs and an arse, with the world watching, in full knowledge that his entire life was about to be raked over in minute detail, he went ahead, put his proverbial on the block and told us his theory regardless.
Guess what, by the way, I've lied, thieved and philandered too. I'm a disgrace. I'm going to flagellate myself in a cupboard in the office - again.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 09:40:38 AM
And through all this, knowing that this case had grown arms, legs and an arse, with the world watching, in full knowledge that his entire life was about to be raked over in minute detail, he went ahead, put his proverbial on the block and told us his theory regardless.
Guess what, by the way, I've lied, thieved and philandered too. I'm a disgrace. I'm going to flagellate myself in a cupboard in the office - again.

OMG, I am beginning to like you.  Would you like to swap stories?  I bet mine are worse than yours.  Or perhaps not.

Perhaps you have no concept of previous Portuguese justice during which women, and sometimes men have been beaten into confessing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 24, 2019, 09:45:22 AM
Suggesting that the interpreter couldn't do the job is pure speculation and adds nothing to the discussion either imo. It seems the only way the McCanns can be defended is by suggesting that everyone else is lacking in some way.

Indeed G, Grime being another example.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 09:48:52 AM
And through all this, knowing that this case had grown arms, legs and an arse, with the world watching, in full knowledge that his entire life was about to be raked over in minute detail, he went ahead, put his proverbial on the block and told us his theory regardless.
Guess what, by the way, I've lied, thieved and philandered too. I'm a disgrace. I'm going to flagellate myself in a cupboard in the office - again.

The world was watching ... NOT for Madeleine ... but the ersatz case made for the guilt of Madeleine's parents ... built on the lies circulated to the Portuguese media by Goncalo Amaral and his cohorts.

Lies which are still believed and spread by sceptics to this very day.

Sandra Felgueras was a very influential voice in this debacle who complained vociferously when she read the forensic report to discover that that her source Amaral, had lied to her consistently throughout the investigation.

It came over loud and clear in the Netflix documentary that she knew she had been used and played for a mug who trusted Amaral as a reliable source.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 24, 2019, 09:49:47 AM
The whole thing was always going to be debatable.  Amaral never had a hope in hells chance, so he resorted to lying and leaking, probably because no one was ever going to get near to beating Kate McCann.  But don't kid yourselves that he wouldn't have done.

Amaral is a lying, phillandering, thieving disgrace, which all occurred  long before Madeleine was abducted.

There's no proof Amaral ever beat anyone into confession, or proof that Maddie was abducted for that matter.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 09:50:32 AM
And through all this, knowing that this case had grown arms, legs and an arse, with the world watching, in full knowledge that his entire life was about to be raked over in minute detail, he went ahead, put his proverbial on the block and told us his theory regardless.
Guess what, by the way, I've lied, thieved and philandered too. I'm a disgrace. I'm going to flagellate myself in a cupboard in the office - again.

And made half a million pounds or so
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 09:54:40 AM
There's no proof Amaral ever beat anyone into confession, or proof that Maddie was abducted for that matter.

There is indisputable proof that he was convicted of perjury in the same case, though.  A conviction which was upheld despite his appeal.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 24, 2019, 09:55:17 AM
The world was watching ... NOT for Madeleine ... but the ersatz case made for the guilt of Madeleine's parents ... built on the lies circulated to the Portuguese media by Goncalo Amaral and his cohorts.

Lies which are still believed and spread by sceptics to this very day.

Sandra Felgueras was a very influential voice in this debacle who complained vociferously when she read the forensic report to discover that that her source Amaral, had lied to her consistently throughout the investigation.

It came over loud and clear in the Netflix documentary that she knew she had been used and played for a mug who trusted Amaral as a reliable source.

In connection to the results of the DNA. She also said she didn’t believe the parents were telling all they knew.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 24, 2019, 09:57:18 AM
There is indisputable proof that he was convicted of perjury in the same case, though.  A conviction which was upheld despite his appeal.

Irrelevant, but I'm glad you agree, no proof Amaral beat anyone, no proof Maddie was abducted.

Eleanors post should be moderated, since it makes these baseless claims.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 24, 2019, 09:58:49 AM
And made half a million pounds or so

And good luck to him. Money made honestly by writing a best selling book.....or certainly when compared to raiding the fund to find  your child to pay for your mortgage.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 10:02:28 AM
OMG, I am beginning to like you.  Would you like to swap stories?  I bet mine are worse than yours.  Or perhaps not.

Perhaps you have no concept of previous Portuguese justice during which women, and sometimes men have been beaten into confessing.
I have very little concept of Portuguese justice system, but am aware that (mostly) men and (some) women routinely have confessions beaten out of them all over the world - there'll be a guy strapped to the legs of a chair in some concrete cell somewhere, having the soles of his feet beaten with a rubber hose even as I type.
It does still happen, regrettably, and dependent upon the maturity of the society, the socio-economic status and the political leanings of the ruling party, it's an accepted practice.
I do know that Portugal only really entered the 'third world' economically speaking in the early 70's, due to political upheaval after the war (in which it sold stuff to Britain and Germany and remained neutral) and its justice system probably lagged behind proportionately, so there's undoubtedly some aging relics from that bygone age and there would have been more of them back in 2007.
I've been typing for so long I can't remember what my point was.......
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 10:02:49 AM
The system was lacking... Suggesting the statements are accurate is pure speculation

I have no reason to think the statements are inaccurate. No-one except Kate McCann has ever suggested that they are and she has never been specific. She was happy for the Fund to spend £100,000 to have then translated too. All the speculation has emanated from the supporters imo.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 24, 2019, 10:06:26 AM

There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, in the kitchen’s counter. Right away, the lies started. (Gonçalo Amaral)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 10:20:50 AM
I have no reason to think the statements are inaccurate. No-one except Kate McCann has ever suggested that they are and she has never been specific. She was happy for the Fund to spend £100,000 to have then translated too. All the speculation has emanated from the supporters imo.
Let's get it right, there's 11,000+ pages of report and undoubtedly many more somewhere, plus some relative rigor being displayed in the statement taking process i.e. a demonstrable, transparent process is clearly being used and the output freely available - so this isn't some tin pot, despotic regime where kangaroo courts are holding sway and people are being marched in to the courtyard and shot from 10 paces - there's a legal process. I mean, I saw the video of the woman with the gloves and the fingerprint kit, look at the rigor right there.....(it's imperfect, most criminal investigations are)
There are always variables when taking statements; the very nature of eye witness testimony is flawed, as it's commonly known that the brain is unreliable when recalling detail. Couple that with the 'Portuguese dude thinks of a question in Portuguese, translates in to English, Scottish guy answers in English, Portuguese guy writes English down and Portuguese dude translates....etc...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 10:28:13 AM
I have no reason to think the statements are inaccurate. No-one except Kate McCann has ever suggested that they are and she has never been specific. She was happy for the Fund to spend £100,000 to have then translated too. All the speculation has emanated from the supporters imo.

re the statements...colin sutton suggested that the room for error was huge...it was also suggested by the PJ when amaral left that the statements my not be accurate...so your claim is...untrue...you may even feel you are lying in your opinion
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 10:34:41 AM
There is indisputable proof that he was convicted of perjury in the same case, though.  A conviction which was upheld despite his appeal.

Sheesh.  What on earth can anyone say.  Amaral is a liar.  Why would anyone want to defend him?  He lied in the process of everything he has ever done.  He cheated his own brother, and then ultimately his ghastly wife.

The PJ made a mock of this case because they allowed this moron to take charge.  What did they think they were doing?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 10:37:21 AM
re the statements...colin sutton suggested that the room for error was huge...it was also suggested by the PJ when amaral left that the statements my not be accurate...so your claim is...untrue...you may even feel you are lying in your opinion
This wasn't an interrogation, it was a simple witness statement taking exercise - question and answer.
Discrepancies weren't being pounced on with follow up questions - it's not the same.
Colin Sutton, bless him, when you retire on pension at early 50's, it leaves a hole; he's filling that hole as a celebrity policeman - fair play after 30 years of public service. He's a paid talking head, Sandra is a paid talking head, Jesus, even the sack of human decay McKenzie is a paid talking head. It's satiating the public greed for salacity and tittle tattle.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 24, 2019, 10:43:47 AM
re the statements...colin sutton suggested that the room for error was huge...it was also suggested by the PJ when amaral left that the statements my not be accurate...so your claim is...untrue...you may even feel you are lying in your opinion

I thought Sutton’s opinion wasn’t to be trusted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 10:45:38 AM
And good luck to him. Money made honestly by writing a best selling book.....or certainly when compared to raiding the fund to find  your child to pay for your mortgage.

Sandra Felgueras is adamant that Goncalo Amaral lied to her in leaks about the evidence in Madeleine's case.

There was no blood!

What is "honest" about repeating the lies he told journalists in his best selling book?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 11:01:39 AM
Let's get it right, there's 11,000+ pages of report and undoubtedly many more somewhere, plus some relative rigor being displayed in the statement taking process i.e. a demonstrable, transparent process is clearly being used and the output freely available - so this isn't some tin pot, despotic regime where kangaroo courts are holding sway and people are being marched in to the courtyard and shot from 10 paces - there's a legal process. I mean, I saw the video of the woman with the gloves and the fingerprint kit, look at the rigor right there.....(it's imperfect, most criminal investigations are)
There are always variables when taking statements; the very nature of eye witness testimony is flawed, as it's commonly known that the brain is unreliable when recalling detail. Couple that with the 'Portuguese dude thinks of a question in Portuguese, translates in to English, Scottish guy answers in English, Portuguese guy writes English down and Portuguese dude translates....etc...

I have no problem accepting that statements can be inaccurate. In my opinion what we see here is selectivity. Some people seem happpy to accept some of the statements and reject others. Either all the statements are unreliable or none of them are imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 11:02:30 AM
I thought Sutton’s opinion wasn’t to be trusted.

depends if hes talking about things he understands
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 11:10:11 AM
I have no problem accepting that statements can be inaccurate. In my opinion what we see here is selectivity. Some people seem happpy to accept some of the statements and reject others. Either all the statements are unreliable or none of them are imo.
We can't discount them all, nor can we accept them all as a definitive account, mainly because of the proliferate incongruity - one would expect an element of incongruity, given the fallibility of the human mind to recall detail, but even factoring this in, the level of discrepancy is incredible.
I can see why some may cherry pick seemingly corroborative accounts though, depending on your leaning.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 11:11:40 AM
depends if hes talking about things he understands
I doubt he's going to be engaged to give his opinion on EU Agricultural Subsidies.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 11:15:45 AM
I thought Sutton’s opinion wasn’t to be trusted.

Opinions of Sutton seem to vary depending on what he is saying.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 11:31:01 AM
Opinions of Sutton seem to vary depending on what he is saying.
I'll be honest, as soon as they take the coin to give expert opinion on 'Infotainment' on the telly, then they're tainted. I'm sure he was an excellent copper and he does have a lot of useful info and opinion, but he's getting paid and the producers will be able to re-context / cut / edit to their narrative and he'll be made contractually aware of that.

Besides, he went on tour with the Armchair Detective barnpot, so perhaps there's a financial pinch he's feeling, but not exactly his finest decision.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 24, 2019, 11:31:58 AM
Opinions of Sutton seem to vary depending on what he is saying.

If I had my dining table of 6 MBM experts assembled, Colin Sutton would be invited for one reason and one reason only.

As far as I can tell, Mr Sutton has limited knowledge of the MBM case, so he is not an 'MBM expert'.

But also as far as I can tell, he is indeed an expert in how to conduct major police criminal investigations.  He might well get an invite on that basis.

As far as I have seen, that expertise is what he restricts himself to, as a 'talking head'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 11:35:46 AM
If I had my dining table of 6 MBM experts assembled, Colin Sutton would be invited for one reason and one reason only.

As far as I can tell, Mr Sutton has limited knowledge of the MBM case, so he is not an 'MBM expert'.

But also as far as I can tell, he is indeed an expert in how to conduct major police criminal investigations.  He might well get an invite on that basis.

As far as I have seen, that expertise is what he restricts himself to, as a 'talking head'.

I agree he is an expert on how to conduct s criminal investigation... But as, we know experts differ in their approach.  It's obvious he is not an expert in DNA however... And that's, where, I would question sone of his, recent statements
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 11:37:00 AM
I have no problem accepting that statements can be inaccurate. In my opinion what we see here is selectivity. Some people seem happpy to accept some of the statements and reject others. Either all the statements are unreliable or none of them are imo.

All statements, are potentially unreliable and all may contain errors
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 24, 2019, 12:01:11 PM
I agree he is an expert on how to conduct s criminal investigation... But as, we know experts differ in their approach.  It's obvious he is not an expert in DNA however... And that's, where, I would question sone of his, recent statements

I don't doubt for a second that he would not be considered an 'expert' in DNA, however ...

I don't doubt for a second that his understanding of pertinent DNA evidence exceeds the capability of anyone on this forum.

It was an integral part of his whole career.   &^^&*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 12:15:00 PM
I don't doubt for a second that he would not be considered an 'expert' in DNA, however ...

I don't doubt for a second that his understanding of pertinent DNA evidence exceeds the capability of anyone on this forum.

It was an integral part of his whole career.   &^^&*

i wouldnt say it does...his understanding of transference is very poor and I would say there are several here who understand it bette....you probably havent heard what he has to say about in on the podcast
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 24, 2019, 12:22:27 PM
i wouldnt say it does...his understanding of transference is very poor and I would say there are several here who understand it bette....you probably havent heard what he has to say about in on the podcast
I'll stick with Colin Sutton until you provide anything more concrete or persuasive than your opinion.  Such is life.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 12:25:06 PM
I'll stick with Colin Sutton until you provide anything more concrete or persuasive than your opinion.  Such is life.

you can stick with him...doesnt make a scrap of difference....as I said you probably havent heard the rubbish he came out with on teh podcast re transference
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 24, 2019, 12:37:31 PM
you can stick with him...doesnt make a scrap of difference....as I said you probably havent heard the rubbish he came out with on teh podcast re transference

Crikey, already over 30,000 posts, and none of them worthwhile, according to your opinion.  I'm sure you have heard the phrase 'The Devil makes work for idle hands'?

If you have something solid to post on this subject, here is your last chance.

Otherwise it is Davel v Sutton.

Sutton wins by a KO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 12:42:01 PM
Crikey, already over 30,000 posts, and none of them worthwhile, according to your opinion.  I'm sure you have heard the phrase 'The Devil makes work for idle hands'?

If you have something solid to post on this subject, here is your last chance.

Otherwise it is Davel v Sutton.

Sutton wins by a KO.

in your opinion...as you probably havent listened to what sutton has said...as you probably havent researched transference....on this occasion my opininion is based on superior evidence...and yes...none of our posts here are particularly important ...same applies to your blog...its just something we choose to do.

The difference between us is that you think your opinions ...blog ..etc are important...in the rael world they are not
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 12:57:06 PM
in your opinion...as you probably havent listened to what sutton has said...as you probably havent researched transference....on this occasion my opininion is based on superior evidence...and yes...none of our posts here are particularly important ...same applies to your blog...its just something we choose to do.

The difference between us is that you think your opinions ...blog ..etc are important...in the rael world they are not
I can almost smell your disdain through the laptop and it's a little desperate.
I suppose the difference is reach. SIL's diversity of blog posts ensures 'real world' interest which appeals to many people.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 01:23:36 PM
I can almost smell your disdain through the laptop and it's a little desperate.
I suppose the difference is reach. SIL's diversity of blog posts ensures 'real world' interest which appeals to many people.
You have a poor sense of smell..sils post I'm afraid on the whole do not appeal to me... I'm a McCann supporter.. Which you don't like... Save your biased views fir someone daft enough to take notice of them
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 01:33:23 PM
All statements, are potentially unreliable and all may contain errors

So we can't rely on witnesses, statements, media reports or experts. How on earth did anyone manage to decide that the McCanns committed no wrong? Is it just a belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 01:34:35 PM
So we can't rely on wirnesses, statements, media reports or experts. How on earth did anyone manage to decide that   that the McCanns committed no wrong? Is it just a belief?

Have you not heard of sorting the wheat from the chaff... That's the real skill
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 24, 2019, 01:35:22 PM
in your opinion...as you probably havent listened to what sutton has said...as you probably havent researched transference....on this occasion my opininion is based on superior evidence...and yes...none of our posts here are particularly important ...same applies to your blog...its just something we choose to do.

The difference between us is that you think your opinions ...blog ..etc are important...in the rael world they are not
The difference between us is I feel no need to rack up 30,000 supposedly meaningless posts.

You chose not to submit your 'evidence' to support your proposition.  So be it.  Such is life.

I would still favour Sutton over Davel.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 24, 2019, 01:56:46 PM
That's about half a dozen posts from you thst are basically as hom... But I'm not bothered... You seem to have a fixation with my post count... I have, a lot to say fir myself... Now be a good boy and stop the sniping.. You are derailing the thread...
If you think my posts are as hom, please feel free to report them as as hom.  I am confident the moderators will deal with reported as hom posts as they see fit.  All correct and proper.

Yes, you do have a lot to say fir yourself.  But as you have enlightened us on at least 2 occasions that your posts are worthless, who am I to disagree?

'Now be a good boy .... '  Does it get more childish than this?  I watch a fair few real life programmes about real life police and customs encounters, and most of the people who try this tactic are either drunk or high on drugs.

Give the moderators a break.  Just give up on this one.   (&^&

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 01:58:40 PM
You have a poor sense of smell..sils post I'm afraid on the whole do not appeal to me... I'm a McCann supporter.. Which you don't like... Save your biased views fir someone daft enough to take notice of them
If I could understand what you just wrote I'd consider complying. It's like word bingo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 01:58:57 PM
The difference between us is I feel no need to rack up 30,000 supposedly meaningless posts.

You chose not to submit your 'evidence' to support your proposition.  So be it.  Such is life.

I would still favour Sutton over Davel.

I made a new year resolution at the weekend...let's, see if I can keep it... Have you listened to what Sutton has, said Re this DNA in the car... If you haven't then I don't see how you can support  his conclusions
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 01:59:23 PM
Have you not heard of sorting the wheat from the chaff... That's the real skill

A skill you believe you possess?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 02:01:55 PM
If I could understand what you just wrote I'd consider complying. It's like word bingo.

More ad hom... But who cares... You are exposing your own limitations... Have you seen those puzzles on line where they really mix the letters up and say it's a measure of IQ if you can still read them... I can read them all but I presume you struggle... So again to you... Stop th sniping and get back on topic
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 02:02:44 PM
A skill you believe you possess?

A skill I know I possess and something that you don't seem to have considered
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 02:03:16 PM
So we can't rely on witnesses, statements, media reports or experts. How on earth did anyone manage to decide that the McCanns committed no wrong? Is it just a belief?

"So we can't rely on witnesses, statements, media reports or experts. How on earth did anyone manage to decide that the McCanns committed no wrong?" is a question possibly better addressed to the Attorney General of Portugal who lifted the McCann suspect status from them after due consideration of the evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 02:16:33 PM
If you think my posts are as hom, please feel free to report them as as hom.  I am confident the moderators will deal with reported as hom posts as they see fit.  All correct and proper.

Yes, you do have a lot to say fir yourself.  But as you have enlightened us on at least 2 occasions that your posts are worthless, who am I to disagree?

'Now be a good boy .... '  Does it get more childish than this?  I watch a fair few real life programmes about real life police and customs encounters, and most of the people who try this tactic are either drunk or high on drugs.

Give the moderators a break.  Just give up on this one.   (&^&

I think it's you who needs to give the mods a break...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 02:45:19 PM
Crikey, already over 30,000 posts, and none of them worthwhile, according to your opinion.  I'm sure you have heard the phrase 'The Devil makes work for idle hands'?
If you have something solid to post on this subject, here is your last chance.

Otherwise it is Davel v Sutton.

Sutton wins by a KO.

Don't chance your arm on this one.  I still have my arm to lose..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 02:59:52 PM
Don't chance your arm on this one.  I still have my arm to lose..

And I'll tell you what.  I'll be riding shot gun, underneath the hot Sun, feeling like someone.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 03:08:51 PM
"So we can't rely on witnesses, statements, media reports or experts. How on earth did anyone manage to decide that the McCanns committed no wrong?" is a question possibly better addressed to the Attorney General of Portugal who lifted the McCann suspect status from them after due consideration of the evidence.

The Attorney General's Office announced the archiving, but the decision was made by the public prosecutors;

"The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos"

Their ruminations and conclusions can be found in the files;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The Supreme Court Judges pointed out the problems with that report in 2017.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

The document was by no means as clear cut as was suggested and believed by some.



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 03:14:52 PM
A skill I know I possess and something that you don't seem to have considered

In my opinion you are simply airing your opinions about your 'skills' and about the McCanns.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 03:16:57 PM
The Attorney General's Office announced the archiving, but the decision was made by the public prosecutors;

"The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos"

Their ruminations and conclusions can be found in the files;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The Supreme Court Judges pointed out the problems with that report in 2017.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

The document was by no means as clear cut as was suggested and believed by some.

I think it's extremely clear cut... No evidence... Insufficient evidence... Same difference  ..I expect the, ECHR will explain it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 03:43:45 PM
I think it's extremely clear cut... No evidence... Insufficient evidence... Same difference  ..I expect the, ECHR will explain it

If they acceot the case and if that question needs to be addressed I expect they will.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 03:45:59 PM
In my opinion you are simply airing your opinions about your 'skills' and about the McCanns.
And IMO I'm stating facts...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 04:08:10 PM
In my opinion you are simply airing your opinions about your 'skills' and about the McCanns.
I

It is so often difficult to do this.  I try not to do so.  But then I don't give much of a poop  of what any of you think of me.

I'll  tell you what.  Brietta and Rob and I do our best  under very limited circumstances.  None of us have the last word.

Talk to The Hand if you think that you are being badly treated.  But then so many of you do. 

What a bunch of wimps so many of you are.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 04:43:47 PM
I

It is so often difficult to do this.  I try not to do so.  But then I don't give much of a poop  of what any of you think of me.

I'll  tell you what.  Brietta and Rob and I do our best  under very limited circumstances.  None of us have the last word.

Talk to The Hand if you think that you are being badly treated.  But then so many of you do. 

What a bunch of wimps so many of you are.
Fair one.
I think the title of the thread almost invited a further driving of the wedge between two steadfast factions.
Maybe we all need a cyber hug and get on with it.....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 04:51:14 PM
Fair one.
I think the title of the thread almost invited a further driving of the wedge between two steadfast factions.
Maybe we all need a cyber hug and get on with it.....
Agreed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 05:01:26 PM
Fair one.
I think the title of the thread almost invited a further driving of the wedge between two steadfast factions.
Maybe we all need a cyber hug and get on with it.....

I think the title of the thread gave the opportunity for sceptics to explain why they are sceptics and give a concise analysis of their beliefs to enable folk like me to understand what they are on about.

Particularly if I can remember that far back without checking the OP ... in particular the attitude towards the present investigation here and in Portugal on behalf of Madeleine.

Seems there is a case to be made that sceptics may be few on the ground if there are any at all and huge objection to the suggestion there are 'beliefs'.

So I disagree regarding the thread.  I think it was an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding which has been rejected.  But there have been interesting snippets nonetheless.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 05:10:01 PM

I'm struggling to see any connection between G-Units post & your reply.

Have you been drinking?

Oh God, not that old chestnut.  I struggle to see any point to your comments at all, ever.
 
Have I been drinking?  Of course i have.  How else do you think I cope with your vomit inducing remarks.  You aren't even clever.  I mostly ignore you.  But don't take me on Sweet Cheeks.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 24, 2019, 05:16:07 PM
I think the title of the thread gave the opportunity for sceptics to explain why they are sceptics and give a concise analysis of their beliefs to enable folk like me to understand what they are on about.

Particularly if I can remember that far back without checking the OP ... in particular the attitude towards the present investigation here and in Portugal on behalf of Madeleine.

Seems there is a case to be made that sceptics may be few on the ground if there are any at all and huge objection to the suggestion there are 'beliefs'.

So I disagree regarding the thread.  I think it was an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding which has been rejected.  But there have been interesting snippets nonetheless.

Thank you Brietta.
You have explaned exactly my motive for starting this thread.
From time to time I do wonder what keeps sceptics so committed to their variety of beliefs in parental complicity in Madeleine's disappearance.
So much of their commitment  to their belief in complicity seems to depend on concerns which do not as yet seem to have aroused the same suspicions in both current police investigations.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 05:16:41 PM
I think the title of the thread gave the opportunity for sceptics to explain why they are sceptics and give a concise analysis of their beliefs to enable folk like me to understand what they are on about.

Particularly if I can remember that far back without checking the OP ... in particular the attitude towards the present investigation here and in Portugal on behalf of Madeleine.

Seems there is a case to be made that sceptics may be few on the ground if there are any at all and huge objection to the suggestion there are 'beliefs'.

So I disagree regarding the thread.  I think it was an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding which has been rejected.  But there have been interesting snippets nonetheless.
From what I can distill down from it, there is this view of a stereotypical sceptic who all believe all of the same facets and are equally vociferous and immovable, like the Borg, assimilated and speaking in unison.
It really isn't like that at all. From what I see there are diverging views on various aspects even amongst us sceptics.
It's a bit harsh to suggest that 'we' have 'rejected' an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding  - I think if you read back you will find that we were badgered incessantly from the get go as soon as we opened up. I personally faced the indignation of a public text-flogging for revealing one of the reasons that made me sceptical - so we're invited in, then hoofed around like an abductee in a Moldovan shipping container. (That's a joke, please delete as usual)
But I'm stupid enough and old enough to get on with it, but I'm glad you found the exercise useful.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 05:17:06 PM
Fair one.
I think the title of the thread almost invited a further driving of the wedge between two steadfast factions.
Maybe we all need a cyber hug and get on with it.....

Yar, that could be okay..But don't hold hold your breath.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 05:20:35 PM
In my opinion you are simply airing your opinions about your 'skills' and about the McCanns.

I think you continually underestimate the value of opinions based on evidence... Without them there would be no justice system
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 05:22:52 PM
Thank you Brietta.
You have explaned exactly my motive for starting this thread.
From time to time I do wonder what keeps sceptics so committed to their variety of beliefs in parental complicity in Madeleine's disappearance.
So much of their commitment  to their belief in complicity seems to depend on concerns which do not as yet seem to have aroused the same suspicions in both current police investigations.
Conversely, I see 'believers' in the same way I perceive religious people - despite none of the 'evidence' making sense, and all of the senses screaming the opposite, they blindly and blithely dismiss anything contrary to their belief system out of hand. And I'll hazard a guess that the majority of believers also believe in the benevolent, judgmental sky fairy.
All my humble / biased / skewed / ill-informed / self-aggrandising  / egotistical opinion of course, but read it quick as it will be deleted as per usual.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 05:25:17 PM
Yar, that could be okay..But don't hold hold your breath.
We're here for a good time, not a long time.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 05:31:42 PM
Conversely, I see 'believers' in the same way I perceive religious people - despite none of the 'evidence' making sense, and all of the senses screaming the opposite, they blindly and blithely dismiss anything contrary to their belief system out of hand. And I'll hazard a guess that the majority of believers also believe in the benevolent, judgmental sky fairy.
All my humble / biased / skewed / ill-informed / self-aggrandising  / egotistical opinion of course, but read it quick as it will be deleted as per usual.

I see sceptics as those that don't understand  the evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 24, 2019, 05:41:00 PM
I see sceptics as those that don't understand  the evidence

I think the problem is that us sceptics are so overwhelmed by the sheer weight & volume of abduction evidence that it's impossible for us to comprehend it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 05:41:32 PM
I see sceptics as those that don't understand  the evidence
Yeh, I see that now. I've got no problem with it whatsoever. Simply can't be arsed arguing on the internet about the minutiae of the scent glands per square inch on a Beagle's nose, or the latch mechanism on a bespoke, wooden slatted garden gate circa 2005.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 05:46:40 PM
Yeh, I see that now. I've got no problem with it whatsoever. Simply can't be arsed arguing on the internet about the minutiae of the scent glands per square inch on a Beagle's nose, or the latch mechanism on a bespoke, wooden slatted garden gate circa 2005.

There's no need to... No evidential value or reliability is all that needs to be understood
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2019, 05:52:31 PM
Conversely, I see 'believers' in the same way I perceive religious people - despite none of the 'evidence' making sense, and all of the senses screaming the opposite, they blindly and blithely dismiss anything contrary to their belief system out of hand. And I'll hazard a guess that the majority of believers also believe in the benevolent, judgmental sky fairy.
All my humble / biased / skewed / ill-informed / self-aggrandising  / egotistical opinion of course, but read it quick as it will be deleted as per usual.

For why would I want to Delete that pile of rubbish?  RUBBJSH?  Rubbish speaks. for itself does iy not.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 06:04:36 PM
From what I can distill down from it, there is this view of a stereotypical sceptic who all believe all of the same facets and are equally vociferous and immovable, like the Borg, assimilated and speaking in unison.
It really isn't like that at all. From what I see there are diverging views on various aspects even amongst us sceptics.
It's a bit harsh to suggest that 'we' have 'rejected' an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding  - I think if you read back you will find that we were badgered incessantly from the get go as soon as we opened up. I personally faced the indignation of a public text-flogging for revealing one of the reasons that made me sceptical - so we're invited in, then hoofed around like an abductee in a Moldovan shipping container. (That's a joke, please delete as usual)
But I'm stupid enough and old enough to get on with it, but I'm glad you found the exercise useful.

I find the thread informative as opposed to ‘useful’ insofar as it has informed my already existing prejudices.

What exactly are the ‘diverging views’ you think?                                                                                           
In my time I seem to recall ‘clones’ being quietly dropped by some and ‘diplomatic bags containing a corpse’ being relegated to the vaults by others.

Haven’t heard too much about the fridge of late … so does the divergence of opinion concern the cremation theory 2017 – the death on Sunday or whenever – surely there can’t be a falling out of favour or divergence of the dogs?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 24, 2019, 06:07:35 PM
Conversely, I see 'believers' in the same way I perceive religious people - despite none of the 'evidence' making sense, and all of the senses screaming the opposite, they blindly and blithely dismiss anything contrary to their belief system out of hand. And I'll hazard a guess that the majority of believers also believe in the benevolent, judgmental sky fairy.
All my humble / biased / skewed / ill-informed / self-aggrandising  / egotistical opinion of course, but read it quick as it will be deleted as per usual.

However, as of yet, and until now, and until some time at a later date, both current police investigations must also be "blindly and blithely dismissing anything contrary to their belief system out of hand"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 06:13:41 PM
Conversely, I see 'believers' in the same way I perceive religious people - despite none of the 'evidence' making sense, and all of the senses screaming the opposite, they blindly and blithely dismiss anything contrary to their belief system out of hand. And I'll hazard a guess that the majority of believers also believe in the benevolent, judgmental sky fairy.
All my humble / biased / skewed / ill-informed / self-aggrandising  / egotistical opinion of course, but read it quick as it will be deleted as per usual.

Do you include the Judicial police – the Public Prosecutors – the Attorney General of Portugal in that list?  These were instrumental in lifting the arguido status from Madeleine’s parents.  Where did they go wrong?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 06:16:49 PM
For why would I want to Delete that pile of rubbish?  RUBBJSH?  Rubbish speaks. for itself does iy not.
OK. Thanks.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 06:27:02 PM
Do you include the Judicial police – the Public Prosecutors – the Attorney General of Portugal in that list?  These were instrumental in lifting the arguido status from Madeleine’s parents.  Where did they go wrong?
No.
The onus probandi rests with the assertion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 06:33:37 PM
I find the thread informative as opposed to ‘useful’ insofar as it has informed my already existing prejudices.

What exactly are the ‘diverging views’ you think?                                                                                           
In my time I seem to recall ‘clones’ being quietly dropped by some and ‘diplomatic bags containing a corpse’ being relegated to the vaults by others.

Haven’t heard too much about the fridge of late … so does the divergence of opinion concern the cremation theory 2017 – the death on Sunday or whenever – surely there can’t be a falling out of favour or divergence of the dogs?
You've sort of proved the point - there's plenty of sceptics who thought the fridge thing was farcical.
There's plenty of sceptics who thought the cremation theory was lunacy.
Clones? Gimme a fricking break.....dya see a pattern emerging here.......

I've said it before, there's a spectrum of belief - some believers think the wee an went looking for her mam, some think she was stolen to order. Some think she was stolen by burglars
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 06:43:32 PM
And good luck to him. Money made honestly by writing a best selling book.....or certainly when compared to raiding the fund to find  your child to pay for your mortgage.
Yawn.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 06:49:10 PM
I can almost smell your disdain through the laptop and it's a little desperate.
I suppose the difference is reach. SIL's diversity of blog posts ensures 'real world' interest which appeals to many people.
Really?  How do you know how appealing SIL’s blog is?  Have you read it?  It’s rather strange IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2019, 06:50:53 PM
From what I can distill down from it, there is this view of a stereotypical sceptic who all believe all of the same facets and are equally vociferous and immovable, like the Borg, assimilated and speaking in unison.
It really isn't like that at all. From what I see there are diverging views on various aspects even amongst us sceptics.
It's a bit harsh to suggest that 'we' have 'rejected' an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding  - I think if you read back you will find that we were badgered incessantly from the get go as soon as we opened up. I personally faced the indignation of a public text-flogging for revealing one of the reasons that made me sceptical - so we're invited in, then hoofed around like an abductee in a Moldovan shipping container. (That's a joke, please delete as usual)
But I'm stupid enough and old enough to get on with it, but I'm glad you found the exercise useful.

Very well put.  8@??)(
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 06:53:49 PM
Conversely, I see 'believers' in the same way I perceive religious people - despite none of the 'evidence' making sense, and all of the senses screaming the opposite, they blindly and blithely dismiss anything contrary to their belief system out of hand. And I'll hazard a guess that the majority of believers also believe in the benevolent, judgmental sky fairy.
All my humble / biased / skewed / ill-informed / self-aggrandising  / egotistical opinion of course, but read it quick as it will be deleted as per usual.
@)(++(*. This is exactly how I see sceptics, particularly  dog worshippers .  Funny old world innit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 06:54:48 PM
I think the problem is that us sceptics are so overwhelmed by the sheer weight & volume of abduction evidence that it's impossible for us to comprehend it.
I think you’ve actually hit on something here, perhaps without realising it...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 06:58:34 PM
You've sort of proved the point - there's plenty of sceptics who thought the fridge thing was farcical.
There's plenty of sceptics who thought the cremation theory was lunacy.
Clones? Gimme a fricking break.....dya see a pattern emerging here.......

I've said it before, there's a spectrum of belief - some believers think the wee an went looking for her mam, some think she was stolen to order. Some think she was stolen by burglars
The thing is when challenged in an arena such as this about the fridge theory or the cremation theory, the sceptics on here don’t pipe up and agree that they are absurd, most remain silent but some actually suggest instead that anything is possible and insist nothing must be dismissed out of hand, particularly if the suggestions first originated from the esteemed Amaral.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 24, 2019, 06:58:45 PM
You've sort of proved the point - there's plenty of sceptics who thought the fridge thing was farcical.
There's plenty of sceptics who thought the cremation theory was lunacy.
Clones? Gimme a fricking break.....dya see a pattern emerging here.......

I've said it before, there's a spectrum of belief - some believers think the wee an went looking for her mam, some think she was stolen to order. Some think she was stolen by burglars

And none of those beliefs include parental complicity.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 06:59:37 PM
Very well put.  8@??)(
You are kidding aren’t you?  Cremation theory and fridge theory are absurd are they?  Are you owning up to that now?   &%%6
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 24, 2019, 07:06:46 PM
A skill I know I possess and something that you don't seem to have considered
That is an opinion not a statement of fact.  Keep to the rules.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 07:12:06 PM
The thing is when challenged in an arena such as this about the fridge theory or the cremation theory, the sceptics on here don’t pipe up and agree that they are absurd, most remain silent but some actually suggest instead that anything is possible and insist nothing must be dismissed out of hand, particularly if the suggestions first originated from the esteemed Amaral.
Note me, kid. I don't need incessant goading to get me to admit my stance.
I'll even admit that some of the utterly insane theories are tarnishing the rational 'sceptic'. (yes, that's a concept, a rational sceptic)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 24, 2019, 07:22:18 PM
Note me, kid. I don't need incessant goading to get me to admit my stance.
I'll even admit that some of the utterly insane theories are tarnishing the rational 'sceptic'. (yes, that's a concept, a rational sceptic)
as in rusty?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 07:27:49 PM
That is an opinion not a statement of fact.  Keep to the rules.

Im stating  what i know....so thats my opinion....I also used the word ...seem....which shows im not stating fact.....you have taken a post out of context where  I was continually goaded.....i am keeping to the rules...others are not
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 24, 2019, 07:31:12 PM
Im stating  what i know....so thats my opinion....I also used the word ...seem....which shows im not stating fact.....you have taken a post out of context where  I was continually goaded.....i am keeping to the rules...others are not
I understand the use of "seem".  The post I deleted was pages back.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 07:32:58 PM
I understand the use of "seem".  The post I deleted was pages back.

im not really interested...afaiac im obeying the rules...unless you can show where im not...it SEEMS you cannot
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 24, 2019, 07:38:17 PM
Really?  How do you know how appealing SIL’s blog is?  Have you read it?  It’s rather strange IMO.
Presumably that confirms you as another reader.   *&(+(+
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 24, 2019, 07:39:34 PM
im not really interested...afaiac im obeying the rules...unless you can show where im not...it SEEMS you cannot
well the post has been deleted and I can't recall the offending words but my comments to the forum was a clue. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 07:41:21 PM
well the post has been deleted and I can't recall the offending words but my comments to the forum was a clue.

as I said ..im not bothered...you cannot recall the offending words..im not bothered...time to move on
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 24, 2019, 07:46:01 PM
Presumably that confirms you as another reader.   *&(+(+

I've also read your blog.
I particularly enjoyed your reference to me. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 24, 2019, 07:50:41 PM
as I said ..im not bothered...you cannot recall the offending words..im not bothered...time to move on
keep to the rules.  "That is an opinion not a statement of fact.  Keep to the rules." is what I said.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2019, 07:52:49 PM
keep to the rules.  "That is an opinion not a statement of fact.  Keep to the rules." is what I said.

I am keeping to the rules..imo...you are wrong...imo...and as you cant remeber the post we cant dispute it...time to move on...you are disrupting the thraed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 24, 2019, 07:55:01 PM
I am keeping to the rules..imo...you are wrong...imo...and as you cant remeber the post we cant dispute it...time to move on...you are disrupting the thraed
OK  moving on ....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 24, 2019, 07:58:12 PM
I've also read your blog.
I particularly enjoyed your reference to me. @)(++(*

Many thanks.

I am still hoping to prise out of you what your Burn's night menu was.  I have another light and frothy thread stacked up for May 2019.  It's all about cooking.  Or hang on, it's about murder.  And mystery.

Such is fun.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 24, 2019, 08:58:15 PM
Thank you Brietta.
You have explaned exactly my motive for starting this thread.
From time to time I do wonder what keeps sceptics so committed to their variety of beliefs in parental complicity in Madeleine's disappearance.
So much of their commitment  to their belief in complicity seems to depend on concerns which do not as yet seem to have aroused the same suspicions in both current police investigations.

Obviously the first one didn't go as planned.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 24, 2019, 08:59:11 PM
Many thanks.

I am still hoping to prise out of you what your Burn's night menu was.  I have another light and frothy thread stacked up for May 2019.  It's all about cooking.  Or hang on, it's about murder.  And mystery.

Such is fun.

Your reference to me wasn't a very flattering one!
However let's move on from that point.

A number of reasons for celebration before another Burns night.
In our family there are a number of non meat eaters and one vegetarian.
So every menu has to be adapted.
Scottish dishes popular at Burns night would include Scotch Broth, Haggis neeps and tatties, Cullen Skink, Steak Pie, Chicken Balmoral, Cranachan...,
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 09:07:54 PM
Note me, kid. I don't need incessant goading to get me to admit my stance.
I'll even admit that some of the utterly insane theories are tarnishing the rational 'sceptic'. (yes, that's a concept, a rational sceptic)
You may be a rational sceptic but I doubt you can put forward a rational theory of parental involvement, taking into account the known facts of the case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 24, 2019, 09:09:28 PM
Presumably that confirms you as another reader.   *&(+(+
Not a regular one, but I’ve seen enough to have formed an opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 24, 2019, 09:13:55 PM
Sandra Felgueras is adamant that Goncalo Amaral lied to her in leaks about the evidence in Madeleine's case.

There was no blood!

What is "honest" about repeating the lies he told journalists in his best selling book?

Did she specifically say Amaral or simply the PJ ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 10:02:14 PM
Did she specifically say Amaral or simply the PJ ?

SANDRA FELGUEIRAS ON THE MADDIE MCCANN DOCUMENTARY  "I'VE BEEN DECEIVED"
The journalist Sandra Felgueiras was this Thursday, March 28, in RTP's 5 To Midnight program, and spoke about the Netflix documentary 'The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'
Snip
"I do not know if the people who did not follow the case like me, who lived that intensely, realized what I meant. I wanted to say something very simple, "she explains, referring to the fact that not only did she reveal that one of her sources was the then inspector of the Judicial Police Gonçalo Amaral but also that he had lied to her.

"A journalist does not reveal his sources. I only needed to talk about Gonçalo Amaral for a concrete and dangerous reason. I was deceived. I was told that the blood sample found in the car and the McCanns' room belonged to Madeleine, "recalls Sandra Felgueiras.

The journalist and face of the research program Sixth at 9 admits further that she feared that the public opinion had a negative impression on her testimony in the documentary of Netflix.

"I was uncomfortable because I thought people would find 'Sandra Felgueiras is an idiot footprint that reveals sources'. No, I'm not an idiot, and second, I do not reveal my sources. But I have a very clear beginning in my head. There is an article in the code of ethics that says that we must tell the truth whenever we feel cheated by a source. And this is what happened".

 Leia mais em: https://www.vip.pt/sandra-felgueiras-sobre-o-documentario-de-maddie-mccann-eu-fui-enganada

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 10:06:51 PM
SANDRA FELGUEIRAS ON THE MADDIE MCCANN DOCUMENTARY  "I'VE BEEN DECEIVED"
The journalist Sandra Felgueiras was this Thursday, March 28, in RTP's 5 To Midnight program, and spoke about the Netflix documentary 'The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'
Snip
"I do not know if the people who did not follow the case like me, who lived that intensely, realized what I meant. I wanted to say something very simple, "she explains, referring to the fact that not only did she reveal that one of her sources was the then inspector of the Judicial Police Gonçalo Amaral but also that he had lied to her.

"A journalist does not reveal his sources. I only needed to talk about Gonçalo Amaral for a concrete and dangerous reason. I was deceived. I was told that the blood sample found in the car and the McCanns' room belonged to Madeleine, "recalls Sandra Felgueiras.

The journalist and face of the research program Sixth at 9 admits further that she feared that the public opinion had a negative impression on her testimony in the documentary of Netflix.

"I was uncomfortable because I thought people would find 'Sandra Felgueiras is an idiot footprint that reveals sources'. No, I'm not an idiot, and second, I do not reveal my sources. But I have a very clear beginning in my head. There is an article in the code of ethics that says that we must tell the truth whenever we feel cheated by a source. And this is what happened".

 Leia mais em: https://www.vip.pt/sandra-felgueiras-sobre-o-documentario-de-maddie-mccann-eu-fui-enganada
.....she continued 'that, plus the large cheque Netflix presented me with for appearing'.*

* disclaimer: Sandra did not say these words, The General did.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 10:12:58 PM
.....she continued 'that, plus the large cheque Netflix presented me with for appearing'.*

* disclaimer: Sandra did not say these words, The General did.

Probably not as much as the large cheque Netflix presented to Amaral ... or is this another occasion when he used publicity only to 'defend his honour' or whatever it is he does with it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 10:20:12 PM
Probably not as much as the large cheque Netflix presented to Amaral ... or is this another occasion when he used publicity only to 'defend his honour' or whatever it is he does with it.
I think they would all of been paid handsomely for their trouble. They're all wringing the life out of it in my opinion - it's turned in to a cottage industry - the rise of the talking head. Sandra may be playing the 'oh woe is me card', but she's playing the same game. They all sign their lives away for the Netflix dollar. They relinquish any editorial control.
It's a sad indictment on society actually. It's one step away from Zane Lowe's Rudetube or 100 Craziest Things on Telly; it's essentially the same genre....some spotty C list tool vocally reviews a clip they've just seen on a telly about an amusing incident involving Anthea Turner and a motocross rider setting fire to her face in 1992.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 24, 2019, 10:25:12 PM
I think they would all of been paid handsomely for their trouble. They're all wringing the life out of it in my opinion - it's turned in to a cottage industry - the rise of the talking head. Sandra may be playing the 'oh woe is me card', but she's playing the same game. They all sign their lives away for the Netflix dollar. They relinquish any editorial control.
It's a sad indictment on society actually.
It clears it up for us too though.  I always thought GA was a liar and now we have the claim of it on video. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 10:35:52 PM
I think they would all of been paid handsomely for their trouble. They're all wringing the life out of it in my opinion - it's turned in to a cottage industry - the rise of the talking head. Sandra may be playing the 'oh woe is me card', but she's playing the same game. They all sign their lives away for the Netflix dollar. They relinquish any editorial control.
It's a sad indictment on society actually. It's one step away from Zane Lowe's Rudetube or 100 Craziest Things on Telly; it's essentially the same genre....some spotty C list tool vocally reviews a clip they've just seen on a telly about an amusing incident involving Anthea Turner and a motocross rider setting fire to her face in 1992.

I'm not complaining about Madeleine being turned into a cottage industry ... you were the one who did that.

My complaint lies in the blatant disregard with which she and her family are sacrificed on the altar of their avarice
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 24, 2019, 10:38:48 PM
I'm not complaining about Madeleine being turned into a cottage industry ... you were the one who did that.

My complaint lies in the blatant disregard with which she and her family are sacrificed on the altar of their avarice
I'm not complaining about anything.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2019, 10:52:42 PM
It clears it up for us too though.  I always thought GA was a liar and now we have the claim of it on video.

It was a lie indicating huge repercussions for the conduct of Madeleine's case.  The police had written her off and used the power of the media to purposefully direct suspicion at her parents.
The missing little girl of 2007 was betrayed by the very people who were supposed to be looking for her.

Snip
The journalist says that she called Gonçalo Amaral and asked him for explanations . "If there is the likelihood of the child being alive , no matter how minimal and insignificant it may be, does not break for the thesis ' parents killed her' and not demand more. This left me deeply angry ," she admitted.

https://www.flash.pt/atualidade/nacional/detalhe/caso-maddie-sandra-felgueiras-arrasa-goncalo-amaral-e-explica-que-a-menina-pode-estar-viva?ref=DET_relacionadas
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 12:24:47 AM
Your reference to me wasn't a very flattering one!
However let's move on from that point.

A number of reasons for celebration before another Burns night.
In our family there are a number of non meat eaters and one vegetarian.
So every menu has to be adapted.
Scottish dishes popular at Burns night would include Scotch Broth, Haggis neeps and tatties, Cullen Skink, Steak Pie, Chicken Balmoral, Cranachan...,

The first 4 I can do. The 5th and 6th I need to look up. 

In the meantime, what is the difference between a a non eat meater and a vegetarian?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 25, 2019, 01:21:14 AM
It was a lie indicating huge repercussions for the conduct of Madeleine's case.  The police had written her off and used the power of the media to purposefully direct suspicion at her parents.
The missing little girl of 2007 was betrayed by the very people who were supposed to be looking for her.

Snip
The journalist says that she called Gonçalo Amaral and asked him for explanations . "If there is the likelihood of the child being alive , no matter how minimal and insignificant it may be, does not break for the thesis ' parents killed her' and not demand more. This left me deeply angry ," she admitted.

https://www.flash.pt/atualidade/nacional/detalhe/caso-maddie-sandra-felgueiras-arrasa-goncalo-amaral-e-explica-que-a-menina-pode-estar-viva?ref=DET_relacionadas

So deeply angry that she continued to write negative McCann stories as well as conduct negative McCann interviews for years and years after.....right up in fact until the time it was more advantageous, financially, to say she was duped. Odd that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 25, 2019, 06:49:40 AM
It clears it up for us too though.  I always thought GA was a liar and now we have the claim of it on video.
Does that make it true though?Also can it be said that anything new as been unearthed in the last 12 years which wasn't in the first few months of the initial investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 25, 2019, 06:55:03 AM
I'm not complaining about anything.
”it’s a sad indictment on society “ is not a complaint?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 25, 2019, 06:56:39 AM
So deeply angry that she continued to write negative McCann stories as well as conduct negative McCann interviews for years and years after.....right up in fact until the time it was more advantageous, financially, to say she was duped. Odd that.
Why was it more financially advantageous to say she was duped than to back up Amaral to the hilt?  By the way, love the way y’all are impugning her, perhaps she’d be interested in contributing her thoughts to the thread, shall I send her a link?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 25, 2019, 08:19:09 AM
”it’s a sad indictment on society “ is not a complaint?
No.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 25, 2019, 08:32:54 AM
No.
If a complaint is a statement that something is unacceptable or unsatisfactory I would suggest “it’s a sad indictment on society” falls under the heading of “complaint”.  IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:38:24 AM
Does that make it true though?Also can it be said that anything new as been unearthed in the last 12 years which wasn't in the first few months of the initial investigation.
Yes.  If someone complains of being lied to, that generally becomes a fact.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:42:57 AM
Why was it more financially advantageous to say she was duped than to back up Amaral to the hilt?  By the way, love the way y’all are impugning her, perhaps she’d be interested in contributing her thoughts to the thread, shall I send her a link?
Yes please do.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 25, 2019, 08:45:37 AM
Yes please do.
OK, make sure you authorise her membership if and when she signs up.  This should be interesting....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:47:22 AM
OK, make sure you authorise her membership if and when she signs up.  This should be interesting....
That is not one of my roles sorry.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 25, 2019, 08:48:23 AM
That is not one of my roles sorry.
Oh, well John can decide if he wants someone who has been libelled joining the board then. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 25, 2019, 08:53:29 AM
If a complaint is a statement that something is unacceptable or unsatisfactory I would suggest “it’s a sad indictment on society” falls under the heading of “complaint”.  IMO.
No.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:55:11 AM
Oh, well John can decide if he wants someone who has been libelled joining the board then.
I doubt if anything said on this forum would worry her. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2019, 10:21:28 AM
So deeply angry that she continued to write negative McCann stories as well as conduct negative McCann interviews for years and years after.....right up in fact until the time it was more advantageous, financially, to say she was duped. Odd that.

The point made is that the catalyst for much of the 'sceptic beliefs' with which we are familiar from social media is the senior investigating officer in Madeleine's case Goncalo Amaral.

He is now publicly accused by a reputable journalist of leaking lies to her which she then released into the public arena where they have stayed ever since.
Those lies were to the detriment of the parents of the missing child he was tasked with looking for, Madeleine.  The journalist realised when the truth became known from the released files that his actions were detrimental to the missing child ... because there was no foundation to his thesis which he had promoted using leaks to the media, herself in particular, when there was absolutely nothing to indicate that Madeleine was dead except Amaral's thesis.

If you don't see how huge and how wrong that is ... I cannot help you.  If you can't see the implications for writing off a missing child and throwing her to the wolves ...  I cannot help you there either.
Sceptic belief is built on such foundations of sand as this ... I am intrigued as to how it has been sustained for over twelve years.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 10:28:44 AM
The point made is that the catalyst for much of the 'sceptic beliefs' with which we are familiar from social media is the senior investigating officer in Madeleine's case Goncalo Amaral.

He is now publicly accused by a reputable journalist of leaking lies to her which she then released into the public arena where they have stayed ever since.
Those lies were to the detriment of the parents of the missing child he was tasked with looking for, Madeleine.  The journalist realised when the truth became known from the released files that his actions were detrimental to the missing child ... because there was no foundation to his thesis which he had promoted using leaks to the media, herself in particular, when there was absolutely nothing to indicate that Madeleine was dead except Amaral's thesis.

If you don't see how huge and how wrong that is ... I cannot help you.  If you can't see the implications for writing off a missing child and throwing her to the wolves ...  I cannot help you there either.
Sceptic belief is built on such foundations of sand as this ... I am intrigued as to how it has been sustained for over twelve years.
The point being made is that Sandra has had ample time and  opportunity to recant her belief, but has only recently chosen to do so.

Nowt to do with sceptic beliefs when you think it through.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 25, 2019, 10:48:47 AM
The point being made is that Sandra has had ample time and  opportunity to recant her belief, but has only recently chosen to do so.

Nowt to do with sceptic beliefs when you think it through.

Exactly....mercurial lot these supporters.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2019, 11:06:54 AM
Exactly....mercurial lot these supporters.

I don't understand why they seem to have such a burning desire to silence or discredit those who disagree with them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 25, 2019, 11:34:03 AM
No.
A matter of opinion or a fact?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 25, 2019, 11:35:14 AM
I doubt if anything said on this forum would worry her.
She’s being accused of saying whatever Netflix want her to say in exchange for cash, do you think that’s a fair comment.?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 11:48:33 AM
She’s being accused of saying whatever Netflix want her to say in exchange for cash, do you think that’s a fair comment.?
Well she can tell us what actually happened.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 12:13:19 PM
The point being made is that Sandra has had ample time and  opportunity to recant her belief, but has only recently chosen to do so.

Nowt to do with sceptic beliefs when you think it through.

I don't think that makes, any difference to the content if her claim which is pretty damning for amaral
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2019, 12:40:30 PM
The point being made is that Sandra has had ample time and  opportunity to recant her belief, but has only recently chosen to do so.

Nowt to do with sceptic beliefs when you think it through.

Sandra Felgueiras was a journalist releasing false information leaked to her by Goncalo Amaral the senior investigating officer in the case of a missing child.

She trusted her source.

The information she was given was false and designed to denigrate and cast suspicion on the parents of the child and by asserting the child was dead in effect shutting down the investigation into what had happened to her.

I think you are singularly failing to grasp the implications of that and the damage caused to Madeleine, her family and the case by the lies assiduously spread by Amaral's investigators leaking to the media throughout the early days of the investigation.

You are certainly failing to note the substance of sceptic belief spawned at that time and nurtured throughout the twelve years since if the tone of your posts is anything to go by.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 12:54:05 PM
Sandra Felgueiras was a journalist releasing false information leaked to her by Goncalo Amaral the senior investigating officer in the case of a missing child.

She trusted her source.

The information she was given was false and designed to denigrate and cast suspicion on the parents of the child and by asserting the child was dead in effect shutting down the investigation into what had happened to her.

I think you are singularly failing to grasp the implications of that and the damage caused to Madeleine, her family and the case by the lies assiduously spread by Amaral's investigators leaking to the media throughout the early days of the investigation.

You are certainly failing to note the substance of sceptic belief spawned at that time and nurtured throughout the twelve years since if the tone of your posts is anything to go by.

As I am not failing to realise anything, perhaps you could tone your posts down.  It would be much appreciated.

'singularly failing to grasp the implications of that and the damage caused to Madeleine'?  What a pile of nonsense!  If you know what happened to Madeleine, get in touch with OG and Porto.

But you haven't a clue, do you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2019, 01:09:25 PM
Sandra Felgueiras was a journalist releasing false information leaked to her by Goncalo Amaral the senior investigating officer in the case of a missing child.

She trusted her source.

The information she was given was false and designed to denigrate and cast suspicion on the parents of the child and by asserting the child was dead in effect shutting down the investigation into what had happened to her.

I think you are singularly failing to grasp the implications of that and the damage caused to Madeleine, her family and the case by the lies assiduously spread by Amaral's investigators leaking to the media throughout the early days of the investigation.

You are certainly failing to note the substance of sceptic belief spawned at that time and nurtured throughout the twelve years since if the tone of your posts is anything to go by.

You recently lamented what, in your opinion, was a rejected opportunity for sceptics to enlighten people. Allow ne to try once agan. There are many sceptics in my opinion who had begun to wonder about the McCanns long before any of the alleged leaks by Amaral and/or his colleagues.

The problem, imo, isn't that sceptices have failed to share, but that supporters have refused to accept what they have said. What appears to be your unshakeable belief that without Amaral there would be no sceptics is completely wrong in my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2019, 01:10:38 PM
As I am not failing to realise anything, perhaps you could tone your posts down.  It would be much appreciated.

'singularly failing to grasp the implications of that and the damage caused to Madeleine'?  What a pile of nonsense!  If you know what happened to Madeleine, get in touch with OG and Porto.

But you haven't a clue, do you?

In your previous post you shot the messenger while totally ignoring the culprit who leaked the tainted information in the first instance.
Which I think suggests you fail to recognise the implications of what Amaral did and did not do and I think your post above reinforces that opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2019, 01:19:53 PM
You recently lamented what, in your opinion, was a rejected opportunity for sceptics to enlighten people. Allow ne to try once agan. There are many sceptics in my opinion who had begun to wonder about the McCanns long before any of the alleged leaks by Amaral and/or his colleagues.

The problem, imo, isn't that sceptices have failed to share, but that supporters have refused to accept what they have said. What appears to be your unshakeable belief that without Amaral there would be no sceptics is completely wrong in my opinion.

I find it remarkable that without any source other than the media in which the police started leaking as early as a day after Madeleine disappeared ..."A badly told story" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm sceptics were able to 'wonder about the McCanns'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 01:24:37 PM
In your previous post you shot the messenger while totally ignoring the culprit who leaked the tainted information in the first instance.
Which I think suggests you fail to recognise the implications of what Amaral did and did not do and I think your post above reinforces that opinion.

If I shot the messenger, I should be on warning points for a serious breach of forum rules, should I not?

Here's a little puzzle for you.

Next door, our neighbours have a big dog called Paulo.  And a one-eyed cat called Millieux.  Both wander on to our property regularly, for different reasons.

I am not afraid of either one.

But which one concerns me the most?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 25, 2019, 01:30:59 PM
I find it remarkable that without any source other than the media in which the police started leaking as early as a day after Madeleine disappeared ..."A badly told story" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm sceptics were able to 'wonder about the McCanns'.

I was immediately sceptical about the story, & my suspicion was further enhanced by the McCanns May 4th statement, before I heard or read anything leaked about them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 01:31:58 PM
If I shot the messenger, I should be on warning points for a serious breach of forum rules, should I not?

Here's a little puzzle for you.

Next door, our neighbours have a big dog called Paulo.  And a one-eyed cat called Millieux.  Both wander on to our property regularly, for different reasons.

I am not afraid of either one.

But which one concerns me the most?

I doubt anyone gives a monkeys TBH
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 25, 2019, 01:47:58 PM
I doubt anyone gives a monkeys TBH
I'm intrigued, and I just canvassed 6 other people and they are equally eager to here more. Please do tell SiL.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2019, 01:52:10 PM
I find it remarkable that without any source other than the media in which the police started leaking as early as a day after Madeleine disappeared ..."A badly told story" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm sceptics were able to 'wonder about the McCanns'.

I find it remarkable how the McCann's relatives anf friends couldn't wait to tell the media all anout it the folloeing morning.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2019, 02:03:49 PM
If I shot the messenger, I should be on warning points for a serious breach of forum rules, should I not?

Here's a little puzzle for you.

Next door, our neighbours have a big dog called Paulo.  And a one-eyed cat called Millieux.  Both wander on to our property regularly, for different reasons.

I am not afraid of either one.

But which one concerns me the most?

How would I know which if either concerned you at all?  I do not have sufficient information.

I am familiar with your posts and style and consider myself well able to form an opinion or opinions on that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2019, 02:05:39 PM
I find it remarkable how the McCann's relatives anf friends couldn't wait to tell the media all anout it the folloeing morning.

Which in particular sticks in your mind?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 02:08:10 PM
I'm intrigued, and I just canvassed 6 other people and they are equally eager to here more. Please do tell SiL.
The dog, Paulo, is a big dog and he barks ferociously.  He acts as as guard dog for our neighbours.  He is kept on a chain, until he escapes his leash and comes to explore our property.  In reality, he is as soft as putty.

The one-eyed cat also likes visiting our property.  I am more worried about her.  My dog and the one-eyed cat had a face off the other day.  I was worried about our dog, cos I reckon the one-eyed cat would have won any fight.

I got in front of my dog.  I shoo'd the cat off.  The dog hid behind my legs.

Good result.  No animals got hurt in the 'making' of this true story.  Just a good day all round!














Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 25, 2019, 02:13:19 PM
You recently lamented what, in your opinion, was a rejected opportunity for sceptics to enlighten people. Allow ne to try once agan. There are many sceptics in my opinion who had begun to wonder about the McCanns long before any of the alleged leaks by Amaral and/or his colleagues.

The problem, imo, isn't that sceptics have failed to share, but that supporters have refused to accept what they have said. What appears to be your unshakeable belief that without Amaral there would be no sceptics is completely wrong in my opinion.

Couldn't agree more, I suspected the McCanns, but had no idea who Amaral was until reading about him in a newspaper story of the book trial, roughly 2013, prior to me joining this forum.

If the McCann's hadn't pursued him in the courts, I may never have heard of him at all.

There's a quote by GA somewhere, but I can't find it, it was something along the lines of 'if they really are looking for their missing daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her.'

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 02:19:18 PM
How would I know which if either concerned you at all?  I do not have sufficient information.

I am familiar with your posts and style and consider myself well able to form an opinion or opinions on that.

Don't fret yourself about that.  You have made it abundantly clear on many occasions.

Unfortunately, you are wrong.  I'd guess not for the first time in your life.  Unless you claim to be Buddha?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2019, 02:22:58 PM
You recently lamented what, in your opinion, was a rejected opportunity for sceptics to enlighten people. Allow ne to try once agan. There are many sceptics in my opinion who had begun to wonder about the McCanns long before any of the alleged leaks by Amaral and/or his colleagues.

The problem, imo, isn't that sceptices have failed to share, but that supporters have refused to accept what they have said. What appears to be your unshakeable belief that without Amaral there would be no sceptics is completely wrong in my opinion.

Thinking about your second paragraph certainly does raise some questions.  If the Portuguese had not allowed him to take up the investigation ... because he had been made an arguido in a torture case involving the mother of another missing child ... might the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance have taken an entirely different direction?

It is a tantalising thought.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 25, 2019, 02:25:44 PM
Thinking about your second paragraph certainly does raise some questions.  If the Portuguese had not allowed him to take up the investigation ... because he had been made an arguido in a torture case involving the mother of another missing child ... might the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance have taken an entirely different direction?

It is a tantalising thought.

Who knows, maybe the McCanns would have been suspected & investigated from the outset, as oppose to several weeks later.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2019, 02:34:41 PM
Who knows, maybe the McCanns would have been suspected & investigated from the outset, as oppose to several weeks later.

Actually ... they did.

JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA
Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends. Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped. To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2019, 02:39:48 PM
Thinking about your second paragraph certainly does raise some questions.  If the Portuguese had not allowed him to take up the investigation ... because he had been made an arguido in a torture case involving the mother of another missing child ... might the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance have taken an entirely different direction?

It is a tantalising thought.

Tantalise yourself no more. The investigation was directed by Encarnacao, Neves and the prosecutor. According to Sumers ans Swan the 'badly told story' remark was made by Encarnacao.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 03:11:02 PM
Tantalise yourself no more. The investigation was directed by Encarnacao, Neves and the prosecutor. According to Sumers ans Swan the 'badly told story' remark was made by Encarnacao.

Do you have a cite for that... According to a reporter for Journal De Noticas Encarnaceo.. made the statement off the record..S and S simply reported what the reporter said

The Journal is the equivalent  of our Sun... As I understand
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2019, 06:20:51 PM
Do you have a cite for that... According to a reporter for Journal De Noticas Encarnaceo.. made the statement off the record..S and S simply reported what the reporter said

The Journal is the equivalent  of our Sun... As I understand

No, I haven't actually. Maybe they didn't say it. Are you referring to O Diário de Noticias? I thought it was more like The Times than The Sun. Does Portugal have an equivalent to The Sun?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 06:41:32 PM
No, I haven't actually. Maybe they didn't say it. Are you referring to O Diário de Noticias? I thought it was more like The Times than The Sun. Does Portugal have an equivalent to The Sun?

24 Horus
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 06:54:21 PM
24 Horus
Could you put "24 Hours" in context within a sentence please?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 06:58:40 PM
Could you put "24 Hours" in context within a sentence please?

Im answerring the question if you read the post...and my answer is 24 Horus....not 24 hours
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 07:12:16 PM
Im answerring the question if you read the post...and my answer is 24 Horus....not 24 hours
You could still put it in a sentence.  "24 Horus"  do you think that translates to "24 Hours"?

the correct spelling is "24 Horas" which translates into English as "24 Hours"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 07:15:30 PM
You could still put it in a sentence.  "24 Horus"  do you think that translates to "24 Hours"?

no i dont think it translates as anything...and i dont think it needs to be in a sentence...  it is my post and i dont see its breaking any rules.....lets see if anyone else understands it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 07:17:29 PM
no i dont think it translates as anything...and i dont think it needs to be in a sentence...  it is my post and i dont see its breaking any rules.....lets see if anyone else understands it
the correct spelling is "24 Horas" which translates into English as "24 Hours"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 07:18:50 PM
24 Horus
Cite please.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 07:19:07 PM
the correct spelling is "24 Horas" which translates into English as "24 Hours"

I already know that....Ive answerred the question as 24 Horus...some might understand why
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 07:20:03 PM
Cite please.

have you ever heard of Horus
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 07:23:35 PM
I already know that....Ive answerred the question as 24 Horus...some might understand why
Why deliberately spell Horas incorrectly?  I'm sure being deliberately wrong is against the rules.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 25, 2019, 07:24:53 PM
have you ever heard of Horus
Falcon?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 07:25:12 PM
have you ever heard of Horus
Horus was often the ancient Egyptians' national tutelary deity. He was usually depicted as a falcon-headed man wearing the pschent, or a red and white crown, as a symbol of kingship over the entire kingdom of Egypt.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 07:28:04 PM
Horus was often the ancient Egyptians' national tutelary deity. He was usually depicted as a falcon-headed man wearing the pschent, or a red and white crown, as a symbol of kingship over the entire kingdom of Egypt.


Horus. Horus, Egyptian Hor, Har, Her, or Heru, in ancient Egyptian religion, a god in the form of a falcon whose right eye was the sun or morning star...

Horas ...Horus....its  aplay on words...teh Suns equivalent is 24 Horus...as opposed to horas
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 25, 2019, 07:30:41 PM

Horus. Horus, Egyptian Hor, Har, Her, or Heru, in ancient Egyptian religion, a god in the form of a falcon whose right eye was the sun or morning star...

Horas ...Horus....its  aplay on words...teh Suns equivalent is 24 Horus...as opposed to horas
Kinell, that was like a clue on 3 2 1
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 07:31:48 PM
Kinell, that was like a clue on 3 2 1

Rob did rather spoil it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 25, 2019, 07:32:27 PM
Could you put "24 Hours" in context within a sentence please?

I am only 24 Horus from Tulsa.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 07:33:23 PM

Horus. Horus, Egyptian Hor, Har, Her, or Heru, in ancient Egyptian religion, a god in the form of a falcon whose right eye was the sun or morning star...

Horas ...Horus....its  aplay on words...teh Suns equivalent is 24 Horus...as opposed to horas
You are making that up, presenting opinion as facts.  You explain why you say "Horas ...Horus....its  a play on words...the Suns equivalent is 24 Horus...as opposed to horas".
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 07:34:53 PM
I am only 24 Horus from Tulsa.
Do you have a Micky Mouse watch too?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 07:35:15 PM
You are making that up, presenting opinion as facts.  You explain why you say "Horas ...Horus....its  a play on words...the Suns equivalent is 24 Horus...as opposed to horas".

are you accusing me of lying.....im making nothing up...and its rather a clever play on words..dont accuse me of lying
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 07:56:58 PM
are you accusing me of lying.....im making nothing up...and its rather a clever play on words..dont accuse me of lying
All I originally asked for was an explanation of "24 Horus".
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:01:42 PM
All I originally asked for was an explanation of "24 Horus".

you didnt...you asked me to put it in a sentence...I made a clever play on words....its a riddle for others to work out
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:03:00 PM
you didnt...you asked me to put it in a sentence...I made a clever play on words....its a riddle for others to work out
Maybe that is the explanation I needed. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 08:04:43 PM
are you accusing me of lying.....im making nothing up...and its rather a clever play on words..dont accuse me of lying

Don't worry.  It's just another instance where you get to sink with the ship.

Assuming you have the decency to fall on your own sword, of course.

I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:04:58 PM
Maybe that is the explanation I needed.

you have no right to say I made things up....i think its obvious to most I didnt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:05:47 PM
are you accusing me of lying.....im making nothing up...and its rather a clever play on words..dont accuse me of lying
Well the science is all wrong for a starter.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:06:08 PM
Don't worry.  It's just another instance where you get to sink with the ship.

Assuming you have the decency to fall on your own sword, of course.

I'm not holding my breath.

so now you are questioning my decency...id far prefer if you would hold your breath
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:07:27 PM
Well the science is all wrong for a starter.

do you really want to carry on making an issue out of a non issue...its becoming obvious you are harrassing me...thats aaginst forum rules
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:09:09 PM
you have no right to say I made things up....i think its obvious to most I didnt
You are making that up again.  Presenting opinion as fact.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 08:10:32 PM
so now you are questioning my decency...id far prefer if you would hold your breath

Nope.  I am not questioning your decency.  The topic on the table is far more important than that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:11:59 PM
You are making that up, presenting opinion as facts.  You explain why you say "Horas ...Horus....its  a play on words...the Suns equivalent is 24 Horus...as opposed to horas".

thats you presenting your opinion as afact...give the harrassment up rob
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:13:16 PM
Nope.  I am not questioning your decency.  The topic on the table is far more important than that.

I dont see any particular topic on the table apart from what youve eaten today...or what your cat did
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:14:12 PM
do you really want to carry on making an issue out of a non issue...its becoming obvious you are harrassing me...thats aaginst forum rules
How can you claim it is a play on words when a high percentage of words in your posts are incorrect spelling of basic English words.
You could have explained that from the start.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:17:53 PM
thats you presenting your opinion as afact...give the harrassment up rob
It is the role of the moderators to assess whether posters are presenting opinion as fact.  I'm not harassing you.  I just wanted you to use "24 Horus" in a sentence, to understand what you were saying to the forum.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:18:30 PM
How can you claim it is a play on words when a high percentage of words in your posts are incorrect spelling of basic English words.
You could have explained that from the start.

I dont have to explain anything...the whole point of a play on words...its like an intelligent joke...you dont explain it...you expect others to see it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:19:38 PM
It is the role of the moderators to assess whether posters are presenting opinion as fact.  I'm not harassing you.  I just wanted you to use "24 Horus" in a sentence, to understand what you were saying to the forum.

you stated ...You made that up....thats quoting your opinion as afct and accusing me of lying......just give up the harrassment
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 08:20:26 PM
I dont see any particular topic on the table apart from what youve eaten today...or what your cat did
As I don't have a cat, perhaps you should go to Specsavers.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:21:59 PM
As I don't have a cat, perhaps you should go to Specsavers.

I thought you said you had a cadaver cat.....I must be mistaken
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:22:45 PM
I dont have to explain anything...the whole point of a play on words...its like an intelligent joke...you dont explain it...you expect others to see it
Maybe.   But I asked for an explanation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:26:01 PM
Maybe.   But I asked for an explanation.

Cite...i dont think you did...the post number will do
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2019, 08:29:38 PM
And to top it all Portugal doesn't have a newspaper equivalent to our Sun imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:32:29 PM
And to top it all Portugal doesn't have a newspaper equivalent to our Sun imo.



As I understand 24 Horas is, the equivalent
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:33:49 PM
Cite...i dont think you did...the post number will do
Asking someone to "put it in a sentence" is also a play on words asking for an  explanation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 25, 2019, 08:34:42 PM
As I understand 24 Horas is, the equivalent

And ? Frequently the Sun is used as cite by supporters.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 08:35:33 PM
I thought you said you had a cadaver cat.....I must be mistaken
He's had a full body shave (think sheep shearing) at Top Dogs in Lagos 2 days ago. 

There were several comments beforehand that he was fat.  Now that he has been shaved, he looks more like a skinny rat than a cat or a dog.

He's currently snoozing after a delicious meal of minced beef and his favourite kibble.

It's a tough life being a dog!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:36:31 PM
And ? Frequently the Sun is used as cite by supporters.

It's frequently used a cite by many on here
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:37:13 PM
And ? Frequently the Sun is used as cite by supporters.
As a way to shine light onto the sceptics.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:40:49 PM
He's had a full body shave (think sheep shearing) at Top Dogs in Lagos 2 days ago. 

There were several comments beforehand that he was fat.  Now that he has been shaved, he looks more like a skinny rat than a cat or a dog.

He's currently snoozing after a delicious meal of minced beef and his favourite kibble.

It's a tough life being a dog!

Why did you get your dog shaved
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 08:45:55 PM
Why did you get your dog shaved
Heat.  He had a tongue as long as the red carpet up to Buckingham palace.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 25, 2019, 08:46:34 PM
I thought you said you had a cadaver cat.....I must be mistaken
He might have a dead cat.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 08:47:17 PM
Heat.  He had a tongue as long as the red carpet up to Buckingham palace.

Ive read it's not a good idea..

shaving a dog make it cooler?
Shaving Doesn't Keep Your Dog Cool. ... First of all, whatever fuzzy coat is left after shaving will prevent cool air from getting to the skin. But the shaved coat also lets the sun through to the skin. This exposes him to the danger of overheating, sunburn and potentially even skin cancer.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 25, 2019, 08:54:46 PM
Ive read it's not a good idea..

shaving a dog make it cooler?
Shaving Doesn't Keep Your Dog Cool. ... First of all, whatever fuzzy coat is left after shaving will prevent cool air from getting to the skin. But the shaved coat also lets the sun through to the skin. This exposes him to the danger of overheating, sunburn and potentially even skin cancer.

He's a lot happier without the hair than he was with it.   Just get over it.   I'm not going to take lessons from someone who thinks that my dog is a cat.

 (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2019, 09:01:35 PM
He's a lot happier without the hair than he was with it.   Just get over it.   I'm not going to take lessons from someone who thinks that my dog is a cat.

 (&^&

That's not my opinion... It seems it's a widely held opinion... Not held by those charging to do it of course.. I've got a German Shepherd.. They have a double coat and certainly shouldn't be shaved
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 25, 2019, 09:07:50 PM
He's a lot happier without the hair than he was with it.   Just get over it.   I'm not going to take lessons from someone who thinks that my dog is a cat.

 (&^&
Don’t listen to Davel, what does he know?
https://pets.webmd.com/features/shaving-dog-or-cat-during-summer#1
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2019, 06:54:36 AM
As I understand 24 Horas is, the equivalent

That's the second Portuguese newspaper you've said that about but you need to provide evidence because imo Portugal doesn't have a newspaper equivelant to The Sun.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:22:27 AM
That's the second Portuguese newspaper you've said that about but you need to provide evidence because imo Portugal doesn't have a newspaper equivelant to The Sun.
What are your criteria upon which you wold make such an evaluation?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:56:17 AM
Follow this link, scroll down and there is a front page of 24 Horas, screaming Gerry McCann is not Madeleine’s biological father.  Similar or dissimilar to the Sun in forum members views?

https://theh8.org/deconstructing-the-madeleine-mccann-story/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 26, 2019, 08:00:43 AM
Don’t listen to Davel, what does he know?
https://pets.webmd.com/features/shaving-dog-or-cat-during-summer#1
Since my dog fits all the criteria for shaving in that article I'm glad we got him shaved.

And anybody looking at him would know he is now coping better with Algarvian heat and a wet campo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:07:00 AM
Since my dog fits all the criteria for shaving in that article I'm glad we got him shaved.

And anybody looking at him would know he is now coping better with Algarvian heat and a wet campo.
Excellent news. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 08:12:10 AM
That's the second Portuguese newspaper you've said that about but you need to provide evidence because imo Portugal doesn't have a newspaper equivelant to The Sun.

Ss I qualified the statement  with.. As I understand... I don't need to supply any evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:21:23 AM
Ss I qualified the statement  with.. As I understand... I don't need to supply any evidence
No worries, I provided it for you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 08:34:53 AM
No worries, I provided it for you.

Thanks... It's seems all the talk about not having to provide cites for insignificant posts has gone out of the window
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2019, 09:19:54 AM
Follow this link, scroll down and there is a front page of 24 Horas, screaming Gerry McCann is not Madeleine’s biological father.  Similar or dissimilar to the Sun in forum members views?

https://theh8.org/deconstructing-the-madeleine-mccann-story/

Apparently the McCanns vowed to sue. I wonder why they didn't?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 26, 2019, 09:37:18 AM
Apparently the McCanns vowed to sue. I wonder why they didn't?

I have never looked into this, so I don't know the answer to my following question.

The Sun has a lot of readers, and thus can be considered influential, whether one agrees with what it publishes or not.

How big was the circulation of 24 Horas back in 2007?

There was another one - Tal e Qual (???).  It folded, so hardly a raging success.

I have yet to be Carter-Rucked on my blog, but then, I have no reason to believe it is widely perceived as influential.

It brings to mind the old comedy routine between John Cleese and the two Ronnies.  I look down on him/I look up to him.

I know my place.   (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2019, 09:58:48 AM
Ss I qualified the statement  with.. As I understand... I don't need to supply any evidence

I wonder what led you to that understanding? Another poster seems to be relying on how it's front page is laid out.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 09:59:16 AM
Follow this link, scroll down and there is a front page of 24 Horas, screaming Gerry McCann is not Madeleine’s biological father.  Similar or dissimilar to the Sun in forum members views?

https://theh8.org/deconstructing-the-madeleine-mccann-story/
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-_MVCBryU6w/SdBnQ7qSo3I/AAAAAAAACps/3QrmGWd0kz0/s200/24HorasPaiBiologico.jpg)
The Portuguese newspaper ’24 Horas’ (24 Hours) printed a story about Gerry not being the biological father.  The paper claimed it was an unknown donor and they were adamant their sources were reliable.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Many people believed this and it became necessary for a denial to be made ...
Snip
Gerry McCann has been forced to issue an extraordinary statement insisting that Madeleine is his natural daughter.

The heart consultant said he had acted to counter 'lies and absolute fabrication' in the Portuguese press.
______________________________________________________________

The newspaper claimed that the four-yearold's parentage meant her DNA could not be confused with that of two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.

The supposed revelation would prove that bodily fluids found in the family's hire car had come from Madeleine and not from her brother or sister, the tabloid said.

Portuguese police are seeking evidence that the girl's body was transported in the Renault Scenic, which was hired 25 days after she disappeared.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487063/I-AM-Madeleines-dad-Gerry-McCann-rejects-claims-sperm-donor-used-IVF.html
______________________________________________________________

Such is the power of the press that I believe it is still possible to see the same claim made today on social media.

The interesting thing about it is that 24 Horas were adamant that their information was gold standard ... just as Sandra Felgueiras was convinced hers was.

Snip
The newspaper has run a series of articles this week which have all strongly denied by the McCanns.

Its co- editor, Luis Fontes, insisted he stood by the sperm donor story.

He said it was confirmed by the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, which has carried out analysis on samples taken from the McCanns' apartment and hire car.

The FSS denied it had made any comment on the case.
______________________________________________________________

There may be those who claim to have immediately suspected the McCanns from the word go ... and that's as may be ... but there is absolutely no doubt that the propaganda campaign orchestrated against them by the Portuguese police is the basis of the sceptic beliefs which sustain and inform the vitriolic twelve year campaign conducted against them.

Amaral has been revealed as corruptly orchestrating those lies fed to the media when he was senior investigating officer in Madeleine's case.  He has encouraged belief in them in his best seller.  He has built a media career proselyting them.

What will it take for sceptics to see through this man and give Madeleine's family the peace so long denied?




Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 10:00:27 AM
I wonder what led you to that understanding? Another poster seems to be relying on how it's front page is laid out.

I'm afraid you will have to carry on wondering.. I don't see the point in 50 posts which still end in disagrement
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 10:26:20 AM

Amaral has been revealed as corruptly orchestrating those lies fed to the media when he was senior investigating officer in Madeleine's case.  He has encouraged belief in them in his best seller.  He has built a media career proselyting them.

What will it take for sceptics to see through this man and give Madeleine's family the peace so long denied?

Fear not,SY are still at the draft stage, it cost a packet mind, circa a mere £12 million but it'll be some best seller if ever put into print.Still nowt to say Amaral was wrong.Still nothing brought up in the last 12 yrs that wasn't brought up in the first few months.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 10:31:24 AM
Fear not,SY are still at the draft stage, it cost a packet mind, circa a mere £12 million but it'll be some best seller if ever put into print.Still nowt to say Amaral was wrong.Still nothing brought up in the last 12 yrs that wasn't brought up in the first few months.
.there is loads to say Amaral is wrong
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 11:03:04 AM
.there is loads to say Amaral is wrong

Such as...?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 11:15:29 AM
Fear not,SY are still at the draft stage, it cost a packet mind, circa a mere £12 million but it'll be some best seller if ever put into print.Still nowt to say Amaral was wrong.Still nothing brought up in the last 12 yrs that wasn't brought up in the first few months.

While we have no record of the source of the poison being dripped  into the ear of 24 Horas editorial team ... they were sure of the reliability.

Sandra Felgueiras left us in no doubt where the lies she was told stemmed from ... namely Amaral.  And thus another very powerful media voice was illicitly recruited to the black ops armoury of the Judicial police V parents of the missing child.

I think it is very safe to say we have evidence that Amaral was wrong ... and we have evidence confirming that he went out of his way to be wrong by acting illegally when breaking the Secrecy Laws to be wrong.

He was Felgueiras's SOURCE ... not just in the instance she detailed but throughout ... and the whole episode reveals the level of corruption used against the McCanns and on which the sceptic's internet case against them is based.

If nothing else I think it is a prime example of the power of propaganda over reason.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 11:17:19 AM
Such as...?

Such as both investigation s saying mccanns are not suspects.. No evidence against them.. Not being investigated... Barriers post was opinion... Mines opinion.. Amaral has his opinion but we know his understanding of the evidence was flawed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 11:19:54 AM
Such as both investigation s saying mccanns are not suspects.. No evidence against them.. Not being investigated... Barriers post was opinion... Mines opinion.. Amaral has his opinion but we know his understanding of the evidence was flawed

Yet after all that Davel,SY with its embarrassment of riches, it has nothing to show for it,nothing that was not there in the first few months.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 11:21:13 AM
While we have no record of the source of the poison being dripped  into the ear of 24 Horas editorial team ... they were sure of the reliability.

Sandra Felgueiras left us in no doubt where the lies she was told stemmed from ... namely Amaral.  And thus another very powerful media voice was illicitly recruited to the black ops armoury of the Judicial police V parents of the missing child.

I think it is very safe to say we have evidence that Amaral was wrong ... and we have evidence confirming that he went out of his way to be wrong by acting illegally when breaking the Secrecy Laws to be wrong.

He was Felgueiras's SOURCE ... not just in the instance she detailed but throughout ... and the whole episode reveals the level of corruption used against the McCanns and on which the sceptic's internet case against them is based.

If nothing else I think it is a prime example of the power of propaganda over reason.

Ah! yes the broken shutters that weren't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 11:22:29 AM
Such as both investigation s saying mccanns are not suspects.. No evidence against them.. Not being investigated... Barriers post was opinion... Mines opinion.. Amaral has his opinion but we know his understanding of the evidence was flawed

Of course, none of that proves either Maddie was abducted, or that McCanns are innocent.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2019, 11:23:16 AM
I'm afraid you will have to carry on wondering.. I don't see the point in 50 posts which still end in disagrement

Chaff, imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 11:23:59 AM

Amaral believed Jane Tanner didn't witness an abduction, SY agree with him.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 11:30:22 AM
Fear not,SY are still at the draft stage, it cost a packet mind, circa a mere £12 million but it'll be some best seller if ever put into print.Still nowt to say Amaral was wrong.Still nothing brought up in the last 12 yrs that wasn't brought up in the first few months.

I don't know if it qualifies in respect of the thread title ... but I think your post perfectly illustrates the sceptic attitude in relation with sceptic belief.
Nice one ... thanks for that.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 11:35:09 AM
Yet after all that Davel,SY with its embarrassment of riches, it has nothing to show for it,nothing that was not there in the first few months.

  ... and yet Scotland Yard and the Judicial police are still active in the field.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 11:35:57 AM
I don't know if it qualifies in respect of the thread title ... but I think your post perfectly illustrates the sceptic attitude in relation with sceptic belief.
  • the rip being taken out of SY ... not Porto PJ who are also investigating Madeleine's case
  • the objection to the cost of Madeleine's investigation
  • the defence of Amaral and the failure to recognise the absolute shambles he Made of Madeleine's case in the important hours-days-months of his tenure of the case ... including the trial by media which took place only to prove his thesis and not to solve the case

Nice one ... thanks for that.

Nice of you to determine what a sceptic beleif's and attitudes are .
Is that part of a supporter mods remit?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 11:37:35 AM
  ... and yet Scotland Yard and the Judicial police are still active in the field.

Cite, what field.Its supposedly known that OG asked for funding was it granted?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 11:38:13 AM
Ah! yes the broken shutters that weren't.

Isn't that a bit puerile in what is expected to be a rational discussion ... or even a deflection?  But interesting anyway insofar as calling to mind yet another sceptic shibboleth.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 11:40:49 AM
Amaral believed Jane Tanner didn't witness an abduction, SY agree with him.

Was it Amaral who leaked misinformation about Jane Tanner and who called a material witness "liar"?  At the time the only material witness he had.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 26, 2019, 11:41:14 AM
While we have no record of the source of the poison being dripped  into the ear of 24 Horas editorial team ... they were sure of the reliability.

Sandra Felgueiras left us in no doubt where the lies she was told stemmed from ... namely Amaral.  And thus another very powerful media voice was illicitly recruited to the black ops armoury of the Judicial police V parents of the missing child.

I think it is very safe to say we have evidence that Amaral was wrong ... and we have evidence confirming that he went out of his way to be wrong by acting illegally when breaking the Secrecy Laws to be wrong.

He was Felgueiras's SOURCE ... not just in the instance she detailed but throughout ... and the whole episode reveals the level of corruption used against the McCanns and on which the sceptic's internet case against them is based.

If nothing else I think it is a prime example of the power of propaganda over reason.

Crikey!

Poison dripped into ears?

Black ops armoury?

Have you thought about going into the many current lightweight programmes about true crime?

I reckon you would have a gold brick road.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 11:43:49 AM
Of course, none of that proves either Maddie was abducted, or that McCanns are innocent.
are you talking about absolute proof...beyond reasoanble doubt or the balance of probabilities
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 11:44:32 AM
Ah! yes the broken shutters that weren't.
mmccanns never said they were...another sceptic belief
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 11:45:23 AM
Nice of you to determine what a sceptic beleif's and attitudes are .
Is that part of a supporter mods remit?
I know exactly what I think of the sceptic belief system and attitudes based on the evidence they post all over the internet and social media.
You have done nothing to challenge my knowledge or opinion and I think your input has actually reinforced them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 11:50:49 AM
Cite, what field.Its supposedly known that OG asked for funding was it granted?

Well there was the mound in Luz ... but I take it you do know what being in the field means?

Why do you think I know about the funding for the search for Madeleine ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 11:53:50 AM
Crikey!

Poison dripped into ears?

Black ops armoury?

Have you thought about going into the many current lightweight programmes about true crime?

I reckon you would have a gold brick road.
^*&&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 11:59:59 AM
mmccanns never said they were...another sceptic belief

If you say so.But according to Trish cameron Gerry's sister no less said he did.


 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




Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 12:03:17 PM
Isn't that a bit puerile in what is expected to be a rational discussion ... or even a deflection?  But interesting anyway insofar as calling to mind yet another sceptic shibboleth.

If we're throwing name around,flibbertigibbet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 12:08:01 PM
If you say so.But according to Trish cameron Gerry's sister no less said he did.


 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

Hearsay... Chinese whisper
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 12:29:46 PM
Hearsay... Chinese whisper

Whose heresay,its his sister,if you don't want to believe don't,its in black and white never recanted only by Mitchell.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 01:40:46 PM
Well there was the mound in Luz ... but I take it you do know what being in the field means?

Why do you think I know about the funding for the search for Madeleine ?

Field could have several connotations to its meaning,now that Aprils here a crack of leather upon willow is to be heard on the cricket field,there is still all to play for in the premirship on the football fields,the Irish sing of the Fields of Athenry,but in the context you were probably meaning is the field of crime investigation,in this case the mystery of the dissappearence of Madeleine McCann,now that is that hearsay to suggest there is an investigation! or is there concrete evidence of such.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 01:55:42 PM
If you say so.But according to Trish cameron Gerry's sister no less said he did.


 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

Sceptics have quite often expressed disdain for cites from the print media in preference for the PJ files.  Glad to see you are breaking the mould somewhat.

But again I think you are illustrating the sceptic incapability of understanding the sheer panic and despair of one of the most terrible happenings in anyone's life where the ground is cut from under the feet leaving one totally helpless.

Snip
I remember hearing about Madeleines disappearance by phone on the night of 3rd May 2007.
  ... I was particularly tired that night and went to bed early.
I was woken by the phone ringing at about 23.30.
It was Gerry telling me that Madeleine had been taken.
 
He was very upset on the phone, it was the worst phone call I have had in my life.
  ...I remember asking him for contacts of people in Portugal so that we could call them.
Gerry was in no state to say much.
I tried to remain calm for him, I suggested that he contact the British Embassy and I remember him telling me that he had spoken to the local police but they were not taking the situation seriously.
I remember Gerry saying that they did not treat the matter with urgency and only stated that Madeleine must have left on her own and that she would be back later.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm


Don't you think it rather remiss to 'stage' a scenario ... then forget to 'jemmy' the shutter? ... and to actually close it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 02:04:47 PM


But again I think you are illustrating the sceptic incapability of understanding the sheer panic and despair of one of the most terrible happenings in anyone's life where the ground is cut from under the feet leaving one totally helpless.


You know this to be,how?

The shutters were either damaged or they weren't,no half measures,Mitchell obviously needed to retract it later because they weren't damaged,in which case why were they mentioned.Oh I know to reinforce an alleged abduction scenario,to this day still not determined to be the crime.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 02:09:42 PM
If you say so.But according to Trish cameron Gerry's sister no less said he did.


 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
I thought this was stated in a phone interview?
I'll try to find it, if it exists.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 02:11:08 PM
Field could have several connotations to its meaning,now that Aprils here a crack of leather upon willow is to be heard on the cricket field,there is still all to play for in the premirship on the football fields,the Irish sing of the Fields of Athenry,but in the context you were probably meaning is the field of crime investigation,in this case the mystery of the dissappearence of Madeleine McCann,now that is that hearsay to suggest there is an investigation! or is there concrete evidence of such.
OK? ... you are really asking if there is concrete evidence of an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance?  That sure is a new one on me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 02:25:17 PM
You know this to be,how?

The shutters were either damaged or they weren't,no half measures,Mitchell obviously needed to retract it later because they weren't damaged,in which case why were they mentioned.Oh I know to reinforce an alleged abduction scenario,to this day still not determined to be the crime.

You are really clocking up the sceptic shibboleths today even conjuring up that bogey man of the sceptics "Mitcell".

As has already been said on this thread and on many, many thousands of occasions elsewhere ... the claim was not that the shutter had been damaged but that it had been raised.

Therefore there was absolutely nothing to retract ... but seems you've confirmed the sceptic belief there was.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 02:28:39 PM
I thought this was stated in a phone interview?
I'll try to find it, if it exists.

I have this,but it windows media player which I no longer have.

No longer exist's.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 02:29:53 PM
I thought this was stated in a phone interview?
I'll try to find it, if it exists.

Kate and Gerry never said it nor did any other witness to the events on 3rd ... by all means search if you wish ... but I think only sceptics still believe it is an issue.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 02:32:08 PM
Kate and Gerry never said it nor did any other witness to the events on 3rd ... by all means search if you wish ... but I think only sceptics still believe it is an issue.

Yet supporters are keen to dismiss it as a sceptic thing,move along nothing to see here.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 02:32:49 PM
You are really clocking up the sceptic shibboleths today even conjuring up that bogey man of the sceptics "Mitcell".

As has already been said on this thread and on many, many thousands of occasions elsewhere ... the claim was not that the shutter had been damaged but that it had been raised.

Therefore there was absolutely nothing to retract ... but seems you've confirmed the sceptic belief there was.
It would be quite a struggle to 'jemmy' shutters open without damaging them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 02:34:06 PM
Kate and Gerry never said it nor did any other witness to the events on 3rd ... by all means search if you wish ... but I think only sceptics still believe it is an issue.

Which kind of reinforces why the support for the sceptic thread.Stop the myths.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: John on April 26, 2019, 02:36:40 PM
It would be quite a struggle to 'jemmy' shutters open without damaging them.

Clearly the person who initially used the phrase 'jemmied the shutter open' didn't have a clue what they were taking about.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 02:42:11 PM
Yet supporters are keen to dismiss it as a sceptic thing,move along nothing to see here.

Quite ... exactly so ... there is nothing to see here but misinformation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 02:52:04 PM
It would be quite a struggle to 'jemmy' shutters open without damaging them.

Absolutely correct ... no-one did 'jemmy' anything.
Which recalls to mind the sceptic belief and insistence that the shutter could not be raised from the outside.  As we all now know (I think) for certain ... that belief was wrong and it was perfectly possible to raise these shutters from the outside.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 03:38:14 PM
Clearly the person who initially used the phrase 'jemmied the shutter open' didn't have a clue what they were taking about.
It was from Trish Cameron the day after I believe, relaying a telephone conversation with Gerry to the media.
In fact she even unsure of the terminology herself, suffixing the comment with '....or whatever you call it'. So yes, clearly she didn't really know what she was talking about, simply repeating what she had been told.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 03:54:33 PM
It was from Trish Cameron the day after I believe, relaying a telephone conversation with Gerry to the media.
In fact she even unsure of the terminology herself, suffixing the comment with '....or whatever you call it'. So yes, clearly she didn't really know what she was talking about, simply repeating what she had been told.

Trish read it from a script

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/eileentrish.jpg)

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 04:07:04 PM
Absolutely correct ... no-one did 'jemmy' anything.
Which recalls to mind the sceptic belief and insistence that the shutter could not be raised from the outside.  As we all now know (I think) for certain ... that belief was wrong and it was perfectly possible to raise these shutters from the outside.

Perfectly possible to raise the noisy shutters from outside......then. open the window (leaving no finger prints or glove marks) climb through the open window, squeeze past the cots & lift Maddie out of/from on top of (wasn't really sure which one, neither were the McCanns) the bed, then, carry Maddie back past the cots & clamber back through the window (probably a bit awkward to do whilst carrying a child but nevermind), out into the gusty tundra, all this without waking the soundly sleeping Maddie.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2019, 04:12:32 PM
OK? ... you are really asking if there is concrete evidence of an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance?  That sure is a new one on me.

We know the answerphone's on, so they must be out investigating, mustn't they?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 04:15:41 PM
We know the answerphone's on, so they must be out investigating, mustn't they?
All 2 of them. Maybe donuts?
Nah, how many are there? 4? They'll be on 7 hour days, no ovies permitted.
Sucks to be them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 04:26:45 PM
"The window was open, the shutters were up none of that had been left like that and had been interfered with, the window"  Trish
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 04:27:22 PM
All 2 of them. Maybe donuts?
Nah, how many are there? 4? They'll be on 7 hour days, no ovies permitted.
Sucks to be them.

Nails don't get manicured on their own you know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2019, 04:29:22 PM
Kate and Gerry never said it nor did any other witness to the events on 3rd ... by all means search if you wish ... but I think only sceptics still believe it is an issue.

They've said very little themselves. Most media stories quote a friend or a source. If we can't believe named people then we obviously can't believe these unnamed sources .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 04:33:44 PM
Perfectly possible to raise the noisy shutters from outside......then. open the window (leaving no finger prints or glove marks) climb through the open window, squeeze past the cots & lift Maddie out of/from on top of (wasn't really sure which one, neither were the McCanns) the bed, then, carry Maddie back past the cots & clamber back through the window (probably a bit awkward to do whilst carrying a child but nevermind), out into the gusty tundra, all this without waking the soundly sleeping Maddie.

That's true as far as raising the shutter is concerned ... I know because I've seen it done and I think you may have too.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2019, 04:36:24 PM
All 2 of them. Maybe donuts?
Nah, how many are there? 4? They'll be on 7 hour days, no ovies permitted.
Sucks to be them.

I do hope they've not picked up the long lunch habit by associating with the Portuguese. .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 04:37:26 PM
They've said very little themselves. Most media stories quote a friend or a source. If we can't believe named people then we obviously can't believe these unnamed sources .
Apparently you ...
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything ... so shouldn't present too much of a problem for you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 04:37:37 PM
"The window was open, the shutters were up none of that had been left like that and had been interfered with, the window"  Trish
Pick a story Trish, sheesh.
The burglarductors are literally idiots, yet are able to defy physics - jemmy shutters open with an air bar, despite not being switched on enough to check the patio door, the most vulnerable exit in the gaff - which was unlocked.
These guys are a dichotomy; as hapless as they come making entry, like the Wet Bandits, yet are able to disappear with a child like Lord Lucan on ket, perpetrate the perfect crime, leaving not so much as a hair.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 04:42:21 PM
Pick a story Trish, sheesh.
The burglarductors are literally idiots, yet are able to defy physics - jemmy shutters open with an air bar, despite not being switched on enough to check the patio door, the most vulnerable exit in the gaff - which was unlocked.
These guys are a dichotomy; as hapless as they come making entry, like the Wet Bandits, yet are able to disappear with a child like Lord Lucan on ket, perpetrate the perfect crime, leaving not so much as a hair.

No... Just very lucky
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 04:46:43 PM
Pick a story Trish, sheesh.
The burglarductors are literally idiots, yet are able to defy physics - jemmy shutters open with an air bar, despite not being switched on enough to check the patio door, the most vulnerable exit in the gaff - which was unlocked.
These guys are a dichotomy; as hapless as they come making entry, like the Wet Bandits, yet are able to disappear with a child like Lord Lucan on ket, perpetrate the perfect crime, leaving not so much as a hair.
I don't know what that has to do with the link I have provided showing Gerry's mother and sister on camera not saying what you allege was said and as per the JPEG from that interview posted as affirmation of Trish reading it. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg522935#msg522935
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2019, 05:06:12 PM
While we have no record of the source of the poison being dripped  into the ear of 24 Horas editorial team ... they were sure of the reliability.

Sandra Felgueiras left us in no doubt where the lies she was told stemmed from ... namely Amaral.  And thus another very powerful media voice was illicitly recruited to the black ops armoury of the Judicial police V parents of the missing child.

I think it is very safe to say we have evidence that Amaral was wrong ... and we have evidence confirming that he went out of his way to be wrong by acting illegally when breaking the Secrecy Laws to be wrong.

He was Felgueiras's SOURCE ... not just in the instance she detailed but throughout ... and the whole episode reveals the level of corruption used against the McCanns and on which the sceptic's internet case against them is based.

If nothing else I think it is a prime example of the power of propaganda over reason.

David Smith Jones admitted that the source for much of the article below was Gerry McCann himself. The article was written at a time when the parents were still arguidos and the details of the case were still under judicial secrecy. We therefore have proof that the McCanns acted illegally by breaking secrecy laws.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-and-gerry-mccann-beyond-the-smears-8hlc6qx7k70

Amaral...the McCanns...three peas in a pod when it comes to breaking Portuguese law.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 05:24:21 PM
I don't know what that has to do with the link I have provided showing Gerry's mother and sister on camera not saying what you allege was said and as per the JPEG from that interview posted as affirmation of Trish reading it. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg522935#msg522935

She definitely said it...

Frantic search for toddler BBC East Midlands Today 04 May 2007

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/eileentrish.jpg)

Transcript

By Nigel Moore

Reporter: Well, the McCann family, Gerry and Kate, with their twins and three-year-old Madeleine went on holiday to Portugal last Saturday, from their home in Rothley, in Leicestershire. They'd gone to a popular resort on the coast of the Algarve with a group of other families; nine adults; eight children; all on holiday together. Now, last night Madeleine and the twins were left sleeping in their room, while her parents had a meal in a restaurant two hundred yards away - and they did regular checks on them - but at ten o'clock last night there was a huge shock for Kate. Madeleine's aunt who lives in Scotland, takes up the story.

Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.

Reporter: Madeleine's disappearance led to a frantic search. Some of the guests were out looking for the little girl all night; the police brought in sniffer dogs. The group of friends in Portugal with the McCanns are devastated.

Rachael Oldfield: Some people are... are out looking again, as well, errm... you know, everyone at the resort has been great and they're doing everything they can to help.

Reporter: The owners of the Ocean Club resort, the Mark Warner holiday firm, have offered to fly out more family members to support the McCanns.

John Hill: The parents were regularly checking, errm... through the, errr... the french windows of their apartment, errm... and between, errm... errr... ten... ten o'clock and ten fifteen, errm... the alarm was raised that Maddie was missing from that room.

Reporter: Today Madeleine's parents have been giving statements to the police. Their friends say they just can't believe what's happened. The family were due to fly home tomorrow to their home in Rothley.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id31.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 05:29:43 PM
She definitely said it...

Frantic search for toddler BBC East Midlands Today 04 May 2007

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/eileentrish.jpg)

Transcript

By Nigel Moore

Reporter: Well, the McCann family, Gerry and Kate, with their twins and three-year-old Madeleine went on holiday to Portugal last Saturday, from their home in Rothley, in Leicestershire. They'd gone to a popular resort on the coast of the Algarve with a group of other families; nine adults; eight children; all on holiday together. Now, last night Madeleine and the twins were left sleeping in their room, while her parents had a meal in a restaurant two hundred yards away - and they did regular checks on them - but at ten o'clock last night there was a huge shock for Kate. Madeleine's aunt who lives in Scotland, takes up the story.

Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.

Reporter: Madeleine's disappearance led to a frantic search. Some of the guests were out looking for the little girl all night; the police brought in sniffer dogs. The group of friends in Portugal with the McCanns are devastated.

Rachael Oldfield: Some people are... are out looking again, as well, errm... you know, everyone at the resort has been great and they're doing everything they can to help.

Reporter: The owners of the Ocean Club resort, the Mark Warner holiday firm, have offered to fly out more family members to support the McCanns.

John Hill: The parents were regularly checking, errm... through the, errr... the french windows of their apartment, errm... and between, errm... errr... ten... ten o'clock and ten fifteen, errm... the alarm was raised that Maddie was missing from that room.

Reporter: Today Madeleine's parents have been giving statements to the police. Their friends say they just can't believe what's happened. The family were due to fly home tomorrow to their home in Rothley.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id31.htm


That was the video which is no longer availible I tried to link to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6620000/newsid_6625200/6625205.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 05:34:20 PM
She definitely said it...

Frantic search for toddler BBC East Midlands Today 04 May 2007

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/eileentrish.jpg)

Transcript

By Nigel Moore

Reporter: Well, the McCann family, Gerry and Kate, with their twins and three-year-old Madeleine went on holiday to Portugal last Saturday, from their home in Rothley, in Leicestershire. They'd gone to a popular resort on the coast of the Algarve with a group of other families; nine adults; eight children; all on holiday together. Now, last night Madeleine and the twins were left sleeping in their room, while her parents had a meal in a restaurant two hundred yards away - and they did regular checks on them - but at ten o'clock last night there was a huge shock for Kate. Madeleine's aunt who lives in Scotland, takes up the story.

Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.

Reporter: Madeleine's disappearance led to a frantic search. Some of the guests were out looking for the little girl all night; the police brought in sniffer dogs. The group of friends in Portugal with the McCanns are devastated.

Rachael Oldfield: Some people are... are out looking again, as well, errm... you know, everyone at the resort has been great and they're doing everything they can to help.

Reporter: The owners of the Ocean Club resort, the Mark Warner holiday firm, have offered to fly out more family members to support the McCanns.

John Hill: The parents were regularly checking, errm... through the, errr... the french windows of their apartment, errm... and between, errm... errr... ten... ten o'clock and ten fifteen, errm... the alarm was raised that Maddie was missing from that room.

Reporter: Today Madeleine's parents have been giving statements to the police. Their friends say they just can't believe what's happened. The family were due to fly home tomorrow to their home in Rothley.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id31.htm
Where can we listen to the sound track?
The soundtrack is very clear here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg522948#msg522948 and I hear no "jemmied".
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 05:38:12 PM
Where can we listen to the sound track?
The soundtrack is very clear here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg522948#msg522948 and I hear no "jemmied".

Can't find a link to the soundtrack, it no longer exists, but clearly from two different interviews.
Your clip is from an ITV interview.
I remember watching the BBC one previously, it definitely happened, & Trish read from a script.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 05:50:58 PM
David Smith Jones admitted that the source for much of the article below was Gerry McCann himself. The article was written at a time when the parents were still arguidos and the details of the case were still under judicial secrecy. We therefore have proof that the McCanns acted illegally by breaking secrecy laws.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-and-gerry-mccann-beyond-the-smears-8hlc6qx7k70

Amaral...the McCanns...three peas in a pod when it comes to breaking Portuguese law.
Does he really ... where can I read that?

The article does say ...
Snip
It was the first time the McCanns’ friends had been named in public, but Sol’s journalist Felicia Cabrita had their names and phone numbers and details from their witness statements. She had called them all, and at least one other witness, Jes Wilkins.

The information had been handed to Cabrita by the police – she says she acquired the material through good journalism, which in a sense it was – and her source is widely believed by her colleagues to have been the former head of the inquiry, Goncalo Amaral.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-and-gerry-mccann-beyond-the-smears-8hlc6qx7k70

But we knew that already.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 05:53:22 PM
Can't find a link to the soundtrack, it no longer exists, but clearly from two different interviews.
Your clip is from an ITV interview.
I remember watching the BBC one previously, it definitely happened, & Trish read from a script.
Repeated on GMTV by the family friend, Jill Renwick, to Kate Garraway - shutters were broken open - was the phrase.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 05:57:24 PM
Apparently the McCanns vowed to sue. I wonder why they didn't?
Whoa, completely changing the subject there!  It would be nice if for once you thanked me for the cite provided and gave your views on the topic you were querying.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 05:58:42 PM
I wonder what led you to that understanding? Another poster seems to be relying on how it's front page is laid out.
What led you to believe that was the only thing I was “relying on”.  What about the sensationaist and inaccurate headline?  Did that not ring any bells with you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:04:48 PM
Perfectly possible to raise the noisy shutters from outside......then. open the window (leaving no finger prints or glove marks) climb through the open window, squeeze past the cots & lift Maddie out of/from on top of (wasn't really sure which one, neither were the McCanns) the bed, then, carry Maddie back past the cots & clamber back through the window (probably a bit awkward to do whilst carrying a child but nevermind), out into the gusty tundra, all this without waking the soundly sleeping Maddie.
As the abduction of Alesha McPhail demonstrates amply, it is possible to abduct a child from her bed, take her out into the “gusty tundra” without waking her, as well as navigating all manner of household furniture, fixtures and fittings in the process.  Why don’t you write a similar sneering essay about that particular set of circumstances?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:07:12 PM
As the abduction of Alesha McPhail demonstrates amply, it is possible to abduct a child from her bed, take her out into the “gusty tundra” without waking her, as well as navigating all manner of household furniture, fixtures and fittings in the process.  Why don’t you write a similar sneering essay about that particular set of circumstances?

Possibly because I've no idea & nor do I care who this Alesha McPhail person is.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 06:07:46 PM
Can't find a link to the soundtrack, it no longer exists, but clearly from two different interviews.
Your clip is from an ITV interview.
I remember watching the BBC one previously, it definitely happened, & Trish read from a script.

I don't think it matters two figs what someone who wasn't there at the time and location in person has to say about an incident but the fact remains that the word 'jemmied' was not used in the audio track I've posted ... and that doesn't matter two figs either.

Not one of the witnesses present at the location at the time made any such claim and that is in evidence (or rather not since it was never said).
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:08:18 PM
Pick a story Trish, sheesh.
The burglarductors are literally idiots, yet are able to defy physics - jemmy shutters open with an air bar, despite not being switched on enough to check the patio door, the most vulnerable exit in the gaff - which was unlocked.
These guys are a dichotomy; as hapless as they come making entry, like the Wet Bandits, yet are able to disappear with a child like Lord Lucan on ket, perpetrate the perfect crime, leaving not so much as a hair.
Much the same as the McCanns who, according to sceptics left a huge trail of clangers, howlers and metaphorical  arrows with “guilty as hell” pointing at their heads yet still managed to dispose of a child’s body so brilliantly, in a tourist resort in the evening without the use of a car, a spade or a fridge freezer that to this day it has never been found.  How did they do it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:09:23 PM
Can't find a link to the soundtrack, it no longer exists, but clearly from two different interviews.
Your clip is from an ITV interview.
I remember watching the BBC one previously, it definitely happened, & Trish read from a script.
Ach, if YOU said it’s true then obviously it is. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:09:43 PM
I don't think it matters two figs what someone who wasn't there at the time and location in person has to say about an incident but the fact remains that the word 'jemmied' was not used in the audio track I've posted ... and that doesn't matter two figs either.

Not one of the witnesses present at the location at the time made any such claim and that is in evidence (or rather not since it was never said).

The whole shutters business is irrelevant anyway, since no one entered or exited them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:09:57 PM
Possibly because I've no idea & nor do I care who this Alesha McPhail person is.
How jolly convenient. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Alesha_MacPhail
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:10:36 PM
Ach, if YOU said it’s true then obviously it is.

Well, it is.
What other explanation is there?
Did Nigel Moore make it up?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 06:11:24 PM
Repeated on GMTV by the family friend, Jill Renwick, to Kate Garraway - shutters were broken open - was the phrase.
  ... and she is someone else who wasn't there if memory serves me well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:11:40 PM
Well, it is.
What other explanation is there?
Did Nigel Moore make it up?
Who knows? McCann sceptics are not renowned for their honesty or accuracy when it comes to reporting on the objects of their loathing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:12:33 PM
Who knows? McCann sceptics are not renowned for their honesty or accuracy when it comes to reporting on the objects of their loathing.

I know, because I saw the clip previously.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:13:00 PM
The whole shutters business is irrelevant anyway, since no one entered or exited them.
Do you have proof of this or is it another sceptic belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:15:44 PM
Do you have proof of this?

No, it's just obvious they didn't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:16:47 PM
I know, because I saw the clip previously.
Good for you.  I remember having similar discussions on tw..ter years ago with people who claimed they had seen clips of Kate’s mum giving a TV interview in which she said the McCanns sedated their children and yet they were never able to actually provide a link.  Accept nothing, believe no one, confirm everything :-)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:17:47 PM
No, it's just obvious they didn't.
Why so?  Because you say so?  LOL.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 06:18:00 PM
The whole shutters business is irrelevant anyway, since no one entered or exited them.

I agree that the 'jemmied' allegation was irrelevant and always was ... but the witness description of the window and shutters is not ... that is evidence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:19:37 PM
Good for you.  I remember having similar discussions on tw..ter years ago with people who claimed they had seen clips of Kate’s mum giving a TV interview in which she said the McCanns sedated their children and yet they were never able to actually provide a link.  Accept nothing, believe no one, confirm everything :-)

That must be an issue for you where the abduction of MM is concerned then.
I mean, that isn't confirmed is it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:21:06 PM
That must be an issue for you where the abduction of MM is concerned then.
I mean, that isn't confirmed is it.
Oops, changing the subject are we?  Nice move.  8((()*/
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:21:18 PM
I agree that the 'jemmied' allegation was irrelevant and always was ... but the witness description of the window and shutters is not ... that is evidence.

As is the witness description of Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:22:32 PM
Oops, changing the subject are we?  Nice move.  8((()*/

I assumed we'd finished that part of the discussion, since I am right & you are wrong.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 06:23:14 PM
As is the witness description of Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

Smithman, don't forget Smithman.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:23:30 PM
I assumed we'd finished that part of the discussion, since I am right & you are wrong.
What am I wrong about, exactly?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2019, 06:24:14 PM
Does he really ... where can I read that?

The article does say ...
Snip
It was the first time the McCanns’ friends had been named in public, but Sol’s journalist Felicia Cabrita had their names and phone numbers and details from their witness statements. She had called them all, and at least one other witness, Jes Wilkins.

The information had been handed to Cabrita by the police – she says she acquired the material through good journalism, which in a sense it was – and her source is widely believed by her colleagues to have been the former head of the inquiry, Goncalo Amaral.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-and-gerry-mccann-beyond-the-smears-8hlc6qx7k70

But we knew that already.

Widely believed by her colleagues? Must be true then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:24:36 PM
Smithman, don't forget Smithman.

I hadn't. I was saving him for later, him & his child wearing the wrong jammies.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 06:25:02 PM
As is the witness description of Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.

Kate mentioned the ridiculous claim in her book ... where does your witness statement appear in the files? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:25:19 PM
What am I wrong about, exactly?

Abduction for a start.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:25:57 PM
Widely believed by her colleagues? Must be true then.
More than likely.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:26:18 PM
Kate mentioned the ridiculous claim in her book ... where does your witness statement appear in the files?

In the same part of the files where the note left in reception is found, I'd imagine
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 06:31:48 PM
In the same part of the files where the note left in reception is found, I'd imagine
Another non-existent witness?  Amaral certainly used anonymous 'witnesses' to great effect to bolster his lies but we are expected to be able to prove our claims.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:33:55 PM
Another non-existent witness?  Amaral certainly used anonymous 'witnesses' to great effect to bolster his lies but we are expected to be able to prove our claims.

Kate claimed the witness exists, so it must be true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 06:39:42 PM
i think I can say with certainty taht whilst posters here and elsewhere havent moved on from gemmied shutters in the last 12 years ...SY and the PJ have
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:41:10 PM
In the same part of the files where the note left in reception is found, I'd imagine
If there was no note left in reception in the files and Kate is lying then the police have her bang to rights.  Why would you lie about something that is so very easily verifiable by the boys in blue?  Do you think she WANTS them to suspect her?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 06:43:36 PM
i think I can say with certainty taht whilst posters here and elsewhere havent moved on from gemmied shutters in the last 12 years ...SY and the PJ have
So we're happy now then that the burglarductor(s) made good their escape through the patio door and not the non-jemmied window?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:45:07 PM
If there was no note left in reception in the files and Kate is lying then the police have her bang to rights.  Why would you lie about something that is so very easily verifiable by the boys in blue?  Do you think she WANTS them to suspect her?

What could they possibly charge her with?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 06:46:57 PM
i think I can say with certainty taht whilst posters here and elsewhere havent moved on from gemmied shutters in the last 12 years ...SY and the PJ have


SY got to a few yrds,theres gold in them there hills,certainly wasn't a body.I wonder how much a yard that was,£thousands,£hundreds of thousands?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 26, 2019, 06:47:57 PM
Much the same as the McCanns who, according to sceptics left a huge trail of clangers, howlers and metaphorical  arrows with “guilty as hell” pointing at their heads yet still managed to dispose of a child’s body so brilliantly, in a tourist resort in the evening without the use of a car, a spade or a fridge freezer that to this day it has never been found.  How did they do it?
Wheelie bin.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:48:20 PM
i think I can say with certainty taht whilst posters here and elsewhere havent moved on from gemmied shutters in the last 12 years ...SY and the PJ have

Yes, they've got as far as theorising that Maddie may have left the apartment on her own, according to the press. Ignoring the window evidence altogether.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 06:48:35 PM
So we're happy now then that the burglarductor(s) made good their escape through the patio door and not the non-jemmied window?

Or some one else left by the patio doors. 8(>((
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:48:54 PM
What could they possibly charge her with?
Who talked about charging her for that?  I am talking arousing (further) suspicion.  If Kate is blatantly making up stuff that she claims came from the police files then it stands to reason the police would know she was inventing it and was a liar.  This would not reflect very well on her and if she really is guilty of murder or whatever it is you believe she is guilty of, then providing the police with this sort of ammunition would seem somewhat foolish.  No doubt you have smart answer as to why you are right and I am wrong, I look forward to hearing it. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:49:22 PM
Wheelie bin.

Ta Da!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:50:44 PM
Wheelie bin.
Oh, you’ve come round to that conclusion now have you?  Was a time when you claimed all Portuguese rubbish was hand sorted and that there was no way a body would have gone unnoticed.  So, if you want to dispose of a body forever in Portugal just chuck it in a bin.  I see...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:51:23 PM
Who talked about charging her for that?  I am talking arousing (further) suspicion.  If Kate is blatantly making up stuff that she claims came from the police files then it stands to reason the police would know she was inventing it and was a liar.  This would not reflect very well on her and if she really is guilty of murder or whatever it is you believe she is guilty of, then providing the police with this sort of ammunition would seem somewhat foolish.  No doubt you have smart answer as to why you are right and I am wrong, I look forward to hearing it.

How would we know if Kate was suspected?
It's not like they'd tell us is it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:52:23 PM
Ta Da!
If Gerry was Smithman then we know the corpse was uncovered.  So, you think he just tossed an uncovered corpse in a bin and hoped for thr best? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 06:52:51 PM
Yes, they've got as far as theorising that Maddie may have left the apartment on her own, according to the press. Ignoring the window evidence altogether.
They certainly  didnt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 06:54:35 PM
Wheelie bin.

What a disgusting suggestion.. And you wonder why the mccanns do not return your emails or offers for help..they probably think you are totally daft
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:54:48 PM
If Gerry was Smithman then we know the corpse was uncovered.  So, you think he just tossed an uncovered corpse in a bin and hoped for thr best?

Maybe. It's not impossible is it. Quite quick & simple really, & I've seen nothing to prove that didn't happen.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 06:55:33 PM
Oh, you’ve come round to that conclusion now have you?  Was a time when you claimed all Portuguese rubbish was hand sorted and that there was no way a body would have gone unnoticed.  So, if you want to dispose of a body forever in Portugal just chuck it in a bin.  I see...


If a big strapping lad like Corrie McKeague can dissappear into the ether of the waste disposal,how simple for a small un like Madeleine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:55:41 PM
Maybe. It's not impossible is it. Quite quick & simple really, & I've seen nothing to prove that didn't happen.
LOL.  OK, The body was thrown uncovered in the bin by Smithman.  Now explain the dog alerts to the hire car.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:55:49 PM
What a disgusting suggestion.. And you wonder why the mccanns do not return your emails or offers for help

The Maddie in the bin theory is old news. I've mentioned it many times.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 06:56:50 PM
LOL.  OK, The body was thrown uncovered in the bin by Smithman.  Now explain the dog alerts to the hire car.

No need, we are always told the alerts don't mean anything.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 06:58:02 PM
The Maddie in the bin theory is old news. I've mentioned it many times.


Must admit its new to me.Amaral never considered it did he? might have some traction in that case,seeing he's wrong about everything else,like innit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 06:58:35 PM
No need, we are always told the alerts don't mean anything.
So you’re happy to dismiss the dog alerts.  Excellent.  Why do you think the McCanns are guilty then?  Just cos you don’t like the look of them?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 06:59:31 PM
So you’re happy to dismiss the dog alerts.  Excellent.  Why do you think the McCanns are guilty then?  Just cos you don’t like the look of them?

Guilty of what exactly.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:00:01 PM

If a big strapping lad like Corrie McKeague can dissappear into the ether of the waste disposal,how simple for a small un like Madeleine.
It’s a wonder all murderers don’t use this foolproof method of body disposal isn’t it?  Why is it not more commonly used do you think?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Guilty of what exactly.
Well Wonderfulspam seems to think they are possibly murderers so that for a start.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 07:01:11 PM
So you’re happy to dismiss the dog alerts.  Excellent.  Why do you think the McCanns are guilty then?  Just cos you don’t like the look of them?

Well yes, that & because the abduction story is nonsense.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 07:02:04 PM
Well Wonderfulspam seems to think they are possibly murderers so that for a start.

Has it been proven that they're not?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 07:02:25 PM
Kate claimed the witness exists, so it must be true.

She derided it ... sorry I didn't make that clear.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:04:39 PM
Well yes, that & because the abduction story is nonsense.
Why is it nonsense?  Which part is nonsensical?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:05:15 PM
Has it been proven that they're not?
Has it been proven that you’re not?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 07:08:12 PM
So we're happy now then that the burglarductor(s) made good their escape through the patio door and not the non-jemmied window?

I don't know what happened and I doubt anyone other than the perpetrator/s does ... shame you feel it necessary to attempt to make light of such a life changing event for many.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2019, 07:11:15 PM
Has it been proven that they're not?

What a daft comment.. It just about sums up the average.. Or below average.. Sceptic reasoning
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:12:40 PM
What a daft comment.. It just about sums up the average.. Or below average.. Sceptic reasoning
Good to see how easy his faith in the dog alerts is brushed aside to make his theory work though. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 07:13:32 PM
Another non-existent witness?  Amaral certainly used anonymous 'witnesses' to great effect to bolster his lies but we are expected to be able to prove our claims.

David Payne says they both had bags,err.

"What about a kit bag? Would they have a kit bag with them?”
Reply "Err he certainly didn’t have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn’t have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn’t a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "It would have been something that had their water in.”
1485 "So as opposed to a bag it’d be something like a rucksack, if at all?”
Reply "If, if at all, yeah.”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "Yeah.”
1485 "And is that the same for Kate?”
Reply "Yeah, yeah.”

[/color]
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 07:13:54 PM
What a daft comment.. It just about sums up the average.. Or below average.. Sceptic reasoning

Well it hasn't has it.

What happened to Maddie?

No one knows, she's still missing & her parents are still shifty af.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 07:15:30 PM
David Payne says they both had bags,err.

"What about a kit bag? Would they have a kit bag with them?”
Reply "Err he certainly didn’t have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn’t have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn’t a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything…”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "It would have been something that had their water in.”
1485 "So as opposed to a bag it’d be something like a rucksack, if at all?”
Reply "If, if at all, yeah.”
1485 "Yeah.”
Reply "Yeah.”
1485 "And is that the same for Kate?”
Reply "Yeah, yeah.”

[/color]
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

Nothing you could hide a tennis racquet in....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:15:40 PM
As is the witness description of Kate & Gerry carrying a big black bag & acting suspiciously.
Where does this bit you’re so fond of repeating fit in with the “disposal by Smithman by bin” bit? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 07:15:59 PM
Well it hasn't has it.

What happened to Maddie?

No one knows, she's still missing & her parents are still shifty af.

What does "still shifty af. " mean?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:18:54 PM
Well it hasn't has it.

What happened to Maddie?

No one knows, she's still missing & her parents are still shifty af.
And that’s all you have to go on after 12 years of doubting.  LOLOLOL.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 07:19:52 PM
Where does this bit you’re so fond of repeating fit in with the “disposal by Smithman by bin” bit?

Ask the McCanns, they'd know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 07:20:45 PM
It’s a wonder all murderers don’t use this foolproof method of body disposal isn’t it?  Why is it not more commonly used do you think?
It is.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 07:21:53 PM
What does "still shifty af. " mean?
He's a famous grime DJ from Eastbourne.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 07:23:12 PM
It’s a wonder all murderers don’t use this foolproof method of body disposal isn’t it?  Why is it not more commonly used do you think?

There was/is speculation Muriel McCkay was believed to have been fed to the pigs,should that be discounted as well.The Pj interviewed him, SY wanted to interview the pig farmer if I recall.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2784.4140
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 07:25:25 PM
Nothing you could hide a tennis racquet in....

Why would you want to hide a tennis racket,unles of course you're shit at the game and don't want to draw attention.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 26, 2019, 07:26:53 PM
It’s a wonder all murderers don’t use this foolproof method of body disposal isn’t it?  Why is it not more commonly used do you think?
There are a lot of missing persons who are never found.  It could be more common than we know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:27:48 PM
Ask the McCanns, they'd know.
I’m asking you, you think they’re guilty af, believe Smithman was Gerry, that he chucked a body uncovered in the bin, so work it out.  I dare you to use some actual grey matter for a change.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:29:23 PM
It is.
It is what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 07:30:41 PM
And that’s all you have to go on after 12 years of doubting.  LOLOLOL.

That seems to be the crux of the sceptics beliefs.
A gut feeling even on the first day that Madeleine's parents were "shifty".
Then an ever lasting belief in the early days of ghastly libellous press reporting, and a  belief in the supposed discrepancies in the files, and on and on, even though almost twelve years have passed, and these "shifty" parents sought  the reopening of their daughter's disappearance  and gained that reopening of their daughters disappearance which has two current investigations .
Neither of which seems to be focussing on Madeleine's parents.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:30:53 PM
There are a lot of missing persons who are never found.  It could be more common than we know.
. Perhaps something needs to be done about it then.  What’s the solution?  Cadaver dogs to ride with every bin lorry is my suggestion, any others?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 07:32:51 PM
. Perhaps something needs to be done about it then.  What’s the solution?  Cadaver dogs to ride with every bin lorry is my suggestion, any others?
More babysitters.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:33:08 PM
That seems to be the crux of the sceptics beliefs.
A gut feeling even on the first day that Madeleine's parents were "shifty".
Then an ever lasting belief in the early days of ghastly libellous press reporting, and a  belief in the supposed discrepancies in the files, and on and on, even though almost twelve years have passed, and these "shifty" parents sought  the reopening of their daughter's disappearance  and gained that reopening of their daughters disappearance which has two current investigations .
Neither of which seems to be focussing on Madeleine's parents.
I love the way their beliefs are so malleable depending on what crackpot theory they are pursuing at any given time.  Not one of them has ever come up with a plausible, rational explanation for how the McCanns did it and got away with it, not one of them. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:33:32 PM
More babysitters.
What for all human beings?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 07:34:05 PM
. Perhaps something needs to be done about it then.  What’s the solution?  Cadaver dogs to ride with every bin lorry is my suggestion, any others?

Methane masks the cadaver smell,or what ever the terminology is,so dogs aren't of worth in that,didn't you wonder why no dogs were used at the landfill looking for Mckeague.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 07:35:43 PM
I love the way their beliefs are so malleable depending on what crackpot theory they are pursuing at any given time.  Not one of them has ever come up with a plausible, rational explanation for how the McCanns did it and got away with it, not one of them.

Once its explained how an abductor got out of 5a without being seen it'll be easy to see any other scenario.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 07:36:14 PM
That seems to be the crux of the sceptics beliefs.
A gut feeling even on the first day that Madeleine's parents were "shifty".
Then an ever lasting belief in the early days of ghastly libellous press reporting, and a  belief in the supposed discrepancies in the files, and on and on, even though almost twelve years have passed, and these "shifty" parents sought  the reopening of their daughter's disappearance  and gained that reopening of their daughters disappearance which has two current investigations .
Neither of which seems to be focussing on Madeleine's parents.

Neither of which seem to be doing anything at all really.
I haven't seen them out searching recently, nor interviewing any suspects for that matter.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 26, 2019, 07:37:23 PM
. Perhaps something needs to be done about it then.  What’s the solution?  Cadaver dogs to ride with every bin lorry is my suggestion, any others?
The cost of that would be prohibitive.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 07:38:03 PM
I love the way their beliefs are so malleable depending on what crackpot theory they are pursuing at any given time.  Not one of them has ever come up with a plausible, rational explanation for how the McCanns did it and got away with it, not one of them.

None that you will accept that is.
The Maddie in the bin theory is quick & simple. I haven't seen it debunked anywhere.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 07:38:21 PM
What for all human beings?
Just vulnerable kids would be a start. But if you feel you require a babysitter as grown ass adult human being, go ahead.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 26, 2019, 07:39:31 PM
If Gerry was Smithman then we know the corpse was uncovered.  So, you think he just tossed an uncovered corpse in a bin and hoped for thr best?

Crikey.  Uncovered corpse.  Please  fill in the details.  Where's the popcorn?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 07:40:16 PM
I love the way their beliefs are so malleable depending on what crackpot theory they are pursuing at any given time.  Not one of them has ever come up with a plausible, rational explanation for how the McCanns did it and got away with it, not one of them.

Nope.
It's all .....trying to think of an alternative to saying ......"pissing in the wind"   but cannot find one that is quite as apt.
Sorry everyone. *%^^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 07:45:33 PM
I love the way their beliefs are so malleable depending on what crackpot theory they are pursuing at any given time.  Not one of them has ever come up with a plausible, rational explanation for how the McCanns did it and got away with it, not one of them.

In what rational time scale did an alleged abductor spirit Madeleine away
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 07:49:24 PM
In what rational time scale did an alleged abductor spirit Madeleine away

Do you believe that any child can be "spirited away" from their bed?
What is a rational time scale for that to happen?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 07:53:10 PM
Do you believe that any child can be "spirited away" from their bed?
What is a rational time scale for that to happen?

The supporters believe she was abducted,at what  time  and why that time? and what point of egress from 5a?
Tannerman saw nothing suspicious this is known because Redwood emphasised a shift in the time.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 07:55:42 PM
The supporters believe she was abducted,at what  time  and why that time? and what point of egress from 5a?
Tannerman saw nothing suspicious this is known because Redwood emphasised a shift in the time.

Not answering my original question.
I'm not in the least surprised you didn't.
ETA
Not only do the supporters believe that Madeleine was abducted but up til now and with two current Investigations in place nether of those two current Investigations seem to think otherwise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 07:57:18 PM
Methane masks the cadaver smell,or what ever the terminology is,so dogs aren't of worth in that,didn't you wonder why no dogs were used at the landfill looking for Mckeague.
I was talking about BEFORE they got to landfill, sniffing every bin outsode every home for corpses.  You know it makes sense!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 26, 2019, 08:01:00 PM
Crikey.  Uncovered corpse.  Please  fill in the details.  Where's the popcorn?
Well  there hardly time to bury her.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 08:02:03 PM
The supporters believe she was abducted,at what  time  and why that time? and what point of egress from 5a?
Tannerman saw nothing suspicious this is known because Redwood emphasised a shift in the time.

Assuming the abductor is Smithman, IMO, he entered the apartment around 9.40 via the front door, using a key that he somehow acquired. He then entered the childrens bedroom & sedated all 3 children. He opened the window & shutters to disperse the smell of chloroform or whatever it was he used, then, he lifted Maddie off the bed & passed her out the window to his abductor accomplice who was keeping watch. He then left the apartment via the front door, which he locked behind him. They headed for the getaway car, that broke down, so they ran off in seperate directions. The one who took Maddie decided to change her pyjama top for some reason, before heading down Rui Escola, past the Smith family & toward the beach, where another abductor accomplice was waiting in a speedboat as a back up plan just incase the getaway car failed.....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:04:08 PM
None that you will accept that is.
The Maddie in the bin theory is quick & simple. I haven't seen it debunked anywhere.
So for this to work we have to accept:
1) some if not all the dog alerts were wrong
2) Gerry was in two places at once
3) Gerry had the cunning to stage an abduction scenario but then effed it all up by not jemmying the shutters despite telling everyone they had been
4) Gerry had the brazen balls to carry his dead daughter through town, uncovered, past numerous witnesses and then 24 hours go on TV appealing for her return.
5) Portuguese binmen aren’t very observant but very prompt at bin emptying.
6) the PJ are not very clever as they should have been straight down the local tipon day one.

Anything else?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:05:15 PM
Just vulnerable kids would be a start. But if you feel you require a babysitter as grown ass adult human being, go ahead.
I was referring to a measure to stop murderers using bins as a failsafe way of disposing of corpses.  What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:06:29 PM
Crikey.  Uncovered corpse.  Please  fill in the details.  Where's the popcorn?
Dunno, have some bubblegum, you’re fond of that.  ^*&&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 08:07:19 PM
So for this to work we have to accept:
1) some if not all the dog alerts were wrong
2) Gerry was in two places at once
3) Gerry had the cunning to stage an abduction scenario but then effed it all up by not jemmying the shutters despite telling everyone they had been
4) Gerry had the brazen balls to carry his dead daughter through town, uncovered, past numerous witnesses and then 24 hours go on TV appealing for her return.
5) Portuguese binmen aren’t very observant but very prompt at bin emptying.
6) the PJ are not very clever as they should have been straight down the local tipon day one.

Anything else?

No doubt there is?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:07:55 PM
In what rational time scale did an alleged abductor spirit Madeleine away
Hmm, let’s see - how many minutes do you think you need to enter an unlocked flat, pick up a sleeping child, leave the apartment and walk to a near y parked car?  More or less than one?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 08:08:47 PM
So for this to work we have to accept:
1) some if not all the dog alerts were wrong
2) Gerry was in two places at once
3) Gerry had the cunning to stage an abduction scenario but then effed it all up by not jemmying the shutters despite telling everyone they had been
4) Gerry had the brazen balls to carry his dead daughter through town, uncovered, past numerous witnesses and then 24 hours go on TV appealing for her return.
5) Portuguese binmen aren’t very observant but very prompt at bin emptying.
6) the PJ are not very clever as they should have been straight down the local tipon day one.

Anything else?

1) We are always told dog alerts prove nothing.
2) Gerry searched alone as they split up during the first searches.
3) I thought you said the jemmied shutters claim was never made?
4) Well, he didn't have a car at that point.
5) Wheelie bins are emptied mechanically.
6) The PJ were pointed in the direction of Tannerman.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 26, 2019, 08:09:12 PM
I was talking about BEFORE they got to landfill, sniffing every bin outsode every home for corpses.  You know it makes sense!
You need thousands of dogs and trainers..  How reliable would the cadaver dogs have to be to be allowed on the job?  The cost of dong that would be millions of pounds a week.  You find a few unreported babies, miscarriages, tissues from bleeding noses and cut fingers.  What about all the sanitary pads?  They'd all raise an alert.  Who'd be checking the bins alerted to?  You'd need a another few thousand forensic detectives to do that as well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 08:10:19 PM
Hmm, let’s see - how many minutes do you think you need to enter an unlocked flat, pick up a sleeping child, leave the apartment and walk to a near y parked car?  More or less than one?

You forgot the window.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:10:42 PM
Assuming the abductor is Smithman, IMO, he entered the apartment around 9.40 via the front door, using a key that he somehow acquired. He then entered the childrens bedroom & sedated all 3 children. He opened the window & shutters to disperse the smell of chloroform or whatever it was he used, then, he lifted Maddie off the bed & passed her out the window to his abductor accomplice who was keeping watch. He then left the apartment via the front door, which he locked behind him. They headed for the getaway car, that broke down, so they ran off in seperate directions. The one who took Maddie decided to change her pyjama top for some reason, before heading down Rui Escola, past the Smith family & toward the beach, where another abductor accomplice was waiting in a speedboat as a back up plan just incase the getaway car failed.....
No need to sedate anyone.  No need for a broken down car.  No need for a change of PJs, apart from that a very good attempt.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 08:12:10 PM
No need to sedate anyone.  No need for a broken down car.  No need for a change of PJs, apart from that a very good attempt.

Better than yours, at least I accounted for all the evidence....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 08:17:46 PM
Better than yours, at least I accounted for all the evidence....

And all the evidence you believe in has been  presumably looked at by both investigations or do you believe it has not?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:18:28 PM
1) We are always told dog alerts prove nothing.
2) Gerry searched alone as they split up during the first searches.
3) I thought you said the jemmied shutters claim was never made?
4) Well, he didn't have a car at that point.
5) Wheelie bins are emptied mechanically.
6) The PJ were pointed in the direction of Tannerman.
1) OK dog alerts dismissed, hurrah
2) So Gerry was Smithman AFTER the alert was raised?  Tell me more...
3) YOU claimed the jemmied shutters claim was made?  So we can dismiss that too?  Hurrah.  But why fake an abduction and then not actually fake a break in?
4) Correct, so Gerry DOES have brazen balls, and didn’t mind being observed carrying his dead daughter and then having his face plastered all over the media not caring if he was id’ed or not because he KNEW his method of body disposal was foolproof.
5) Binmen never observe the contents of bins in Portugal, the robots take care of everything, who knew.
6) The PJ really weren’t very clever if they fell for the old Tannerman fake sighting, alibi malarkey, oldest trick in the book!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:19:50 PM
You need thousands of dogs and trainers..  How reliable would the cadaver dogs have to be to be allowed on the job?  The cost of dong that would be millions of pounds a week.  You find a few unreported babies, miscarriages, tissues from bleeding noses and cut fingers.  What about all the sanitary pads?  They'd all raise an alert.  Who'd be checking the bins alerted to?  You'd need a another few thousand forensic detectives to do that as well.
Thousands of jobs created and lots of lovely doggies in gainful employment too, win win.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:20:37 PM
You forgot the window.
Oh yeah they take ages to open, silly me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 08:25:01 PM
So for this to work we have to accept:
1) some if not all the dog alerts were wrong
2) Gerry was in two places at once
3) Gerry had the cunning to stage an abduction scenario but then effed it all up by not jemmying the shutters despite telling everyone they had been
4) Gerry had the brazen balls to carry his dead daughter through town, uncovered, past numerous witnesses and then 24 hours go on TV appealing for her return.
5) Portuguese binmen aren’t very observant but very prompt at bin emptying.
6) the PJ are not very clever as they should have been straight down the local tipon day one.

Anything else?


Why would the bins be checked methodically,what were they looking for?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 08:26:16 PM
1) OK dog alerts dismissed, hurrah
2) So Gerry was Smithman AFTER the alert was raised?  Tell me more...
3) YOU claimed the jemmied shutters claim was made?  So we can dismiss that too?  Hurrah.  But why fake an abduction and then not actually fake a break in?
4) Correct, so Gerry DOES have brazen balls, and didn’t mind being observed carrying his dead daughter and then having his face plastered all over the media not caring if he was id’ed or not because he KNEW his method of body disposal was foolproof.
5) Binmen never observe the contents of bins in Portugal, the robots take care of everything, who knew.
6) The PJ really weren’t very clever if they fell for the old Tannerman fake sighting, alibi malarkey, oldest trick in the book!

2) What time was the alert actually raised?  We can't be sure.
3) Kate saw the shutters & window open, supposedly, there's your break in.
4) Smithman lowered his head as if to signal that he did not wish to speak. Hardly brazen really.
5) Are bin men supposed to trash gaze everytime they empty a bin?
6) The PJ didn't know of the Smiths sighting until weeks later.



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 08:28:57 PM
2) What time was the alert actually raised?  We can't be sure.
3) Kate saw the shutters & window open, supposedly, there's your break in.
4) Smithman lowered his head as if to signal that he did not wish to speak. Hardly brazen really.
5) Are bin men supposed to trash gaze everytime they empty a bin?
6) The PJ didn't know of the Smiths sighting until weeks later.

3; Breakout:Mitchell tells us K&G are firmly of the view the scarlet pimpernel used the window as a means of leaving with Madeleine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 08:31:06 PM
3; Breakout:Mitchell tells us K&G are firmly of the view the scarlet pimpernel used the window as a means of leaving with Madeleine.

This is the point anyone reading this post realises IMO that you have no credence at all !
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:32:45 PM

Why would the bins be checked methodically,what were they looking for?
Who are you referring to?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 08:33:38 PM
3; Breakout:Mitchell tells us K&G are firmly of the view the scarlet pimpernel used the window as a means of leaving with Madeleine.

Yep, sorry my mistake.

But then Kate was keen to cover all bases later on in her book....

"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door." KM

*Kate would later debunk the sliding door herself in an RT interview.
Only a fastidious abductor could have used the patio door as a means of entry or exit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 08:38:45 PM
This is the point anyone reading this post realises IMO that you have no credence at all !

Who are they seeking then? it might as well be him there is no b....r else imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 08:40:15 PM
Who are you referring to?

You're point 5) Portuguese binmen aren’t very observant but very prompt at bin emptying.


Why would they need to be observant of what is in the bins?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:40:52 PM
2) What time was the alert actually raised?  We can't be sure.
3) Kate saw the shutters & window open, supposedly, there's your break in.
4) Smithman lowered his head as if to signal that he did not wish to speak. Hardly brazen really.
5) Are bin men supposed to trash gaze everytime they empty a bin?
6) The PJ didn't know of the Smiths sighting until weeks later.
2) OK, what time does the alarm have to have been raised to make your theory plausible?  Please demonstrate using a timeline.
3) Why only SAY you saw the window open and the shutters up, but not actually do it?
4) Lowered his eyes?  What a cunning disguise.  You think carrying a dead body en route to a bin in the direction of the nightlife and possible witnesses as opposed to away from town and down a residential back alley is plausible? It seems pretty brazen to me, even if you think it’s the kind of thing any old murderer would do, eyes lowered.
5) Trash gaze?  Nice phrase.  I would expect them to see the odd banana skin, fishbone and child’s corpse in the course of their day-to-day work, yes, is that outrageous of me?
6) So what? There was a missing child.  Whether it was Smithman or an abductor, if throwing a body in a bin is such a common method of body disposal then why would they not do a searchof the local tip on day one?  Give me one good reason.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:43:33 PM
You're point 5) Portuguese binmen aren’t very observant but very prompt at bin emptying.


Why would they need to be observant of what is in the bins?
Because bodies are often disposed in them apparently. Wouldn’t bin men in PdL be aware of a missing child pretty early on?  Would it notoccur to them that maybe she’d been chucked in a bin, just like it apparently occurred to most sceptics within hours?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 08:44:39 PM
This is the point anyone reading this post realises IMO that you have no credence at all !

My sleep will not be disturbed by your opinion,personal attack liked by a mod I see.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 08:46:18 PM
Because bodies are often disposed in them apparently.

Were they alerted to look for such? the bins were searched if you care to peruse the files but was the landfill.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 08:46:58 PM
2) OK, what time does the alarm have to have been raised to make your theory plausible?  Please demonstrate using a timeline.
3) Why only SAY you saw the window open and the shutters up, but not actually do it?
4) Lowered his eyes?  What a cunning disguise.  You think carrying a dead body en route to a bin in the direction of the nightlife and possible witnesses as opposed to away from town and down a residential back alley is plausible? It seems pretty brazen to me, even if you think it’s the kind of thing any old murderer would do, eyes lowered.
5) Trash gaze?  Nice phrase.  I would expect them to see the odd banana skin, fishbone and child’s corpse in the course of their day-to-day work, yes, is that outrageous of me?
6) So what? There was a missing child.  Whether it was Smithman or an abductor, if throwing a body in a bin is such a common method of body disposal then why would they not do a searchof the local tip on day one?  Give me one good reason.

2) Prior to 10pm, I can't be assed to draw you a timeline.
3) Kate's prints are on the window, go figure.
4) Like I said, he didn't have a car, not much choice in the matter really.
5) Yes, it is.
6) The cops didn't suspect Maddie was dead until Kate's dream iirc
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:50:18 PM
Were they alerted to look for such? the bins were searched if you care to peruse the files but was the landfill.
Has any police force ever suggested that landfill is the likely final resting place of Madeleine McCann?  If not, why not?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 08:50:22 PM
My sleep will not be disturbed by your opinion,personal attack liked by a mod I see.

I never for a moment thought your sleep would be disturbed by my post.
Wishing you a good night's sleep whenever you do go to bed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:51:09 PM
2) Prior to 10pm, I can't be assed to draw you a timeline.
3) Kate's prints are on the window, go figure.
4) Like I said, he didn't have a car, not much choice in the matter really.
5) Yes, it is.
6) The cops didn't suspect Maddie was dead until Kate's dream iirc
You’re floundering a bit now aren’t you?  Bless.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 08:54:28 PM
Has any police force ever suggested that landfill is the likely final resting place of Madeleine McCann?  If not, why not?


Who knows,I surprised you haven't blamed the PJ for not thinking of it,or are you subcounsiously praising them for not countenancing it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 08:54:52 PM
You’re floundering a bit now aren’t you?  Bless.

Not really. You have debunked nothing thus far IMO.

Here's a question for you.

Where was Gerry between 10.00 & 10.10?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 08:57:18 PM
You’re floundering a bit now aren’t you?  Bless.

You've got to admit though despite the best efforts, in reaching 2000 post's the sceptics thread hasn't gone away.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 08:57:53 PM

Who knows,I surprised you haven't blamed the PJ for not thinking of it,or are you subcounsiously praising them for not countenancing it.
I am blaming the pj for not thinking of it!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 26, 2019, 08:58:58 PM
I am blaming the pj for not thinking of it!!

You think it has legs then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 08:59:02 PM
2) Prior to 10pm, I can't be assed to draw you a timeline.
3) Kate's prints are on the window, go figure.
4) Like I said, he didn't have a car, not much choice in the matter really.
5) Yes, it is.
6) The cops didn't suspect Maddie was dead until Kate's dream iirc

Well there you are !
A sceptic's beliefs.!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 09:01:05 PM
Not really. You have debunked nothing thus far IMO.

Here's a question for you.

Where was Gerry between 10.00 & 10.10?
I haven’t claimed to debunk anything, I have simply exposed the paucity of your argument.  IMO.  Where WAS Gerry between 10pm and 10.10pm?  Why chucking a body in a bin in the centre of PdL no doubt, despite the numerous witness accounts who put him in the vicinity of Apartment 5a at the time.  Why don’t you tell me where you think he was, and what supports your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 09:02:42 PM
You've got to admit though despite the best efforts, in reaching 2000 post's the sceptics thread hasn't gone away.
Eh?  This is the best thread on here for a while, despite being written off by many sceptics as pointless and goading when it began. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 09:07:34 PM
I haven’t claimed to debunk anything, I have simply exposed the paucity of your argument.  IMO.  Where WAS Gerry between 10pm and 10.10pm?  Why chucking a body in a bin in the centre of PdL no doubt, despite the numerous witness accounts who put him in the vicinity of Apartment 5a at the time.  Why don’t you tell me where you think he was, and what supports your belief?

Go on then, show me the numerous witness statements that give Gerry's whereabouts between 10.00 & 10.10.
Should be simple.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2019, 09:10:32 PM
That seems to be the crux of the sceptics beliefs.
A gut feeling even on the first day that Madeleine's parents were "shifty".
Then an ever lasting belief in the early days of ghastly libellous press reporting, and a  belief in the supposed discrepancies in the files, and on and on, even though almost twelve years have passed, and these "shifty" parents sought  the reopening of their daughter's disappearance  and gained that reopening of their daughters disappearance which has two current investigations .
Neither of which seems to be focussing on Madeleine's parents.

I didn't. don't and never will believe that responsibe, careful and loving parents leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment every night while they go out. I have always had and will always have the utmost sympathy for Madeleine McCann, and could not, cannot and will not sympathise with those who put her in danger. 

Their behaviour was irresponsible, careless, unloving and selfish in my opinion. All of them.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 26, 2019, 09:12:03 PM
Thousands of jobs created and lots of lovely doggies in gainful employment too, win win.
But what do you get for your money?   
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 09:25:10 PM
I didn't. don't and never will believe that responsibe, careful and loving parents leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment every night while they go out. I have always had and will always have the utmost sympathy for Madeleine McCann, and could not, cannot and will not sympathise with those who put her in danger. 

Their behaviour was irresponsible, careless, unloving and selfish in my opinion. All of them.

Many loving and careful and responsible parents have made a wrong decision.

When you say " unloving" do you mean the McCanns didn't love their children?


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 09:27:32 PM

I'm sure they loved their children, it's just, they loved Tapas even more.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 09:30:18 PM
I'm sure they loved their children, it's just, they loved Tapas even more.

You really do the sceptic belief and campaign no credence at all!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 09:34:52 PM
You really do the sceptic belief and campaign no credence at all!

I speak for myself. I'm not part of the Borg, & nothing anyone says here is of any consequence.
It isn't going to bring Maddie back!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 09:35:26 PM
Go on then, show me the numerous witness statements that give Gerry's whereabouts between 10.00 & 10.10.
Should be simple.
Read the files.  Even the PJ final report concluded the alarm was raised at 10pm and that Gerry was at the table when the alarm was raised, presumably you know better however.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 09:37:21 PM
Read the files.  Even the PJ final report concluded the alarm was raised at 10pm and that Gerry was at the table when the alarm was raised, presumably you know better however.

 8)--))

It's not easy to pin Gerry down between 10.00 & 10.10, is it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 09:38:07 PM
I didn't. don't and never will believe that responsibe, careful and loving parents leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment every night while they go out. I have always had and will always have the utmost sympathy for Madeleine McCann, and could not, cannot and will not sympathise with those who put her in danger. 

Their behaviour was irresponsible, careless, unloving and selfish in my opinion. All of them.
Yawn.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 09:38:33 PM
I speak for myself. I'm not part of the Borg, & nothing anyone says here is of any consequence.
It isn't going to bring Maddie back!

But you do believe that Madeleine's parents are guilty of what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 09:39:11 PM
But what do you get for your money?
well,for a start £12m of taxpayers money spent on trying to find one child.  Think how many bin cadaver dogs that would have funded!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 09:39:42 PM
But you do believe that Madeleine's parents are guilty of what?

Something other than abduction.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 09:39:55 PM
8)--))

It's not easy to pin Gerry down between 10.00 & 10.10, is it.
Yes it is.  8(>((
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2019, 09:40:34 PM
Were they alerted to look for such? the bins were searched if you care to peruse the files but was the landfill.

The bins were not searched by the PJ for some days. The bins are emptied in the early hours of the morning. I’m sure the parents meant her to be found, just didn’t figure on the emptying of the bins so early I suppose.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 09:40:43 PM
Yes it is.  8(>((

Oh I see, that's why you folded is it?  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 09:41:08 PM
Something other than abduction.

Of course, they didn't abduct their own child.
So what is your belief?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 09:43:03 PM
The bins were not searched by the PJ for some days. The bins are emptied in the early hours of the morning. I’m sure the parents meant her to be found, just didn’t figure on the emptying of the bins so early I suppose.

You really do believe that one or both of Madeleine's parents chucked her dead body in a wheelie bin?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 09:43:24 PM
Oh I see, that's why you folded is it?  @)(++(*
Folded what?  What time was the alarm raised?  Tell me precisely. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 09:44:50 PM
I'm sure they loved their children, it's just, they loved Tapas even more.
History will resolve to rest on this quote as a fitting epitaph to the whole sorry saga.
It's a work of unbridled genius.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 09:45:19 PM
The bins were not searched by the PJ for some days. The bins are emptied in the early hours of the morning. I’m sure the parents meant her to be found, just didn’t figure on the emptying of the bins so early I suppose.
Any explanation for this belief of yours, that the McCanns expected Madeleine to be found, when apparently disposing of a body in a bin is a sure fire way of disappearing it forever? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 09:45:51 PM
Of course, they didn't abduct their own child.
So what is your belief?

Accidental death & concealment, or manslaughter & concealment.

Either way, I'm yet to see any proof or much evidence for that matter, that either didn't happen & an abduction did, despite 'not suspects' & 12 million spent etc etc
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2019, 09:46:35 PM
You really do believe that one or both of Madeleine's parents chucked her dead body in a wheelie bin?

No I don’t believe they simply chucked her in a bin however I do believe that it’s a possibility that they placed her in the bin hoping she’d be found when the search began....unfortunately they had no knowledge of bin collection times, in the U.K. they are usually after 8am.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 09:49:55 PM
No I don’t believe they simply chucked her in a bin however I do believe that it’s a possibility that they placed her in the bin hoping she’d be found when the search began.
Ah.  Not thrown away like rubbish, but placed tenderly amongst the fish heads and soiled nappies.  I see...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 09:51:30 PM
No I don’t believe they simply chucked her in a bin however I do believe that it’s a possibility that they placed her in the bin hoping she’d be found when the search began.

Ok you believe that parents of a much loved child was "placed" in a wheelie bin after finding her dead in their apartment.
Hoping she would be found when the search began.
And that would prove what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2019, 10:01:17 PM
Many loving and careful and responsible parents have made a wrong decision.

When you say " unloving" do you mean the McCanns didn't love their children?

I judge by actions, not words. .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 10:01:27 PM
Ok you believe that parents of a much loved child was "placed" in a wheelie bin after finding her dead in their apartment.
Hoping she would be found when the search began.
And that would prove what?
That the bin men were fastidious. Come on Ernie, open the bin, have a wee squizz inside, check for LPG bottles, depleted plutonium, dead children.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2019, 10:01:47 PM
Ok you believe that parents of a much loved child was "placed" in a wheelie bin after finding her dead in their apartment.
Hoping she would be found when the search began.
And that would prove what?

Sorry I’m not with you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 10:02:05 PM
Folded what?  What time was the alarm raised?  Tell me precisely.

You folded on 'where was Gerry between 10.00 & 10.10' telling me to 'read the files'.
I thought that would be a simple task for a man of your knowledge.

It's hard to be precise about what time the alarm was raised, one witness gives 9.50, others 10.00, some later still.

I'm pretty sure I know what precise time the Smiths sighting was though, 10.03.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2019, 10:04:07 PM
Are there any Mods here tonight?

No idea. Brietta has decided to go incognito.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 10:06:16 PM
Are there any Mods here tonight?
Oh dear, have I upset you ?   Very sorry, I thought you were man enough for a bit of banter.  I don’t really think you’re a silly clot,  in fact I think you’re a jolly lovely fellow.  Better?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:07:00 PM
I judge by actions, not words. .

So the McCann children were "unloved"
Was this being "unloved";just in the week of the holiday in PDL or from their births?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 10:07:38 PM
I didn't. don't and never will believe that responsibe, careful and loving parents leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment every night while they go out. I have always had and will always have the utmost sympathy for Madeleine McCann, and could not, cannot and will not sympathise with those who put her in danger. 

Their behaviour was irresponsible, careless, unloving and selfish in my opinion. All of them.
There was no malice aforethought involved ... unlike the malicious actions of sceptics over the past twelve years inclusive of total disregard for the wellbeing of Madeleine's siblings ... proving exactly the measure of their real regard for the welfare of children.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 10:09:07 PM
You folded on 'where was Gerry between 10.00 & 10.10' telling me to 'read the files'.
I thought that would be a simple task for a man of your knowledge.

It's hard to be precise about what time the alarm was raised, one witness gives 9.50, others 10.00, some later still.

I'm pretty sure I know what precise time the Smiths sighting was though, 10.03.
The general consensus is 10pm, as confirmed by some of the witnesses and the PJ agreed - Gerry was at the table at the time of the alarm. If the Smith sighting was at 10.03pm, talk is through the chain of events leading up to it, in your opinion.   
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 10:10:58 PM
There was no malice aforethought involved ... unlike the malicious actions of sceptics over the past twelve years inclusive of total disregard for the wellbeing of Madeleine's siblings ... proving exactly the measure of their real regard for the welfare of children.

I feel sorry for the twins. They can't touch a search engine without their parents breathing down their necks.
I imagine the Chinese get less online censorship.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:12:34 PM
That the bin men were fastidious. Come on Ernie, open the bin, have a wee squizz inside, check for LPG bottles, depleted plutonium, dead children.

When Wonderful spam likes your post and when I have no idea of what you are on about and when you referring me as "Ernie" ........?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 10:17:45 PM
When Wonderful spam likes your post and when I have no idea of what you are on about and when you referring me as "Ernie" ........?
A list of things Erngath can't comprehend, Alex?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:18:15 PM
I feel sorry for the twins. They can't touch a search engine without their parents breathing down their necks.
I imagine the Chinese get less online censorship.

And you know they can't touch a search engine?
Really?
I'm sure their parents have warned them about the pros and cons about the internet.
I imagine their parents are more concerned about internet grooming than any rubbish  and myth they come across about their parents and their abducted sister.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 10:21:36 PM
I feel sorry for the twins. They can't touch a search engine without their parents breathing down their necks.
I imagine the Chinese get less online censorship.
You imagine alot, I think that may be part of the problem.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:21:58 PM
A list of things Erngath can't comprehend, Alex?

Is Wonderfulspam  Alex?

Now I understand.
Thanks for that!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2019, 10:22:29 PM
And you know they can't touch a search engine?
Really?
I'm sure their parents have warned them about the [ censored word ] and cons about the internet.
I imagine their parents are more concerned about internet grooming than any rubbish  and myth they come across about their parents and their abducted sister.

As an adult, and a retired teacher I believe, did you actually use the word ‘hat*r’, really ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 10:24:18 PM
And you know they can't touch a search engine?
Really?
I'm sure their parents have warned them about the [ censored word ] and cons about the internet.
I imagine their parents are more concerned about internet grooming than any rubbish  and myth they come across about their parents and their abducted sister.
They're probably also concerned about their remaining kids becoming self-aware too.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:24:28 PM
And you know they can't touch a search engine?
Really?
I'm sure their parents have warned them about the [ censored word ] and cons about the internet.
I imagine their parents are more concerned about internet grooming than any rubbish  and myth they come across about their parents and their abducted sister.

I didn't think I had a censored word. Lol
It was the pros and cons of the internet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 10:24:44 PM
As an adult, and a retired teacher I believe, did you actually use the word ‘hat*r’, really ?
Are teachers and adults not allowed to use that word?  Who knew!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 26, 2019, 10:24:56 PM
And you know they can't touch a search engine?
Really?
I'm sure their parents have warned them about the [ censored word ] and cons about the internet.
I imagine their parents are more concerned about internet grooming than any rubbish  and myth they come across about their parents and their abducted sister.

Did you not read the book trial reports?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on April 26, 2019, 10:25:35 PM
On 10th May 2007 Amaral's wife found the family dog dead. He was tasked with disposing of the body & decided to dump it in a bin, transporting it in his car.  At that time he realised how easy it was to dispose of a small body & how difficult it was to bury. Almost a light bulb moment, some would say.

http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/Goncalo%20Amaral%20-%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20-%20Madeleine%20McCann.pdf

Chapter 7, 43/96.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:25:49 PM
I didn't think I had a censored word. Lol
It was the [ censored word ] and cons of the internet.

Keep on trying .....p..........r..........o.............s
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2019, 10:26:06 PM
I didn't think I had a censored word. Lol
It was the [ censored word ] and cons of the internet.

So the word was .....?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 10:28:20 PM
On 10th May 2007 Amaral's wife found the family dog dead. He was tasked with disposing of the body & decided to dump it in a bin, transporting it in his car.  At that time he realised how easy it was to dispose of a small body & how difficult it was to bury. Almost a light bulb moment, some would say.

http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/Goncalo%20Amaral%20-%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20-%20Madeleine%20McCann.pdf

Chapter 7, 43/96.
And what did he do after his light bulb moment?  Order a search of the local tip?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:29:57 PM
Did you not read the book trial reports?


That was years ago.
Hopefully the parents have prepared them by now to be aware of all that is on the internet about their parents and preparing them to be aware of that and all the much more serious internet grooming.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 10:30:12 PM
So the word was .....?
Have you heard of the phrase “pr0s and cons” before?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2019, 10:30:51 PM
And you know they can't touch a search engine?
Really?
I'm sure their parents have warned them about the [ censored word ] and cons about the internet.
I imagine their parents are more concerned about internet grooming than any rubbish  and myth they come across about their parents and their abducted sister.
I think the twins' parents will have prepared them for much of what they might encounter on the internet and how best to cope with it.
There is an element of responsible parenting in that anyway ... but the added hazards the McCann children must undoubtedly learn to cope with are reprehensible and one of the more unedifying aspects of sceptic legacy.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:31:26 PM
So the word was .....?

The P.......r........o.......s  and cons of the internet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 10:32:22 PM
The P.......r........o.......s  and cons of the internet.
How could you, as an adult and a teacher, use such a dirty word?!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 10:33:32 PM
I think the twins' parents will have prepared them for much of what they might encounter on the internet and how best to cope with it.
There is an element of responsible parenting in that anyway ... but the added hazards the McCann children must undoubtedly learn to cope with are reprehensible and one of the more unedifying aspects of sceptic legacy.
Gerry and Kate aren't that bad, surely?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:34:08 PM
Have you heard of the phrase “pr0s and cons” before?


Goodness me I will know how to get the phrase] "PROS and cons" through the filter if I ever use that phrase again.lol
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:37:58 PM
How could you, as an adult and a teacher, use such a dirty word?!

Lol.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:39:07 PM
Lol.

Another learning curve for me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:41:27 PM
As an adult, and a retired teacher I believe, did you actually use the word ‘hat*r’, really ?

What word?

No I didn't use the word hat***r.
I used the  expression  the p....r.........o.........s.       and cons of the internet.
You really shouldn't think the worst of folk!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:43:16 PM
Fuggedaboudit. We know what we're up against. It's a sign of desperation and probably the genesis of a realisation that they've been sold a pup, despite their continued remonstrations to the contrary.

Who is "we"?
And who has been sold a pup?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 10:45:11 PM
What word?
You're like Austin Powers; it's like you just rocked up from the 70's and everyone's talking a groovy, new lingo called Internet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on April 26, 2019, 10:46:06 PM
And what did he do after his light bulb moment?  Order a search of the local tip?

Apparently not. I wonder why it took a seasoned drug trafficking detective, who was used to investigating various methods of concealment of cargo, a whole week to reach such a moment?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2019, 10:48:52 PM
Apparently not. I wonder why it took a seasoned drug trafficking detective, who was used to investigating various methods of concealment of cargo, a whole week to reach such a moment?

Concealment of drugs in landfill?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 10:51:08 PM
Apparently not. I wonder why it took a seasoned drug trafficking detective, who was used to investigating various methods of concealment of cargo, a whole week to reach such a moment?
Let's not look in the the tip for an burglarductor who is now in a taxi in Tunis with the wee an in a holdall......
.....I thought there was an abduction? Why are we sifting through generations of Portuguese domestic detritus?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 26, 2019, 10:54:19 PM
You're like Austin Powers; it's like you just rocked up from the 70's and everyone's talking a groovy, new lingo called Internet.

Are you really sure you should have made that post?
Quite disappointing for you.
Not one of your best.
"groovy"  "new lingo"   (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 26, 2019, 11:00:11 PM
Are you really sure you should have made that post?
Quite disappointing for you.
Not one of your best.
"groovy"  "new lingo"   (&^&
Good evening, Ernie, you're as good sport.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on April 26, 2019, 11:03:25 PM
Let's not look in the the tip for an burglarductor who is now in a taxi in Tunis with the wee an in a holdall......
.....I thought there was an abduction? Why are we sifting through generations of Portuguese domestic detritus?

Abduct, abuse, kill, dump - that's a common MO for any abductor.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 11:10:20 PM
You're like Austin Powers; it's like you just rocked up from the 70's and everyone's talking a groovy, new lingo called Internet.
How rude!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 11:11:20 PM
Apparently not. I wonder why it took a seasoned drug trafficking detective, who was used to investigating various methods of concealment of cargo, a whole week to reach such a moment?
Because he wasn’t all that bright?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 26, 2019, 11:12:55 PM
Let's not look in the the tip for an burglarductor who is now in a taxi in Tunis with the wee an in a holdall......
.....I thought there was an abduction? Why are we sifting through generations of Portuguese domestic detritus?
Because a few sceptics here like totally buy into the chucked in a bin theory, baby. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 27, 2019, 12:54:06 AM
The general consensus is 10pm, as confirmed by some of the witnesses and the PJ agreed - Gerry was at the table at the time of the alarm. If the Smith sighting was at 10.03pm, talk is through the chain of events leading up to it, in your opinion.

Gerry was not at the table at 10:03pm. Matt said Kate checked at 9:50pm and she wasn't gone that long. Nobody was at the table at that time. Fiona thought it was as early as 9:45 and the waiter also said that time. 10:03 does not add up except for Gerry. The wise know the meaning of that time!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 06:25:49 AM
Abduct, abuse, kill, dump - that's a common MO for any abductor.
Blimey,supporters turning sceptical about the girl living happily ever after under the surveillance of SY.Who'd have thunk it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 07:03:50 AM
I think the twins' parents will have prepared them for much of what they might encounter on the internet and how best to cope with it.
There is an element of responsible parenting in that anyway ... but the added hazards the McCann children must undoubtedly learn to cope with are reprehensible and one of the more unedifying aspects of sceptic legacy.
A more unedifying legacy is for the twins is growing up without what should be their big sister with out fully understanding and knowing the reasons why.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 07:04:48 AM
Abduct, abuse, kill, dump - that's a common MO for any abductor.
Also allows for woke and wandered.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 07:31:25 AM
Blimey,supporters turning sceptical about the girl living happily ever after under the surveillance of SY.Who'd have thunk it.
So its ok for sceptics to treat all supporters as one, but not ok for supporters to generalise about sceptics views?  I see.  As far as I’m aware only one supporter on here has ever voiced the belief you have described. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 07:58:08 AM
A more unedifying legacy is for the twins is growing up without what should be their big sister with out fully understanding and knowing the reasons why.

I think the twins have had as normal and stable a childhood as their parents were able to give them despite being the members of a family with one missing member and despite vile, constant and deliberate endeavours to destroy the health and wellbeing of their parents over a twelve year unrelenting period.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 08:07:38 AM
I think the twins have had as normal and stable a childhood as their parents were able to give them despite being the members of a family with one missing member and despite vile, constant and deliberate endeavours to destroy the health and wellbeing of their parents over a twelve year unrelenting period.


From what quarters?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 08:11:09 AM

From what quarters?
Facebook, Twitter, Forums, newspaper comments, Amazon, blogs, please feel free to add to the list.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 08:12:11 AM
Blimey,supporters turning sceptical about the girl living happily ever after under the surveillance of SY.Who'd have thunk it.
Do keep up with the debate and don't cherry pick posts to suit your particular prejudices.  The post was in reply to why search rubbish tips etc for a kidnapped child?

All possibilities have to be eliminated ... and given that Madeleine was looked for and not found and no remains have been found over twelve years ... it raises the hope that she was not treated as abducted children quite often are and heightens the possibility that she survived whatever ordeal she may have suffered when she vanished on 3rd May 2007.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 08:20:24 AM
You really do believe that one or both of Madeleine's parents chucked her dead body in a wheelie bin?

Why the incredulity? Surely you understand that people do all sorts of things, even to their own children.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 08:22:17 AM
Facebook, Twitter, Forums, newspaper comments, Amazon, blogs, please feel free to add to the list.

Have you seen examples of the videos which some I think seriously damaged and disturbed individuals have posted on the internet ... it is like a spreading disease of malice ... but aimed at one individual family it is an unprecedented example of sick mob abuse.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 08:22:45 AM
Why the incredulity? Surely you understand that people do all sorts of things, even to their own children.
You don’t believe it though, so that’s ok.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 08:25:31 AM
Have you seen examples of the videos which some I think seriously damaged and disturbed individuals have posted on the internet ... it is like a spreading disease of malice ... but aimed at one individual family it is an unprecedented example of sick mob abuse.
We had an example of spiteful malice posted on here last night which was hailed a work of unbridled genius and yet we are to believe that sceptics here are above such spite and malice.  I think not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 08:35:45 AM
So its ok for sceptics to treat all supporters as one, but not ok for supporters to generalise about sceptics views?  I see.  As far as I’m aware only one supporter on here has ever voiced the belief you have described.

Oh, come on, you can't fool us. We know you all cling to the same beliefs no matter how much you deny it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 08:39:06 AM
Why the incredulity? Surely you understand that people do all sorts of things, even to their own children.

There are always those eager to see the worst in people ... and none more so than sceptics and their comparisons of  Madeleine's parents with whichever murderers and misfits happen to be in the headlines.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 08:40:16 AM
Do keep up with the debate and don't cherry pick posts to suit your particular prejudices.  The post was in reply to why search rubbish tips etc for a kidnapped child?

All possibilities have to be eliminated ... and given that Madeleine was looked for and not found and no remains have been found over twelve years ... it raises the hope that she was not treated as abducted children quite often are and heightens the possibility that she survived whatever ordeal she may have suffered when she vanished on 3rd May 2007.

There is no debate its about attacking sceptic beliefs and also is it in your brief to decide which post's should be responded to?
All possibities haven't been eliminated thats why its unsolved. Rowley the last to speak certainly never raised any hopes, not once did he mention returning Madeleine to her family,he said as time goes by you have to realistic in what you are dealing with.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 08:40:48 AM
But what do you get for your money?

Nothing.

Despite investigating cadaver dogs extensively, I have yet to find an instance of them being used on landfill.

It merely shows that VS doesn't understand how rubbish was processed in the Algarve in 2007.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 08:42:33 AM
You don’t believe it though, so that’s ok.

I don't believe anything in oarticular, but neither do I rule anything out.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 08:44:21 AM
Oh, come on, you can't fool us. We know you all cling to the same beliefs no matter how much you deny it.

For me ... paramount among which is the presumption of innocence and the knowledge that I have never gone out of my way to do any harm in word or deed to anyone.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 08:50:00 AM
There is no debate its about attacking sceptic beliefs and also is it in your brief to decide which post's should be responded to?
All possibities haven't been eliminated thats why its unsolved. Rowley the last to speak certainly never raised any hopes, not once did he mention returning Madeleine to her family,he said as time goes by you have to realistic in what you are dealing with.
If I think it is wrong ... I will say so.  You obviously think it is right ... and you are entitled to say so.  I think you may be having difficulty here because you don't really have much of a case to make, do you?  Whereas ... I am spoilt for choice and have hardly started, given the rich pickings of sceptic belief to chose from.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 08:51:18 AM
There are always those eager to see the worst in people ... and none more so than sceptics and their comparisons of  Madeleine's parents with whichever murderers and misfits happen to be in the headlines.

Not eager, Brietta, realistic. People can and do surprise others by doing the unexpected. Perfectly respectable sucessful people included.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 09:08:43 AM
Nothing.

Despite investigating cadaver dogs extensively, I have yet to find an instance of them being used on landfill.

It merely shows that VS doesn't understand how rubbish was processed in the Algarve in 2007.
There are quite a few internet examples where handlers have judged it safe to allow their dogs to search landfill, probably as a last resort.  It does happen.
(http://www.leaderpost.com/cms/binary/3764994.jpg?size=640x420)
Saskatoon police officers, with the assistance of University of Saskatchewan forensic archeologist Ernie Walker and a cadaver dog from Calgary Police Service, search the city's landfill Nov. 1 for the body of an baby born during the Thanksgiving Day weekend GORD WALDNER / THE STARPHOENIX
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 09:11:56 AM
Not eager, Brietta, realistic. People can and do surprise others by doing the unexpected. Perfectly respectable sucessful people included.

How many of them are subject to the sceptic internet treatment the innocent McCanns are?  Nary a one that I can think of.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 09:20:27 AM
For me ... paramount among which is the presumption of innocence and the knowledge that I have never gone out of my way to do any harm in word or deed to anyone.

The presumption of innocence is a legal, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with duscussing the circumstances surrounding a child's disappearance. It has nothing to do with pointing out that her parents didn't provide adequate care or that some of their actions and words seemed unusual.

 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 09:24:55 AM
Not eager, Brietta, realistic. People can and do surprise others by doing the unexpected. Perfectly respectable sucessful people included.

I think you need to reassess your logic... Can you give sone examples of normal respectable successful people doing such things... You will find people you think are such have past behaviour problems... Such as, Shipman..
Once, again you are presenting your opinion as, fact
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 09:27:11 AM
The presumption of innocence is a legal, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with duscussing the circumstances surrounding a child's disappearance. It has nothing to do with pointing out that her parents didn't provide adequate care or that some of their actions and words seemed unusual.

It's a legal right ...a right that should protect them from defamation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 27, 2019, 09:36:46 AM
They would have been arrested immediately by the FBI if it had happened in America. Tampered crime scene, deleted phone records, etc. And they would have brought cadaver dogs straight in. They don't beat around the bush.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 09:40:00 AM
How many of them are subject to the sceptic internet treatment the innocent McCanns are?  Nary a one that I can think of.

There is discussion of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the internet. Her parents can hardly be excluded from those discussions.  You have formed the belief that expressing scepticism about their story amounts to treating them badly. That's an assumption, not a fact, as is your belief in their innocence.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 09:42:45 AM
There is discussion of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the internet. Her parents can hardly be excluded from those discussions.  You have formed the belief that expressing scepticism about their story amounts to treating them badly. That's an assumption, not a fact, as is your belief in their innocence.

You would object to being called a liar yet you accept others calling the mccanns liars... And worse
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 09:46:14 AM
It's a legal right ...a right that should protect them from defamation

It's a legal right which protects those charged with a criminal offence. Defamation is a civil offence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 09:46:20 AM
The presumption of innocence is a legal, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with duscussing the circumstances surrounding a child's disappearance. It has nothing to do with pointing out that her parents didn't provide adequate care or that some of their actions and words seemed unusual.
Pre-internet we had the Magna Carta and the presumption of innocence ... in the internet age we have sceptics and kangaroo courts and a return to the dark ages as far as decency and law and order is concerned.  I know which I prefer to be associated with.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 09:47:33 AM
There are quite a few internet examples where handlers have judged it safe to allow their dogs to search landfill, probably as a last resort.  It does happen.
(http://www.leaderpost.com/cms/binary/3764994.jpg?size=640x420)
Saskatoon police officers, with the assistance of University of Saskatchewan forensic archeologist Ernie Walker and a cadaver dog from Calgary Police Service, search the city's landfill Nov. 1 for the body of an baby born during the Thanksgiving Day weekend GORD WALDNER / THE STARPHOENIX

Thank you.

I was actually thinking about the efficacy of cadaver dogs on a landfill site, rather than H&S.

But thank you anyway.  Now I know of an instance where a cadaver dog has been deployed.  I live and learn.

 *&(+(+
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 27, 2019, 09:57:26 AM
We had an example of spiteful malice posted on here last night which was hailed a work of unbridled genius and yet we are to believe that sceptics here are above such spite and malice.  I think not.

I wrote it. It wasn't spite or malice. It was a quick witted joke.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 10:00:31 AM
It's a legal right which protects those charged with a criminal offence. Defamation is a civil offence
A person had the right to the presumption  of innocencevin a civil court... Civil courts award compensation for legal matters
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: carlymichelle on April 27, 2019, 10:00:53 AM
Oh, come on, you can't fool us. We know you all cling to the same beliefs no matter how much you deny it.

quite cultlike in many ways isnt it??
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 27, 2019, 10:03:34 AM
I think you need to reassess your logic... Can you give sone examples of normal respectable successful people doing such things... You will find people you think are such have past behaviour problems... Such as, Shipman..
Once, again you are presenting your opinion as, fact

Oscar Pistorius.

Normal, successful sportsman, no criminal history, shot his girlfriend several times then tried to claim he thought she was a burglar.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 10:05:08 AM
If I think it is wrong ... I will say so.  You obviously think it is right ... and you are entitled to say so.  I think you may be having difficulty here because you don't really have much of a case to make, do you?  Whereas ... I am spoilt for choice and have hardly started, given the rich pickings of sceptic belief to chose from.

I wasn't aware I was building a case,thanks for the insight.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 10:09:37 AM
You would object to being called a liar yet you accept others calling the mccanns liars... And worse

I answer only for my own words and actions. I have no connection to anyone else on the internet and I accept no responsibilty for their opinions or words.

This thread, of course, is about trying to suggest otherwise.  In my opinion suggesting that sceptics are connected is a ploy which allows the McCanns and their supporters to claim that everyone who disagrees with them is a sad, lonely inadequate troll. Anyone who researches 'sceptics' can see that's just propaganda.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: carlymichelle on April 27, 2019, 10:10:04 AM
Oscar Pistorius.

Normal, successful sportsman, no criminal history, shot his girlfriend several times then tried to claim he thought she was a burglar.


aj  ( andrew)   in the  us   this  week 5 years old and his parents  gave him a cold shower then bashed  him to   death   with head injuries  and  dumped him in a  field     claimed  he  was abducted dog  smelt   family  car  and  scent of  death parents now charged with murder  i would say andrews case has  supporters a  bit spooked
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 10:11:09 AM
I answer only for my own words and actions. I have no connection to anyone else on the internet and I accept no responsibilty for their opinions or words.

This thread, of course, is about trying to suggest otherwise.  In my opinion suggesting that sceptics are connected is a ploy which allows the McCanns and their supporters to claim that everyone who disagrees with them is a sad, lonely inadequate troll. Anyone who researches 'sceptics' can see that's just propaganda.

I think you misunderstand the purpose if the thread...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 10:12:22 AM
Thank you.

I was actually thinking about the efficacy of cadaver dogs on a landfill site, rather than H&S.

But thank you anyway.  Now I know of an instance where a cadaver dog has been deployed.  I live and learn.

 *&(+(+

My understanding is that it is not a popular deployment for the dogs and I think that is as much from the H&S point of view than efficacy.

Land fill sites are dangerous places to be and in the USA many of the cadaver dogs are privately owned and their owners are volunteers who do not go out of their way to put their dog at risk.  I've read some discussion about boots being essential protection for the dogs' pads from broken glass etc.

The Canadian dog used by the Saskatoon officers was a police dog and the circumstances of the search might have been more favourable since the baby had been recently disposed of and the area of search might have been more feasible.

I don't think there is much these dogs find daunting as far as noses are concerned the problem arises when conveying what they know ... or don't ... to humans.
Doesn't your dog stand looking quizzically at you wondering why you're not getting what he's plainly telling you?  mine does it all the time.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 10:16:29 AM
Please note ... the use of bad language will not be tolerated.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 10:19:46 AM
A person had the right to the presumption  of innocencevin a civil court... Civil courts award compensation for legal matters

As it safeguards the right to a fair trial if anyone is entitled it would be the accused, not the accuser.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 10:22:34 AM
Thank you.

I was actually thinking about the efficacy of cadaver dogs on a landfill site, rather than H&S.

But thank you anyway.  Now I know of an instance where a cadaver dog has been deployed.  I live and learn.

 *&(+(+

However, they can also be distracted, for example by methane produced naturally in a peat bog (corpses also produce methane).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html


Now google methane at landfill sites.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 10:24:01 AM
As it safeguards the right to a fair trial if anyone is entitled it would be the accused, not the accuser.

No.. I'm accused if being a criminal I have the right to presumption  of innocence and therefore can sue for damages in a civil court
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 10:26:00 AM
No.. I'm accused if being a criminal I have the right to presumption  of innocence and therefore can sue for damages in a civil court


Jeffery Archer went down that route.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 10:29:04 AM
I answer only for my own words and actions. I have no connection to anyone else on the internet and I accept no responsibilty for their opinions or words.

This thread, of course, is about trying to suggest otherwise.  In my opinion suggesting that sceptics are connected is a ploy which allows the McCanns and their supporters to claim that everyone who disagrees with them is a sad, lonely inadequate troll. Anyone who researches 'sceptics' can see that's just propaganda.

So there are no sites of any kind set up specifically to pour dirt and scorn and the very worst sort of sentiments.

No internet or social media sceptic organisation of any kind  where the odd disgruntled individual can find an outlet to vent his or her spleen?

I really don't think you've quite got that right ... how right and proper it would be were it only true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 10:30:27 AM

aj  ( andrew)   in the  us   this  week 5 years old and his parents  gave him a cold shower then bashed  him to   death   with head injuries  and  dumped him in a  field     claimed  he  was abducted dog  smelt   family  car  and  scent of  death parents now charged with murder  i would say andrews case has  supporters a  bit spooked

Why on earth would you think that?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 10:31:04 AM
My understanding is that it is not a popular deployment for the dogs and I think that is as much from the H&S point of view than efficacy.

Land fill sites are dangerous places to be and in the USA many of the cadaver dogs are privately owned and their owners are volunteers who do not go out of their way to put their dog at risk.  I've read some discussion about boots being essential protection for the dogs' pads from broken glass etc.

The Canadian dog used by the Saskatoon officers was a police dog and the circumstances of the search might have been more favourable since the baby had been recently disposed of and the area of search might have been more feasible.

I don't think there is much these dogs find daunting as far as noses are concerned the problem arises when conveying what they know ... or don't ... to humans.
Doesn't your dog stand looking quizzically at you wondering why you're not getting what he's plainly telling you?  mine does it all the time.

My dog mithres me several times a day.  He has a ploy for when he wants his breakfast.  He has a ploy for when he wants a walkie.  He has a ploy for when he wants me to get out of bed.  He has a ploy for when he reckons it is playtime.

I am under no illusions about which of us is the boss.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 10:36:21 AM
However, they can also be distracted, for example by methane produced naturally in a peat bog (corpses also produce methane).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html


Now google methane at landfill sites.

Some of us don't really need to google anything having done it all before and having read extensively.  However the evidence is that cadaver dogs are sometimes deployed to landfill sites.  No doubt after a risk assessment no doubt inclusive of emitting gases.
I have no idea why some members find it necessary to argue about the simplest of non-controversial issues ... do you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 10:39:50 AM
I think you need to reassess your logic... Can you give sone examples of normal respectable successful people doing such things... You will find people you think are such have past behaviour problems... Such as, Shipman..
Once, again you are presenting your opinion as, fact

Myles Bradbury. Respected doctor, devout Chrisrian, family man.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 10:40:26 AM
My dog mithres me several times a day.  He has a ploy for when he wants his breakfast.  He has a ploy for when he wants a walkie.  He has a ploy for when he wants me to get out of bed.  He has a ploy for when he reckons it is playtime.

I am under no illusions about which of us is the boss.

Checked him out on your blog photographed doing just that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 10:45:34 AM
Some of us don't really need to google anything having done it all before and having read extensively.  However the evidence is that cadaver dogs are sometimes deployed to landfill sites.  No doubt after a risk assessment no doubt inclusive of emitting gases.
I have no idea why some members find it necessary to argue about the simplest of non-controversial issues ... do you?

Not a bit,but lead us to the argument and I'll have a look.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 10:56:14 AM
Myles Bradbury. Respected doctor, devout Chrisrian, family man.

I see paedophilia as an illness...its not a choice people make
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 11:16:11 AM
I think you misunderstand the purpose if the thread...

It was clained that the purpose of the thread was to understand why sceptics still believed the McCanns were guilty of something despite two live police investigations being in existence.

The assumptions are;

That all sceotics believe the McCanns are guilty of something, and that the existence of two police investigations make those beliefs untenable. I find that illogical for a start. In my opinion the McCanns neglected to ensure the safety of their children. They weren't charged with the offence and never will be, but my opinion stands and nothing the police do or say will change it.

Moving on, whatever sceptics said was rejected. They were no longer being asked what they believed, they were being told. They were told what they (all) believed and when, how and why they reached those conclusions.

It may not have been intended but the thread became a litany of what supporters believe sceptics believe imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 27, 2019, 11:24:05 AM
I think you need to reassess your logic... Can you give sone examples of normal respectable successful people doing such things... You will find people you think are such have past behaviour problems... Such as, Shipman..
Once, again you are presenting your opinion as, fact

Ted Bundy. Anne Rule, the author and a former police officer, worked with Bundy at a volunteer student helpline and had absolutely no suspicions that there was anything amiss with him.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 11:25:39 AM
I see paedophilia as an illness...its not a choice people make

They may not choose to be paedophiles but they choose to break the law when they act on their urges. .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 27, 2019, 11:54:07 AM
It was clained that the purpose of the thread was to understand why sceptics still believed the McCanns were guilty of something despite two live police investigations being in existence.

The assumptions are;

That all sceotics believe the McCanns are guilty of something, and that the existence of two police investigations make those beliefs untenable. I find that illogical for a start. In my opinion the McCanns neglected to ensure the safety of their children. They weren't charged with the offence and never will be, but my opinion stands and nothing the police do or say will change it.

Moving on, whatever sceptics said was rejected. They were no longer being asked what they believed, they were being told. They were told what they (all) believed and when, how and why they reached those conclusions.

It may not have been intended but the thread became a litany of what supporters believe sceptics believe imo.


I am not aware that I have ever told a sceptic what they believe.
Indeed I have no idea of what any particular sceptic does believe and therein lies the difficulty.
As I  said before it is akin to nailing jelly to a wall.
No one is asking you to change your opinion on what you perceive  to be neglect.

The thread is an opportunity for individual sceptics to voice their beliefs and to perhaps explain why their beliefs have been steadfast over the past twelve years.
I certainly had never thought that sceptics share the same beliefs but did assume that all sceptics believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
Perhaps not ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 12:54:45 PM

I am not aware that I have ever told a sceptic what they believe.
Indeed I have no idea of what any particular sceptic does believe and therein lies the difficulty.
As I  said before it is akin to nailing jelly to a wall.
No one is asking you to change your opinion on what you perceive  to be neglect.

The thread is an opportunity for individual sceptics to voice their beliefs and to perhaps explain why their beliefs have been steadfast over the past twelve years.
I certainly had never thought that sceptics share the same beliefs but did assume that all sceptics believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
Perhaps not ?"

Looking at your posts you appear to see sceptics as a group with shared beliefs and a shared campaign. You also appear to reject what they say and believe that you know why they think as they do.

"the sceptic belief and campaign"; "the crux of the sceptics beliefs.";  "Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?"; "I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all."; "all sceptics believe that her parents are involved."; "sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 27, 2019, 01:09:40 PM
I see paedophilia as an illness...its not a choice people make

It's not acceptable! They should be locked up and never have access to children if they can't make the right choice.  They make me sick - controlling and abusing innocent kids! Time to get tougher on them and knife crime.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 01:13:50 PM
It's not acceptable! They should be locked up and never have access to children if they can't make the right choice.  They make me sick - controlling and abusing innocent kids! Time to get tougher on them and knife crime.

A local man went down that route downloading over 250,000 images,they gave up counting,he was given a suspended sentence the judge saying and I quote:

“I do not accept for a moment that you do not have a sexual interest in children. You could not complain if I sent you straight to custody but that would mean you would come out as an untreated sex offender.
“It is better for you to carry out one to one work with the probation service, which is better for the protection of the public, and particularly of children who need to be protected against whom the loathsome activities you were involved with.”

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 01:15:41 PM
Looking at your posts you appear to see sceptics as a group with shared beliefs and a shared campaign. You also appear to reject what they say and believe that you know why they think as they do.

"the sceptic belief and campaign"; "the crux of the sceptics beliefs.";  "Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?"; "I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all."; "all sceptics believe that her parents are involved."; "sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns"

On the presumption these are words lifted from comments on this thread ... Taken on their own and out of context are meaningless as regards your purpose for posting them.

If you disagree ~ exactly what with do you disagree.

If they are offensive ~ in what way have they offended you?  and so on.

Freedom of expression and all that ... I think means taking the opportunity to enlighten ... not to shut down discussion by posting absolutely nothing as you have done here.




Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 27, 2019, 01:16:29 PM
My dog mithres me several times a day.  He has a ploy for when he wants his breakfast.  He has a ploy for when he wants a walkie.  He has a ploy for when he wants me to get out of bed.  He has a ploy for when he reckons it is playtime.

I am under no illusions about which of us is the boss.
mithres  - a new word for me.  It doesn't come up on Google as a meaningful word.  What were you trying to say?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 27, 2019, 01:18:31 PM
mithres  - a new word for me.  It doesn't come up on Google as a meaningful word.  What were you trying to say?

Try mither - pester or bother
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 01:18:53 PM
mithres  - a new word for me.  It doesn't come up on Google as a meaningful word.  What were you trying to say?

Mithers=bothers.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mither
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 27, 2019, 01:19:33 PM
A local man went down that route downloading over 250,000 images,they gave up counting,he was given a suspended sentence the judge saying and I quote:

“I do not accept for a moment that you do not have a sexual interest in children. You could not complain if I sent you straight to custody but that would mean you would come out as an untreated sex offender.
“It is better for you to carry out one to one work with the probation service, which is better for the protection of the public, and particularly of children who need to be protected against whom the loathsome activities you were involved with.”


They can get rid of these pathetic waste of time judges too! So he is free to stalk children still. What a clown!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 01:21:03 PM
They can get rid of these pathetic waste of time judges too! So he is free to stalk children still. What a clown!

yep,sentenced to two years in jail,suspended for 18 months.that was back in 2016,so the sentence has been served.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 27, 2019, 01:22:37 PM
Try mither - pester or bother
Mither - According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, the word is dialect, used mainly in the north, meaning "make a fuss; moan: oh men - don't they mither?" The word dates back to the late 17th century and although its exact origin is unknown, it is thought it may come from Welsh.

OK Dogs do moan.

















Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 27, 2019, 01:27:17 PM
yep,sentenced to two years in jail,suspended for 18 months.that was back in 2016,so the sentence has been served.

No deterrent!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 27, 2019, 01:30:07 PM
Prison is seldom a deterrent for anything.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 27, 2019, 01:35:12 PM
Looking at your posts you appear to see sceptics as a group with shared beliefs and a shared campaign. You also appear to reject what they say and believe that you know why they think as they do.

"the sceptic belief and campaign"; "the crux of the sceptics beliefs.";  "Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?"; "I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all."; "all sceptics believe that her parents are involved."; "sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns"

I am pleased you used the word "appear" twice because it means that this is how my posts appear to you, not in fact what they really are!

You seem to have much more time to commit to reading back on this thread than I do..

I have neither the time or the inclination to do so.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 01:59:23 PM
Try mither - pester or bother

Like moither or moider. A Northern England term. A child perstering for sweets would be moithering the adult where I grew up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 02:07:08 PM
I am pleased you used the word "appear" twice because it means that this is how my posts appear to you, not in fact what they really are!

You seem to have much more time to commit to reading back on this thread than I do..

I have neither the time or the inclination to do so.

Quite so. I try not to state my opinions as facts. I would try not to say 'suppoters believe' for exanple. There's enough people on here making sweeping statements imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 27, 2019, 02:17:39 PM
Quite so. I try not to state my opinions as facts. I would try not to say 'suppoters believe' for exanple. There's enough people on here making sweeping statements imo.

It would be helpful if sceptics could post their beliefs on what happened to Madeleine and If their beliefs have altered in the  past twelve years
Has the fact that two investigating police forces do not seem to be as concerned with the details in the files which so trouble the sceptics?
It doesn't bother me at all if you post that supporters do not believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 27, 2019, 02:18:36 PM
On the presumption these are words lifted from comments on this thread ...
  • "the sceptic belief and campaign";
  • "the crux of the sceptics beliefs."; 
  • "Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?";
  • "I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all.";
  • "all sceptics believe that her parents are involved."; "sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns"
Taken on their own and out of context are meaningless as regards your purpose for posting them.

If you disagree ~ exactly what with do you disagree.

If they are offensive ~ in what way have they offended you?  and so on.

Freedom of expression and all that ... I think means taking the opportunity to enlighten ... not to shut down discussion by posting absolutely nothing as you have done here.

Excellent post.
Thank you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 27, 2019, 02:32:47 PM
It would be helpful if sceptics could post their beliefs on what happened to Madeleine and If their beliefs have altered in the  past twelve years
Has the fact that two investigating police forces do not seem to be as concerned with the details in the files which so trouble the sceptics?
It doesn't bother me at all if you post that supporters do not believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.

In what way would it be helpful?

Who would it help?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 02:35:06 PM
It's a legal right which protects those charged with a criminal offence. Defamation is a civil offence

You have incorrectly claimed several times that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil trial...read below which is an ECHR ruling and you will see you are wrong..


Ruokanen and Others v. Finland
6 April 2010
The applicants were an editor-in-chief and a journalist and a publishing company. They
complained about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating
that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a
party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants had been
ordered to pay over 80,000 euros in damages to compensate each member of the
baseball team.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
of the Convention, finding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the
competing interests involved, i.e. the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the
10
Factsheet – Protection of reputation
right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime. It observed in particular that
imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an
incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of
innocence
and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where
serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned


if teh SC have denied the mccanns the presumption of innnocence tehn clearly they are in error...so we have absolute confirmation taht the presumption off innocence should be taken into account in a civil defamation case




www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf.   page 11
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 04:07:40 PM
mithres  - a new word for me.  It doesn't come up on Google as a meaningful word.  What were you trying to say?
Mithres is a simple word.  It simply means to churn on to influence someone.  As in, my dog is mithering me right now.  He quite clearly wants me to stop posting on here and take him out for a walkie in the campo.

That's what we are going to do.  He won again.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 04:13:33 PM
I think it's obvious they have been eliminating all possibilities. A large chunk was spent on an operation to find a body so that suggests what they think!
Where's Mr Bennett when one needs an FOI?  I would love to see the money expended on that operation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 05:46:44 PM
Not eager, Brietta, realistic. People can and do surprise others by doing the unexpected. Perfectly respectable sucessful people included.
And some people break into houses and steal children, but you’re less keen on drawing attention to those examples, any particular reason why that should be?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 05:50:25 PM
Nothing.

Despite investigating cadaver dogs extensively, I have yet to find an instance of them being used on landfill.

It merely shows that VS doesn't understand how rubbish was processed in the Algarve in 2007.
How was rubbish processed in the Algarve in 2007 and what makes you an authority on the subject?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 05:54:23 PM
Del
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 05:57:22 PM
How was rubbish processed in the Algarve in 2007 and what makes you an authority on the subject?
Feel free to read my blog on the topic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 05:58:23 PM
On the presumption these are words lifted from comments on this thread ...
  • "the sceptic belief and campaign";
  • "the crux of the sceptics beliefs."; 
  • "Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?";
  • "I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all.";
  • "all sceptics believe that her parents are involved."; "sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns"
Taken on their own and out of context are meaningless as regards your purpose for posting them.

If you disagree ~ exactly what with do you disagree.

If they are offensive ~ in what way have they offended you?  and so on.

Freedom of expression and all that ... I think means taking the opportunity to enlighten ... not to shut down discussion by posting absolutely nothing as you have done here.

All those quotes are by one person who denied teling sceotics what they believed abd denied thinking that sceptics had shared beliefs. in my opinion those quotes show otherwise.

In my opinion it's impossible to 'enlighten' people who believe they already know the truth.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:02:52 PM
I wrote it. It wasn't spite or malice. It was a quick witted joke.
Imagine one of the twins read your “quick witted joke”.  Do you think they would find it a work of unbridled genius or simply a.n. other spiteful comment about their parents by a.n. other judgmental anonymous clot on the internet?  My guess is the latter.  I think statements like yours are 10 a penny on the internet and not just about the McCanns, but about most people in public life who really have done nothing to deserve such hatred from people they have never had anything to do with.   They are IMO spiteful, nasty, bullying, unnecessary and cowardly, with the potential when viewed as part of the whole hateful culture online to cause distress to the subjects of the hate and their families.  But do carry on, you clearly get a real kick out of it and why should I or anyone else deny you your simple, spiteful pleasures.  It seems you have fans on here who look forward to your tripe, I wouldn’t want to deny them their daily dose of genius.   @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 06:05:00 PM
All those quotes are by one person who denied teling sceotics what they believed abd denied thinking that sceptics had shared beliefs. in my opinion those quotes show otherwise.

In my opinion it's impossible to 'enlighten' people who believe they already know the truth.

If you think supporters here would not be willing to change their minds if evidence was produced to the contrary then you are miles, wide of the mark.
I've listened to the pdcasts by MS abd whilst sceptics there are heaping praise in them not one piece of new evidence has been produced
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 06:07:29 PM
Imagine one of the twins read your “quick witted joke”.  Do you think they would find it a work of unbridled genius or simply a.n. other spiteful comment about their parents by a.n. other judgmental anonymous clot on the internet?  My guess is the latter.  I think statements like yours are 10 a penny on the internet and not just about the McCanns, but about most people in public life who really have done nothing to deserve such hatred from people they have never had anything to do with.   They are IMO spiteful, nasty, bullying, unnecessary and cowardly, with the potential when viewed as part of the whole hateful culture online to cause distress to the subjects of the hate and their families.  But do carry on, you clearly get a real kick out of it and why should I or anyone else deny you your simple, spiteful pleasures.  It seems you have fans on here who look forward to your tripe, I wouldn’t want to deny them their daily dose of genius.   @)(++(*
Nasty spiteful bullying type behavior personified... Most people can't stand spiteful bullies... Strange isn't it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 06:07:56 PM
And some people break into houses and steal children, but you’re less keen on drawing attention to those examples, any particular reason why that should be?

The debate was about whether respectable people with no previous criminal history commit crimes. Unless you know of a child stealer who fits the criteria then their existence is not relevant to the subject under discussion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:09:33 PM
I answer only for my own words and actions. I have no connection to anyone else on the internet and I accept no responsibilty for their opinions or words.

This thread, of course, is about trying to suggest otherwise.  In my opinion suggesting that sceptics are connected is a ploy which allows the McCanns and their supporters to claim that everyone who disagrees with them is a sad, lonely inadequate troll. Anyone who researches 'sceptics' can see that's just propaganda.
Where do you get the “sad, lonely, inadequate troll” idea from?  I don’t think you are any of those things personally, but please don’t take that as a compliment. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 27, 2019, 06:15:10 PM
Imagine one of the twins read your “quick witted joke”.  Do you think they would find it a work of unbridled genius or simply a.n. other spiteful comment about their parents by a.n. other judgmental anonymous clot on the internet?  My guess is the latter.  I think statements like yours are 10 a penny on the internet and not just about the McCanns, but about most people in public life who really have done nothing to deserve such hatred from people they have never had anything to do with.   They are IMO spiteful, nasty, bullying, unnecessary and cowardly, with the potential when viewed as part of the whole hateful culture online to cause distress to the subjects of the hate and their families.  But do carry on, you clearly get a real kick out of it and why should I or anyone else deny you your simple, spiteful pleasures.  It seems you have fans on here who look forward to your tripe, I wouldn’t want to deny them their daily dose of genius.   @)(++(*

Do you seriously believe the McCanns or their children are actually likely to read this website?
I don't, I'm sure the McCanns have better things to do, like monitoring their childrens online activity & looking for Madeleine, for example.
And even if they did read my joke, do you really think I'd give a damn that they'd be offended?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:19:54 PM
Do you seriously believe the McCanns or their children are actually likely to read this website?
I don't, I'm sure the McCanns have better things to do, like monitoring their childrens online activity & looking for Madeleine, for example.
And even if they did read my joke, do you really think I'd give a damn that they'd be offended?
This is a public website so anyone, even teenage children could read it.  It’s possible that the McCann children could happen upon this forum, why not?  The fact that you don’t give a damn about them or their feelings is self-evident.  There is a word for people like you..l
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 06:20:29 PM
If you think supporters here would not be willing to change their minds if evidence was produced to the contrary then you are miles, wide of the mark.
I've listened to the pdcasts by MS abd whilst sceptics there are heaping praise in them not one piece of new evidence has been produced

Why should it be about providing new evidence?

Is the series telling the story in a joined up way for those who simply need more information?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 27, 2019, 06:23:46 PM
This is a public website so anyone, even teenage children could read it.  It’s possible that the McCann children could happen upon this forum, why not?  The fact that you don’t give a damn about them or their feelings is self-evident.  There is a word for people like you..l

Why not?

Because I bet the McCanns children aren't even allowed to search for their sisters name for starters.
The McCanns wouldn't let them, lest they be asked difficult questions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
Why should it be about providing new evidence?

Is the series telling the story in a joined up way for those who simply need more information?

As you haven't listened to it how do you know, what he's doing

The present evidence does not incriminate the mccanns... So what's the point in trying to pretend it does... Which is what he is doing
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 27, 2019, 06:26:27 PM
If you think supporters here would not be willing to change their minds if evidence was produced to the contrary then you are miles, wide of the mark.
I've listened to the pdcasts by MS abd whilst sceptics there are heaping praise in them not one piece of new evidence has been produced

I, for one, think supporters would be quite willing to change their minds. One whiff of the parent’s being arrested and they would disappear quicker than Trump’s tax returns.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:27:09 PM
It was clained that the purpose of the thread was to understand why sceptics still believed the McCanns were guilty of something despite two live police investigations being in existence.

The assumptions are;

That all sceotics believe the McCanns are guilty of something, and that the existence of two police investigations make those beliefs untenable. I find that illogical for a start. In my opinion the McCanns neglected to ensure the safety of their children. They weren't charged with the offence and never will be, but my opinion stands and nothing the police do or say will change it.

Moving on, whatever sceptics said was rejected. They were no longer being asked what they believed, they were being told. They were told what they (all) believed and when, how and why they reached those conclusions.

It may not have been intended but the thread became a litany of what supporters believe sceptics believe imo.
Why won’t sceptics tell us what they believe then and put us in no doubt?  We know you believe nothing but you are something of an anomaly iMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 06:28:00 PM
I, for one, think supporters would be quite willing to change their minds. One whiff of the parent’s being arrested and they would disappear quicker than Trump’s tax returns.
And IMO you are quite wrong about most issues on here... Particularly this one
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 06:31:15 PM
As you haven't listened to it how do you know, what he's doing

The present evidence does not incriminate the mccanns... So what's the point in trying to pretend it does... Which is what he is doing
So I asked a simple question. 

And you diverted.

Hmmm.   &^^&*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 27, 2019, 06:34:30 PM
And IMO you are quite wrong about most issues on here... Particularly this one

Gutted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:34:42 PM
Why not?

Because I bet the McCanns children aren't even allowed to search for their sisters name for starters.
The McCanns wouldn't let them, lest they be asked difficult questions.
Oh?  What do you know about the McCanns and their children and what they do and don’t allow them to do?  I don’t allow my son to watch porn on the internet, and have parental controls in place.  He told me the other day it’s the easiest thing in the world to bypass the controls and he’s been viewing porn for years.  Do you think the McCann twins are kept locked in a dungeon or something?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 27, 2019, 06:35:55 PM
Why won’t sceptics tell us what they believe then and put us in no doubt?  We know you believe nothing but you are something of an anomaly iMO.


I only speak for myself, but why should I tell you anything simply to satisfy your curiosity? It won't change anything
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 27, 2019, 06:37:06 PM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range

Why won’t sceptics tell us what they believe then and put us in no doubt? We know you believe nothing but you are something of an anomaly iMO.

Who are you and Erngath to demand of anything?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:39:04 PM

I only speak for myself, but why should I tell you anything simply to satisfy your curiosity? It won't change anything
I don’t expect anything to change.  This is a discussion forum.  I am open and honest with my opinions and beliefs, most sceptics however prefer to play their cards close to their chests so that their beliefs cannot be challenged and the absurdites exposed.  Shrewd move but somewhat dishonest in my view.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:39:44 PM
Who are you and Erngath to demand of anything?
We da best and da boss.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 27, 2019, 06:40:25 PM
I don’t expect anything to change.  This is a discussion forum. I am open and honest with my opinions and beliefs, most sceptics however prefer to play their cards close to their chests so that their beliefs cannot be challenged and the absurdites exposed.  Shrewd move but somewhat dishonest in my view.

Well bully for you. How righteous you must feel.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 06:40:52 PM
I don’t expect anything to change.  This is a discussion forum.  I am open and honest with my opinions and beliefs, most sceptics however prefer to play their cards close to their chests so that their beliefs cannot be challenged and the absurdites exposed.  Shrewd move but somewhat dishonest in my view.
Rubbish in my view.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:43:38 PM
I, for one, think supporters would be quite willing to change their minds. One whiff of the parent’s being arrested and they would disappear quicker than Trump’s tax returns.
And of course if someone other than the McCanns was arrested, charged, confessed and put away all the sceptics on here would be falling over themselves posting how wrong they’d been and how pleased they were that justice had finally been done. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:44:26 PM
Rubbish in my view.
And that’s rubbish in my view.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:45:44 PM
Well bully for you. How righteous you must feel.
Thank you, I feel really good about myself, it’s true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 27, 2019, 06:47:52 PM
And of course if someone other than the McCanns was arrested, charged, confessed and put away all the sceptics on here would be falling over themselves posting how wrong they’d been and how pleased they were that justice had finally been done.

Can't see it happening, myself. A no score draw is the most likely result - IMO
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 27, 2019, 06:50:30 PM
And that’s rubbish in my view.

Perhaps if you ceased tarring sceptics with the brush of dishonesty, the forum might run a bit smoother.  Think it through.







Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 06:56:22 PM
Perhaps if you ceased tarring sceptics with the brush of dishonesty, the forum might run a bit smoother.  Think it through.
Am I not allowed to speak as I find?  IMO it’s impossible to have an honest discussion with a sceptic regarding their beliefs about the case.  If me stating my opinion means the forum ceases to run smoothly, well then boo hoo, better solicit John to dole me out a few more points if I am upsetting you  all again with my plain speaking.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 27, 2019, 06:56:34 PM
Can't see it happening, myself. A no score draw is the most likely result - IMO

.....and those poor McCanns will be the subject of online hate for the rest of time, how my heart bleeds for them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 06:59:30 PM
I don’t expect anything to change.  This is a discussion forum.  I am open and honest with my opinions and beliefs, most sceptics however prefer to play their cards close to their chests so that their beliefs cannot be challenged and the absurdites exposed.  Shrewd move but somewhat dishonest in my view.

Very true... But I dont see anything shrewd in it..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 07:01:26 PM
Perhaps if you ceased tarring sceptics with the brush of dishonesty, the forum might run a bit smoother.  Think it through.

And perhaps if gunit ceased claiming supporters, are basically blind believers the forum might run a little smoother
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 07:16:02 PM
You have incorrectly claimed several times that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil trial...read below which is an ECHR ruling and you will see you are wrong..


Ruokanen and Others v. Finland
6 April 2010
The applicants were an editor-in-chief and a journalist and a publishing company. They
complained about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating
that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a
party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants had been
ordered to pay over 80,000 euros in damages to compensate each member of the
baseball team.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
of the Convention, finding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the
competing interests involved, i.e. the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the
10
Factsheet – Protection of reputation
right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime. It observed in particular that
imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an
incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of
innocence
and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where
serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned


if teh SC have denied the mccanns the presumption of innnocence tehn clearly they are in error...so we have absolute confirmation taht the presumption off innocence should be taken into account in a civil defamation case




www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf.   page 11

Was the presumption of innocence discussed in the original trial or was it mentioned only by the ECHR judges?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 07:16:31 PM
.....and those poor McCanns will be the subject of online hate for the rest of time, how my heart bleeds for them.

I doubt in reality your comments on the Rs end of the internet read by 12 people bothers them
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 07:18:40 PM
Was the presumption of innocence discussed in the original trial or was it mentioned only by the ECHR judges?

Which original trial... The mccanns certainly raised it with the, SC... And my cite shows that according to the ECHR the SC should have respected the mccanns rights
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 27, 2019, 07:22:19 PM
I doubt in reality your comments on the Rs end of the internet read by 12 people bother them

Me either. I said only yesterday that nothing we say here is of any consequence.
There are much worse wums & trolls than me on the #mccann.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 07:24:57 PM
Me either. I said only yesterday that nothing we say here is of any consequence.
There are much worse wums & trolls than me on the #mccann.

Of course there are I've been the butt of some nastiness by some low life idiots... Not here... On the net... But I'm not bothered
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 07:29:14 PM
.....and those poor McCanns will be the subject of online hate for the rest of time, how my heart bleeds for them.
Revelling in others’ misery and suffering is such an unattractive trait IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 27, 2019, 07:40:47 PM
Revelling in others’ misery and suffering is such an unattractive trait IMO.
I wasn't trying to turn you on.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 07:43:03 PM
Which original trial... The mccanns certainly raised it with the, SC... And my cite shows that according to the ECHR the SC should have respected the mccanns rights

The Finnish defamation case you quoted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2019, 07:54:01 PM
.....and those poor McCanns will be the subject of online hate for the rest of time, how my heart bleeds for them.

                          It won't.  But it should.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 27, 2019, 07:57:42 PM
I wasn't trying to turn you on.
What ARE you trying to do?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 27, 2019, 08:04:05 PM
And the McCanns were listening to this stuff so I thought I'd share one. 3 being involved was of interest being my theory.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 08:24:00 PM
The Finnish defamation case you quoted.

I quoted the ECHR ruling... We already know the mccanns raised the presumption of innocence with the SC.. Contrary to what yoy have claimed the ECHR have made it clear the POI applies to civil cases
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 27, 2019, 09:17:20 PM
Of course there are I've been the butt of some nastiness by some low life idiots... Not here... On the net... But I'm not bothered

Of course you’re not...that’s why you keep mentioning it.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 09:27:30 PM
Of course you’re not...that’s why you keep mentioning it.



You can say whatever you like.  I'm not bothered... I value my dogs opinion far greater than I do yours.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 27, 2019, 09:35:50 PM
You can say whatever you like.  I'm not bothered... I value my dogs opinion far greater than I do yours.

That explains a lot.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 27, 2019, 09:39:13 PM
That explains a lot.


He's so not bothered, yet has to keep replying  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 09:39:55 PM
That explains a lot.

You totally miss the point.. It's not the mccanns that are important... It's the rule of law... Of decency..
I'm simply totally against anonymous keyboard warriors spewing their bile in the net..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 09:43:22 PM

He's so not bothered, yet has to keep replying  @)(++(*

No I'm not bothered... Personally... But I find it sad fir my children that they have to grow up in a world where people feel they have the right to be unpleasant to others.

Do you really think I care what a couple if posters here who dint even know me.. Think of me.. It's laughable ..
In reality I have sympathy  for those who feel that way... They simply can't be very happy in themselves... Imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 27, 2019, 09:44:41 PM
No I'm not bothered... Personally... But I find it sad fir my children that they have to grow up in a world where people feel they have the right to be unpleasant to others.

Physician heal thyself.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2019, 09:47:55 PM
Physician heal thyself.

It's not me who needs healing.. It's those who are consumed by bitterness and anger.... And the desire to hurt others
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 27, 2019, 10:21:50 PM
Of course you’re not...that’s why you keep mentioning it.


That appears to be a personal observation rather than an ad hom.  If an argument was proposed that used that personal observation as a reason it was valid then I would then class it as an ad hom.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 28, 2019, 08:01:20 AM
Why won’t sceptics tell us what they believe then and put us in no doubt?  We know you believe nothing but you are something of an anomaly iMO.

Why are people assumed to have beliefs? Believers believe sceptics wonder.. If you're looking for beliefs tou're asking the wrong people imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 08:04:20 AM
Why are people assumed to have beliefs? Believers believe sceptics wonder.. If you're looking for beliefs tou're asking the wrong people imo.

You have quite a number of beliefs... You believe the statements are accurate.  You believe the dig alerts have significance... You believe the mccanns may have lied... And lots more
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 08:48:13 AM
Why are people assumed to have beliefs? Believers believe sceptics wonder.. If you're looking for beliefs tou're asking the wrong people imo.
Hilarious.  So in your opinion there are no McCann sceptics who believe the McCanns are covering up a death and faking an abduction?  There are no sceptics who believe that Gerry is Smithman or that Madeleine was placed tenderly in a bin with the expectation that she would soon be recovered?   There are no sceptics who believe the alarm was raised at 9.50pm or 10.13pm, but definitely not 10pm?  There are no sceptics that believe the last photo was faked?  There are no sceptics who believe that at least one other member of the Tapas group is lying to protect the McCanns?  There are no sceptics who believe at least one of the Tapas group is a paedo?  You’re a sceptic who only wonders but do you really believe what you have just written, seriously? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 28, 2019, 09:01:21 AM
Hilarious.  So in your opinion there are no McCann sceptics who believe the McCanns are covering up a death and faking an abduction?  There are no sceptics who believe that Gerry is Smithman or that Madeleine was placed tenderly in a bin with the expectation that she would soon be recovered?   There are no sceptics who believe the alarm was raised at 9.50pm or 10.13pm, but definitely not 10pm?  There are no sceptics that believe the last photo was faked?  There are no sceptics who believe that at least one other member of the Tapas group is lying to protect the McCanns?  There are no sceptics who believe at least one of the Tapas group is a paedo?  You’re a sceptic who only wonders but do you really believe what you have just written, seriously?

If they have such beliefs why do you call them sceptics?

"a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions."
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 09:05:21 AM
If they have such beliefs why do you call them sceptics?

"a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions."

Because they are sceptical of the mccanns... Doesn't mean they have no beliefs relating to the case
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 09:08:27 AM
If they have such beliefs why do you call them sceptics?

"a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions."
I’m a dog and PJ sceptic, why do you call me a believer?  We call you sceptics because that is the word agreed upon by this forum, there are plenty of others I could use but I’d just get more warnings.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 28, 2019, 09:34:55 AM
If they have such beliefs why do you call them sceptics?

"a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions."

Supporters are sceptics by nature,they are sceptical of sceptics.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 09:36:47 AM
Supporters are sceptics by nature,they are sceptical of sceptics.
Everyone on the planet has beliefs and scepticism, to claim to have no beliefs about this case is excrement from the back end of a bull IMO. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 28, 2019, 11:41:30 AM
Because they are sceptical of the mccanns... Doesn't mean they have no beliefs relating to the case

One description of a believer is someone free from doubt. It's a contradiction in terms to say a sceptic has beliefs. Opinions or theories yes, beliefs, no.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 11:44:49 AM
One description of a believer is someone free from doubt. It's a contradiction in terms to say a sceptic has beliefs. Opinions or theories yes, beliefs, no.

its not imo.....you are stating your opinion as fact...it isnt....scepticism is based on beliefs
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 12:00:56 PM
One description of a believer is someone free from doubt. It's a contradiction in terms to say a sceptic has beliefs. Opinions or theories yes, beliefs, no.
What's the difference between opinions and theories and beliefs? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 12:09:00 PM
"I believe smoking is one of the causes of lung cancer and other diseases, and there is a wealth of scientific research to back up this belief.  I am sceptical of the few scientists and researchers who claim there is no link between smoking and lung cancer or other diseases, as the weight of evidence is clearly against them, and they are pursuing an agenda on behalf of smoking companies". 

"I believe the Earth is millions of years old and believe that there is a wealth of evidence to back up this belief.  I am sceptical of the few scientists and geologists who claim that the Earth was created only six thousand years ago, as the weight of the evidence is clearly against them and that they are pursuing a religious agenda".

"I believe that 6 million or so people died in the Holocaust of WWII as there is a wealth of evidence to back up this belief.  I am sceptical of those who question the figures as I believe they are driven by a racist agenda and that their counter evidence simply doesn't stack up"



Am I a believer or a sceptic? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 28, 2019, 12:10:09 PM
"I believe smoking is one of the causes of lung cancer and other diseases, and there is a wealth of scientific research to back up this belief.  I am sceptical of the few scientists and researchers who claim there is no link between smoking and lung cancer or other diseases, as the weight of evidence is clearly against them". 

"I believe the Earth is millions of years old and believe that there is a wealth of evidence to back up this belief.  I am sceptical of the few scientists and geologists who claim that the Earth was created only six thousand years ago, as the weight of the evidence is clearly against them".

"I believe that 6 million or so people died in the Holocaust of WWII as there is a wealth of evidence to back up this belief.  I am sceptical of those who question the figures as I believe they are driven by a racist agenda and that their counter evidence simply doesn't stack up"



Am I a believer or a sceptic?

Does any one care is the more  pertinent question.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 12:13:22 PM
Does any one care is the more  pertinent question.
You clearly don't so you are dismissed.   &^&*%
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 28, 2019, 01:16:50 PM
You have quite a number of beliefs... You believe the statements are accurate.  You believe the dig alerts have significance... You believe the mccanns may have lied... And lots more

I suppose you could say that changing their version of events in police statements was memory freeze but then I wouldn't agree.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 01:33:15 PM
I suppose you could say that changing their version of events in police statements was memory freeze but then I wouldn't agree.

I don't believe they did change their, statements... Just that the way they were recorded encouraged innaccuracies
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 28, 2019, 01:40:53 PM
Don't be ridiculous. Only one door in apartment 5A had a key to open it. That is a true fact.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 01:44:08 PM
Don't be ridiculous. Only one door in apartment 5A had a key to open it. That is a true fact.

I'm being realistic IMO...gerrys statement was never recorded in English.. Lots of room for error.. Fact
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 28, 2019, 01:45:07 PM
How do you explain a key being used?

"At about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine."

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 01:46:06 PM
How do you explain a key being used?

Who said a key was used... The translator
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 28, 2019, 02:07:43 PM
Who said a key was used... The translator

"assim, sendo pelas 21H05 o declarante veio ao clube, entrou no quarto munido da chave respectiva, estando a porta trancada"

"so, at 21:05 the declarant(witness) came to the club, entered the room with the respective key, the door being locked"

Gerry said a key not the translator LOL.

"At about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine."

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

"When asked about the time he went to check the children on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, he states remembering that he did it, according to his watch, around 21:04."

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

So the time stayed the same. Where are these translation errors? Gerry said a key and later changed his mind. He signed his statement as being correct.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 02:36:45 PM
"assim, sendo pelas 21H05 o declarante veio ao clube, entrou no quarto munido da chave respectiva, estando a porta trancada"

"so, at 21:05 the declarant(witness) came to the club, entered the room with the respective key, the door being locked"

Gerry said a key not the translator LOL.

"At about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine."

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

"When asked about the time he went to check the children on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, he states remembering that he did it, according to his watch, around 21:04."

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

So the time stayed the same. Where are these translation errors? Gerry said a key and later changed his mind. He signed his statement as being correct.

You believe  what you want... And so will I... It doesn't matter
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 28, 2019, 02:43:12 PM
You believe  what you want... And so will I... It doesn't matter

He signed his statement as being correct and that can be used as evidence so it does matter.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 28, 2019, 03:37:43 PM
What's the difference between opinions and theories and beliefs?

In my opinion a belief is a conclusion, an opinion is a possibility and a theory is an explanation. Beliefs are stronger than the other two because they can't be proved or disproved. They are related to faith, not evidence. People who believe in God can't prove he exists. Those who don't believe can't prove he doesn't either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 03:38:01 PM
He signed his statement as being correct and that can be used as evidence so it does matter.

No it can't because it's a witness statement not an arguido statement
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 03:53:47 PM
In my opinion a belief is a conclusion, an opinion is a possibility and a theory is an explanation. Beliefs are stronger than the other two because they can't be proved or disproved. They are related to faith, not evidence. People who believe in God can't prove he exists. Those who don't believe can't prove he doesn't either.
. Beliefs can be proven.  I believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and one day that belief may be proven.  Next!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 04:13:40 PM
In my opinion a belief is a conclusion, an opinion is a possibility and a theory is an explanation. Beliefs are stronger than the other two because they can't be proved or disproved. They are related to faith, not evidence. People who believe in God can't prove he exists. Those who don't believe can't prove he doesn't either.

So when scientist day they believe the universe is 14 million years old they've just plucked that figure out of the air and don't have evidence to back it up... Beliefs can and and often are based on evidence...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 04:29:11 PM
In my opinion a belief is a conclusion, an opinion is a possibility and a theory is an explanation. Beliefs are stronger than the other two because they can't be proved or disproved. They are related to faith, not evidence. People who believe in God can't prove he exists. Those who don't believe can't prove he doesn't either.

In my opinion.. Maddie was abducted
I have a theory Maddie was abducted
I believe Maddie was abducted.... All based in the same evidence... So where's the difference
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 28, 2019, 04:40:25 PM
You believe  what you want... And so will I... It doesn't matter

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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 04:46:39 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 28, 2019, 05:00:52 PM
In my opinion.. Maddie was abducted
I have a theory Maddie was abducted
I believe Maddie was abducted.... All based in the same evidence... So where's the difference

You talk about evidence so what is it? What is your theory?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 05:14:46 PM
You talk about evidence so what is it? What is your theory?

lete see faiths proof first...i think we will have a long wait
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 28, 2019, 05:35:17 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 05:36:40 PM
You talk about evidence so what is it? What is your theory?
This thread is about sceptics beliefs.  Apparently they have none because they are sceptics.  What a load of bull!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 05:51:13 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 28, 2019, 05:58:02 PM
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.
  ... and there I think we have yet another sceptic belief laid bare ... the life of a family is "entertaining if nothing else".

Maybe if you are on the outside looking in ... but it must be hell for the family experiencing it all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 28, 2019, 06:00:05 PM
  ... and there I think we have yet another sceptic belief laid bare ... the life of a family is "entertaining if nothing else".

Maybe if you are on the outside looking in ... but it must be hell for the family experiencing it all.


Are they looking in on this?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 06:14:37 PM
  ... and there I think we have yet another sceptic belief laid bare ... the life of a family is "entertaining if nothing else".

Maybe if you are on the outside looking in ... but it must be hell for the family experiencing it all.

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

We can't be certain that they don't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 28, 2019, 06:21:06 PM
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
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 06:59:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 07:00:26 PM

Are they looking in on this?
Yes they are.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 28, 2019, 07:06:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 28, 2019, 07:08:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 28, 2019, 07:14:42 PM
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.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 07:19:19 PM
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
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 07:21:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 07:22:16 PM
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
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 28, 2019, 07:28:34 PM
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  @)(++(*.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 07:29:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 07:48:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 07:55:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 07:57:42 PM
What utter tripe IMO but thanks for sharing.

Which part, or parts, specifically do you disagree with?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 08:04:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:13:32 PM
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.

Of course agreeing to take part demonstrated nothing.
Had they actually taken part it would have shown by way of cooperation that they had nothing to hide.




Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 08:14:54 PM
Of course agreeing to take part demonstrated nothing.
Had they actually taken part it would have shown by way of cooperation that they had nothing to hide.

So all they had to do was take part in the reconstruction and that would have cleared them
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 08:16:33 PM
Of course agreeing to take part demonstrated nothing.
Had they actually taken part it would have shown by way of cooperation that they had nothing to hide.
So simply the act of taking part in the reconstitution would have demonstrated their innocence would it?  So in effect they could have all flown into PdL reconvened at the Tapas Bar and the police would have been able to say “that’s enough evidence for us folks, no need to go through the charade of an actual reconstitution, you’ve amply demonstrated your innocence already, ta ra, mind how you go”.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:17:55 PM
So all they had to do was take part in the reconstruction and that would have cleared them

In some peoples eyes, yes.
It would have shown they cooperated fully with the investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:20:08 PM
So simply the act of taking part in the reconstitution would have demonstrated their innocence would it?  So in effect they could have all flown into PdL reconvened at the Tapas Bar and the police would have been able to say “that’s enough evidence for us folks, no need to go through the charade of an actual reconstitution, you’ve amply demonstrated your innocence already, ta ra, mind how you go”.

All they needed to do was act out for the police how the events of the evening unfolded.
It shouldn't have been difficult since it's a night they could never forget.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 28, 2019, 08:20:35 PM
Of course agreeing to take part demonstrated nothing.
Had they actually taken part it would have shown by way of cooperation that they had nothing to hide.


Surely asking for the review of the investigation  and the subsequent  two ongoing Investigations proved they had nothing t hide
Strange course of action to take if indeed they had something to hide.
Don't you believe so?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:21:31 PM

Surely asking for the review of the investigation  and the subsequent  two ongoing Investigations proved they had nothing t hide
Strange course of action to take if indeed they had something to hide.
Don't you believe so?

Nope. They are confident the trail has gone cold imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 28, 2019, 08:22:20 PM
In some peoples eyes, yes.
It would have shown they cooperated fully with the investigation.


So these people  have the right "to troll them for the rest of their lives"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 28, 2019, 08:23:31 PM
Nope. They are confident the trail has gone cold imo.

So why ask for the investigation to be reviewed and reopened?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:25:03 PM

So these people  have the right "to troll them for the rest of their lives"

Yes, they do, & it's nobody's fault but Kate & Gerry's.

They wouldn't be getting trolled the way they are if they had (a) hired a babysitter
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 28, 2019, 08:25:08 PM

So these people  have the right "to troll them for the rest of their lives"

They may not have the 'right', but I'm sure it'll happen, possibly for the rest of their lives.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 28, 2019, 08:25:57 PM
They may not have the 'right', but I'm sure it'll happen, possibly for the rest of their lives.

Why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 28, 2019, 08:26:55 PM
Yes, they do, & it's nobody's fault but Kate & Gerry's.

They wouldn't be getting trolled the way they are if they had (a) hired a babysitter

So you believe that trolling them is justified?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 28, 2019, 08:27:43 PM
Why?

Because they want to, I guess.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:30:37 PM
So why ask for the investigation to be reviewed and reopened?

They asked for a review, not an investigation.
How could they not?
When people, like their donors, ask them what they are doing to find Maddie, how were they meant to reply?
"Err, it's alright we've still got 2 kids & some private eyes, no need for police"

This brings us back to the reconstruction, they could have kept the original investigation ongoing, had they taken part.

Why didn't they ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 08:31:28 PM
All they needed to do was act out for the police how the events of the evening unfolded.
It shouldn't have been difficult since it's a night they could never forget.
Ah right so they would have actually done the reconstitution then, according to whose recollection? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:31:49 PM
So you believe that trolling them is justified?

Absolutely & they have no one to blame for it but themselves.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:32:23 PM
Ah right so they would have actually done the reconstitution then, according to whose recollection?

Well, each of theirs, obviously.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 08:32:55 PM
Absolutely & they have no one to blame for it but themselves.
How does the act of trolling reflect on those doing the trolling?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:37:15 PM
How does the act of trolling reflect on those doing the trolling?

I don't think the Trolls really give a damn. I know I don't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 28, 2019, 08:37:22 PM
Absolutely & they have no one to blame for it but themselves.

Is this the type of justice you believe in?
Trolling anyone who hasn't proved their innocence In the court of public opinion?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:39:37 PM
Is this the type of justice you believe in?
Trolling anyone who hasn't proved their innocence Inthe court of public opinion?

In short, yes.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 28, 2019, 08:40:03 PM
They asked for a review, not an investigation.
How could they not?
When people, like their donors, ask them what they are doing to find Maddie, how were they meant to reply?
"Err, it's alright we've still got 2 kids & some private eyes, no need for police"

This brings us back to the reconstruction, they could have kept the original investigation ongoing, had they taken part.

Why didn't they ?


So it was all to keep their donors happy?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:42:05 PM

So it was all to keep their donors happy?

What were they supposed to say when people asked them about the search for Maddie?
Tell them they didn't need the police to be looking for her?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 28, 2019, 08:42:08 PM
In short, yes.

Vigilante behaviour!
Well thank you for sharing your beliefs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:43:50 PM
Vigilante behaviour!
Well thank you for sharing your beliefs.

My pleasure. Have yourself a lovely evening  &^&*%
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 28, 2019, 08:45:05 PM
What were they supposed to say when people asked them about the search for Maddie?
Tell them they didn't need the police to be looking for her?

Fortunately for them both police investigations  cooperated with them in this ploy!

 &^&*%
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 08:45:44 PM
I don't think the Trolls really give a damn. I know I don't.
I think they do when their anonymity is revoked.  Then I think they care very much indeed. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:48:26 PM
I think they do when their anonymity is revoked.  Then I think they care very much indeed.

There's nothing I've ever said here that I wouldn't say to Kate or Gerry's faces.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 08:48:47 PM
My pleasure. Have yourself a lovely evening  &^&*%
It’s great you’re on this forum, you must be a real embarrassment to those who believe that there is no such thing as McCann h8ers only earnest, thoughtful, questioning “sceptics”. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 28, 2019, 08:50:12 PM
It’s great you’re on this forum, you must be a real embarrassment to those who believe that there is no such thing as McCann h8ers only earnest, thoughtful, questioning “sceptics”.

I'm not a representative of sceptics, I speak for no one but myself.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 28, 2019, 09:06:52 PM
I'm not a representative of sceptics, I speak for no one but myself.
I didn’t say you did, only that you put paid to the lie that there are no McCNn h8ers.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2019, 09:21:58 PM
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.

As I have said before... Being trolled on the internet by a handful of people really is nothing to worry about... I doubt if they really care now
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 28, 2019, 09:54:59 PM
Madeleine McCann: text of parents' letter to David Cameron
Here is the full text of the letter from Kate and Gerry McCann to David Cameron, the Prime Minister:
By Andy Bloxham 13 May 2011

Dear Prime Minister,

As a devoted father and family man, you know the importance of children. Our beloved eldest child, Madeleine, was abducted from Praia da Luz, Portugal, four years ago. Since then, we have devoted all our energies to ensuring her safe return.

Today we are asking you - and the British and Portuguese governments - to help find Madeleine and bring her back to her loving family.

We live in hope that Madeleine will be found alive and returned to us. One call might be all that is needed to lead to Madeleine and her abductor.

To this end, we are seeking a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance. Thus far, there has been NO formal review of the material held by the police authorities - which is routine practice in most major unsolved crimes.

It is not right that a young vulnerable British citizen has essentially been given up on. This remains an unsolved case of a missing child. Children are our most precious gift.

Please don't give up on Madeleine.

Kate & Gerry McCann
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8511093/Madeleine-McCann-text-of-parents-letter-to-David-Cameron.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 29, 2019, 12:04:57 AM
Fortunately for them both police investigations  cooperated with them in this ploy!

 &^&*%

Police don't like suspects who don't answer questions or cooperate. They will lie and be your best friend if necessary to get to the truth.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 29, 2019, 12:37:26 AM
Madeleine McCann: text of parents' letter to David Cameron
Here is the full text of the letter from Kate and Gerry McCann to David Cameron, the Prime Minister:
By Andy Bloxham 13 May 2011

Dear Prime Minister,

As a devoted father and family man, you know the importance of children. Our beloved eldest child, Madeleine, was abducted from Praia da Luz, Portugal, four years ago. Since then, we have devoted all our energies to ensuring her safe return.

Today we are asking you - and the British and Portuguese governments - to help find Madeleine and bring her back to her loving family.

We live in hope that Madeleine will be found alive and returned to us. One call might be all that is needed to lead to Madeleine and her abductor.

To this end, we are seeking a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance. Thus far, there has been NO formal review of the material held by the police authorities - which is routine practice in most major unsolved crimes.

It is not right that a young vulnerable British citizen has essentially been given up on. This remains an unsolved case of a missing child. Children are our most precious gift.

Please don't give up on Madeleine.

Kate & Gerry McCann
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8511093/Madeleine-McCann-text-of-parents-letter-to-David-Cameron.html

Did they contact the Portuguese in the same way ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 29, 2019, 04:17:07 AM
Did they contact the Portuguese in the same way ?

Madeleine McCann: Portuguese refuse to reopen case

Portuguese judicial authorities say there is no new evidence to warrant re-investigation despite call from Met to reopen inquiry

Sandra Laville, crime correspondent

Thu 26 Apr 2012 16.04 BST

The Portuguese attorney general has appeared to rule out reopening the Madeleine McCann case despite a call to do so from Scotland Yard.

A statement from his office said that until now it has not been necessary to reopen the case. It added: "As it has always been said, the public ministry [Portugal's body of independent public prosecutors] will only open the case if new, credible and relevant facts arise, and not more hypotheses or speculations."

The response was the first from the Portuguese judicial authorities since senior Scotland Yard detectives made clear on Wednesday that they wanted the investigation into her disappearance reopened.

DCI Andy Redwood, who is leading an investigative review of all the evidence in the case, said his team was developing "genuinely new information" and that colleagues in Portugal who are part of a police review team based in Oporto, were of the same mind as him that the case should be reopened. He said that, from the material his team were seeing, he believed there was a possibility Madeleine could be alive and referred to cases in which children have been abducted and discovered alive many years later.

Next week will mark five years since Madeleine went missing from her family's Algarve holiday flat as her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, dined nearby.

There have been hundreds of possible sightings of the girl since she vanished, but each one has come to nothing.

The Portuguese statement came after family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the McCanns were "hugely encouraged" by the recent momentum in the case. Kate McCann was said to be particularly pleased with the a new image of Madeleine, depicting how she might look now, believing it had a strong family resemblance.

Referring to the police's view that they have 195 potential new leads, Mitchell told BBC Breakfast: "Kate and Gerry welcome this and they are hugely encouraged by what the police have been doing all of this last year since the launch of the investigative review. They [Scotland Yard] believe that it is quite possible that Madeleine could still be alive and that is what Kate and Gerry have said throughout the five years and they are hugely encouraged by all of this momentum in the case."

He said that, like the British police, the McCanns want the case to be reopened. But he added such a move was "up to the Portuguese authorities".

Redwood confirmed that his team of more than 30 officers had been to Portugal seven times, including a visit to the family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz.

An investigative review was launched last year after a meeting between former Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and the Home Office.

Detectives in Portugal are also understood to want the case reopened but to do so they must gain judicial approval via the courts.

Redwood's team have uncovered 195 investigative opportunities and have carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of the child's disappearance to establish the windows of opportunity in which she could have been abducted.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/26/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-police-refuse
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 29, 2019, 05:29:01 AM
Madeleine McCann: Portuguese refuse to reopen case

Portuguese judicial authorities say there is no new evidence to warrant re-investigation despite call from Met to reopen inquiry

Sandra Laville, crime correspondent

Thu 26 Apr 2012 16.04 BST

...

Redwood confirmed that his team of more than 30 officers had been to Portugal seven times, including a visit to the family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz.

...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/26/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-police-refuse

That's interesting, because it's the first time I heard of such a snippet.  I wonder if Sandra is entirely accurate in this respect?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 07:17:30 AM
Did they contact the Portuguese in the same way ?
When the McCanns wrote to the PJ they were completely ignored, that probably told them all they needed to know about their attitude to finding Madeleine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 07:27:04 AM
When the McCanns wrote to the PJ they were completely ignored, that probably told them all they needed to know about their attitude to finding Madeleine.
Strangely or maybe not after KM declined to assist when questioned they (McCanns) have never been invited back, not even questioned by SY it seems.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2019, 07:33:23 AM
Strangely or maybe not after KM declined to assist when questioned they (McCanns) have never been invited back, not even questioned by SY it seems.

I would say the mccanns have been questioned by SY..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 07:50:36 AM
Strangely or maybe not after KM declined to assist when questioned they (McCanns) have never been invited back, not even questioned by SY it seems.
Are the PJ really that petulant and childish.  I can believe it tbh.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 07:51:34 AM
That's interesting, because it's the first time I heard of such a snippet.  I wonder if Sandra is entirely accurate in this respect?

I have this mental picture of 30 police oersons arriving at G5A. Did they arrive by coach or use a fleet of taxis? Did they all go in?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 29, 2019, 08:08:26 AM
I have this mental picture of 30 police oersons arriving at G5A. Did they arrive by coach or use a fleet of taxis? Did they all go in?

What interests me is I have never heard about this in gossip around Luz.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen.  But if it did, so far it has flown under the radar.

If it did happen, what were they doing?  Surely not a Luz Tour?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 08:10:23 AM
I have this mental picture of 30 police oersons arriving at G5A. Did they arrive by coach or use a fleet of taxis? Did they all go in?
Did the article claim they all went at the same time?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 08:13:25 AM
Did the article claim they all went at the same time?
Noah's ark again,2x2.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 08:14:34 AM
I would say the mccanns have been questioned by SY..

You can say what you like,with out basis to back it up its meaningless has you know full well.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 29, 2019, 08:17:52 AM
I would say the mccanns have been questioned by SY..
[Angry mob converge on that funny, triangular, rotating sign outside SY]
'Cite, cite, cite, cite'
We approached Davel for a response, but his spokesman said 'he doesn't need a cite, because he stated "I would say"'
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 08:20:43 AM
Strangely or maybe not after KM declined to assist when questioned they (McCanns) have never been invited back, not even questioned by SY it seems.


"It seems"
Do these words indicate that this is your opinion or do you know this to be true ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 08:35:34 AM
When the McCanns wrote to the PJ they were completely ignored, that probably told them all they needed to know about their attitude to finding Madeleine.

Could you remind me when and why they wrote to the PJ please?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 29, 2019, 08:36:56 AM

"It seems"
Do these words indicate that this is your opinion or do you know this to be true ?
It's been cleared up, Davel 'would think' they've been interviewed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2019, 08:40:59 AM
You can say what you like,with out basis to back it up its meaningless has you know full well.

As you can... So your statement is also meaningless
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2019, 08:43:06 AM
It's been cleared up, Davel 'would think' they've been interviewed.

I'm sure, they've been interviewed... 100%
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 08:45:11 AM
What interests me is I have never heard about this in gossip around Luz.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen.  But if it did, so far it has flown under the radar.

If it did happen, what were they doing?  Surely not a Luz Tour?

If so it was with a rival tour operator it seems.  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 08:46:00 AM
It's been cleared up, Davel 'would think' they've been interviewed.

But Barrier  did post "it seems " they have not.
So it hasn't been " cleared up" !


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 08:50:05 AM
I'm sure, they've been interviewed... 100%

You believe 100%. That still doesn't make it a fact.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 29, 2019, 08:50:20 AM
But Barrier  did post "it seems " they have not.
So it hasn't been " cleared up" !
I would say it seems it has.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 08:53:34 AM
You believe 100%. That still doesn't make it a fact.

Which do you believe is the more likely?
 That during this lengthy and costly investigation Madeleine's parents have or have not been interviewed?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 29, 2019, 09:01:42 AM
Which do you believe is the more likely?
 That during this lengthy and costly investigation Madeleine's parents have or have not been interviewed?
What's going on? No cites required because it's not a 'sceptic'?
It's an opinion, irrespective of how likely.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:04:44 AM

"It seems"
Do these words indicate that this is your opinion or do you know this to be true ?

reference Rowley 2017.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:07:00 AM
I'm sure, they've been interviewed... 100%

You're sure your opinion is 100% nothing more nothing less,world of difference to be 100% sure of any interview by SY.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:07:15 AM
What's going on? No cites required because it's not a 'sceptic'?
It's an opinion, irrespective of how likely.

I wasn't asking you!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:07:57 AM
reference Rowley 2017.

I don't  know what you mean!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:09:19 AM
I don't  know what you mean!

Read Rowley's q&a session 2017.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:11:20 AM
Read Rowley's q&a session 2017.

Does he reveal if Madeleine's parents have been interviewed or not during this lengthy investigation?

Does he state categorically if they have or have not been interviewed?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:12:30 AM
If so it was with a rival tour operator it seems.  @)(++(*

Led by Cliff and the Shadows singing we're all going on a summer holiday.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:14:58 AM
Does he reveal if Madeleine's parents have been interviewed or not during this lengthy investigation?

Does he state categorically if they have or have not been interviewed?

Now you understand my qualifying word "seems",jesus talk about petty.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:15:54 AM
I wasn't asking you!

Any one can answer its not a 1 to 1.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 09:16:41 AM
Which do you believe is the more likely?
 That during this lengthy and costly investigation Madeleine's parents have or have not been interviewed?

Whatever opinion I expressed it would remain an opinion rather than a fact. I don't understand why it's an issue to be honest.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:17:00 AM
Now you understand my qualifying word "seems",jesus talk about petty.

I would really prefer if in any post to me you do not use the word "Jesus" as a swear word.
I know it's not in the least offensive to many but it is to me.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 29, 2019, 09:18:28 AM
I wasn't asking you!
Don't read it then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 29, 2019, 09:19:10 AM
Mr Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”

....

Maddie is missing, not abducted.
Rowley agrees with me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:19:59 AM
Whatever opinion I expressed it would remain an opinion rather than a fact. I don't understand why it's an issue to be honest.

Well in your opinion which is more likely.

a) The McCanns have been interviewed.?
Or
b) The McCanns have not been interviewed?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:21:58 AM
Don't read it then.

But if I hadn't read it I wouldn't have known that you were answering a post of mine which had not been addressed to you!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:27:23 AM
Mr Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”

....

Maddie is missing, not abducted.
Rowley agrees with me.


Does he agree with you in your belief  that her parents are complicit in her disappearance
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 29, 2019, 09:29:02 AM
Madeleine McCann: Portuguese refuse to reopen case

Portuguese judicial authorities say there is no new evidence to warrant re-investigation despite call from Met to reopen inquiry

Sandra Laville, crime correspondent

Thu 26 Apr 2012 16.04 BST

The Portuguese attorney general has appeared to rule out reopening the Madeleine McCann case despite a call to do so from Scotland Yard.

A statement from his office said that until now it has not been necessary to reopen the case. It added: "As it has always been said, the public ministry [Portugal's body of independent public prosecutors] will only open the case if new, credible and relevant facts arise, and not more hypotheses or speculations."

The response was the first from the Portuguese judicial authorities since senior Scotland Yard detectives made clear on Wednesday that they wanted the investigation into her disappearance reopened.

DCI Andy Redwood, who is leading an investigative review of all the evidence in the case, said his team was developing "genuinely new information" and that colleagues in Portugal who are part of a police review team based in Oporto, were of the same mind as him that the case should be reopened. He said that, from the material his team were seeing, he believed there was a possibility Madeleine could be alive and referred to cases in which children have been abducted and discovered alive many years later.

Next week will mark five years since Madeleine went missing from her family's Algarve holiday flat as her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, dined nearby.

There have been hundreds of possible sightings of the girl since she vanished, but each one has come to nothing.

The Portuguese statement came after family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the McCanns were "hugely encouraged" by the recent momentum in the case. Kate McCann was said to be particularly pleased with the a new image of Madeleine, depicting how she might look now, believing it had a strong family resemblance.

Referring to the police's view that they have 195 potential new leads, Mitchell told BBC Breakfast: "Kate and Gerry welcome this and they are hugely encouraged by what the police have been doing all of this last year since the launch of the investigative review. They [Scotland Yard] believe that it is quite possible that Madeleine could still be alive and that is what Kate and Gerry have said throughout the five years and they are hugely encouraged by all of this momentum in the case."

He said that, like the British police, the McCanns want the case to be reopened. But he added such a move was "up to the Portuguese authorities".

Redwood confirmed that his team of more than 30 officers had been to Portugal seven times, including a visit to the family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz.

An investigative review was launched last year after a meeting between former Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and the Home Office.

Detectives in Portugal are also understood to want the case reopened but to do so they must gain judicial approval via the courts.

Redwood's team have uncovered 195 investigative opportunities and have carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of the child's disappearance to establish the windows of opportunity in which she could have been abducted.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/26/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-police-refuse

I was referring to before or at the same time as appealing to David Cameron. It is obvious from this article that the request to reopen the Portuguese investigation came from SY.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:32:23 AM
I would really prefer if in any post to me you do not use the word "Jesus" as a swear word.
I know it's not in the least offensive to many but it is to me.
Thank you.

No offense intended.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 29, 2019, 09:34:26 AM

Does he agree with you in your belief  that her parents are complicit in her disappearance

He doesn’t say. He says ‘we don’t want to start rumours that that’s a line of enquiry’ to paraphrase....but he doesn’t directly say that it isn’t.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 29, 2019, 09:35:06 AM
I'm sure, they've been interviewed... 100%
Still opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:36:50 AM
No offense intended.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:38:32 AM
He doesn’t say. He says ‘we don’t want to start rumours that that’s a line of enquiry’ to paraphrase....but he doesn’t directly say that it isn’t.

As clear as mud then?
Do you still believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:39:46 AM
Still opinion.

As is Barriers post.
So opinions from both?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 29, 2019, 09:42:35 AM
As is Barriers post.
So opinions from both?
You would have to use the URL to that post for me to be sure we are discussing the same "Barrier's post".
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:44:04 AM
The last few post's imo bring into stark contrast what seperates sceptics from supporters,
The infamous Rowley interview never once mentioned the McCanns being interviewed only that there was not a need reopen that as a line of investigation after having it dealt with the original investigation(a ringing endorsement if ever there was one) this was in response to the question:

"Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right
back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an
abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from
the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine
simply walking out of the apartment.


Supporters as a whole see this as yes they have bound to have been questioned,and never the twain shall meet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 29, 2019, 09:45:51 AM
A reminder from on high to keep posts convivial at all times. Cheers.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:46:23 AM
You would have to use the URL to that post for me to be sure we are discussing the same "Barrier's post".

Can't be bothered !
If I may be allowed to say so, you do seem to have a much stricter standard of demanding cites from Davel than any other posters..
This may be a wrong observation on my part but it is my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:47:03 AM
A reminder from on high to keep posts convivial at all times. Cheers.


As ever.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: carlymichelle on April 29, 2019, 09:49:18 AM
i  think if   SY said aliens   abducted maddie some supporters would lap it  up
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:50:11 AM
The last few post's imo bring into stark contrast what seperates sceptics from supporters,
The infamous Rowley interview never once mentioned the McCanns being interviewed only that there was not a need reopen that as a line of investigation after having it dealt with the original investigation(a ringing endorsement if ever there was one) this was in response to the question:

"Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right
back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an
abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from
the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine
simply walking out of the apartment.


Supporters as a whole see this as yes they have bound to have been questioned,and never the twain shall meet.


And sceptics as a whole see this is yes they have not been questioned .
Why do you believe NSY have never questioned them?
Is the above statement your reason for your belief?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:51:29 AM
i  think if   SY said aliens   abducted maddie some supporters would lap it  up

They! didn't?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:52:27 AM
i  think if   SY said aliens   abducted maddie some supporters would lap it  up

It's possibly as feasible as some sceptics beliefs.( Not here)
Just for the record I'm one of the "some supporters" who wouldn't "lap it up"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 09:53:46 AM

And sceptics as a whole see this is yes they have not been questioned .
Why do you believe NSY have never questioned them?
Is the above statement your reason for your belief?

The only time SY could question them is on a ILOR from Portugal,it is not their case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: carlymichelle on April 29, 2019, 09:54:29 AM
They! didn't?


 ?{)(** @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2019, 09:54:38 AM
Still opinion.
I never claimed it was anything else...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2019, 09:56:00 AM
The only time SY could question them is on a ILOR from Portugal,it is not their case.

I wonder if rob will point out this is your opinion ..not fact...and obviously totally wrong
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:56:53 AM
The only time SY could question them is on a ILOR from Portugal,it is not their case.

Do you mean that NSY couldn't ask the McCanns any questions at all without gaining permission from Portugal?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 29, 2019, 10:02:48 AM
But if I hadn't read it I wouldn't have known that you were answering a post of mine which had not been addressed to you!
Forget it then. Or move on. Or don't. I don't care.
Point remains, nobody knows whether the parents have been re-interviewed, not even Davel the 100 percenter.
So it's an opinion - which is fine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 29, 2019, 10:03:35 AM
As clear as mud then?
Do you still believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance?

‘Mr Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”


He could simply have said no when asked if the parents were being investigated. Why do you think he gave such a convoluted answer ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 29, 2019, 10:04:18 AM
That's interesting, because it's the first time I heard of such a snippet.  I wonder if Sandra is entirely accurate in this respect?

Quite some time ago on the forum I argued that it was highly unlikely that Scotland Yard would not have had feet on the ground at a review stage and might even have done so under the guise of holidaymakers perhaps even taking a holiday rental.

The Portuguese team from the North also reviewed on location.

It is apparent that despite both forces seeing the benefit of investigating Madeleine's case at first hand as well as from accumulated data the will of their political masters appears to have been lacking.

What the McCanns achieved in terms of overcoming that reluctance is nothing short of miraculous ... bearing in mind the political resistance they were up against and the sceptic forces flying banners of "justice for Madeleine" who were actually involved in moving heaven and earth to thwart every positive move her parents instituted on her behalf.

A trend which sceptics continue to pursue up until the present day.
                          ____________________________________________

"Redwood confirmed that his team of more than 30 officers had been to Portugal seven times, including a visit to the family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz"
I think that represents a lot of organisation and a lot of labour ... and I don't think it would or could have taken place without the knowledge and perhaps even the cooperation of the Judicial police from the North of the country.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 10:09:08 AM
Forget it then. Or move on. Or don't. I don't care.
Point remains, nobody knows whether the parents have been re-interviewed, not even Davel the 100 percenter.
So it's an opinion - which is fine.

Exactly nobody knows!
And that applies to sceptics too.
But one can hazard a guess or an opinion as to which is more likely.

Not "moving on". too quickly.
Had a bit of a tumble early Sunday morning.
Leather soled fancy shoes, wet cobblestones , 2am in the morning and just possibly the last glass of wine not a good combination. @)(++(*

No serious damage!
Just some bruising!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 10:16:26 AM
‘Mr Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”


He could simply have said no when asked if the parents were being investigated. Why do you think he gave such a convoluted answer ?

He's a policeman.
I always find that the police when giving any interview speak in a rather convoluted way.!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 10:17:39 AM
Well in your opinion which is more likely.

a) The McCanns have been interviewed.?
Or
b) The McCanns have not been interviewed?

I haven't thought about it really because I don't see it as significant. In my opinion it's only significant in the eyes of those who want to convince others that OG has been properly conducted. I know they hadn't been formally interviewed up until the 10th anniversary.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 29, 2019, 10:22:29 AM
Exactly nobody knows!
And that applies to sceptics too.
But one can hazard a guess or an opinion as to which is more likely.

Not "moving on". too quickly.
Had a bit of a tumble early Sunday morning.
Leather soled fancy shoes, wet cobblestones , 2am in the morning and just possibly the last glass of wine not a good combination. @)(++(*

No serious damage!
Just some bruising!

Sorry to hear that Engarth ... wet cobblestones are lethal ... but glad no serious damage done even if still sore. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 10:27:43 AM
I haven't thought about it really because I don't see it as significant. In my opinion it's only significant in the eyes of those who want to convince others that OG has been properly conducted. I know they hadn't been formally interviewed up until the 10th anniversary.


I believe it was Barrier who raised the point this morning?
So you believe that  it has no significance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 10:36:46 AM
Sorry to hear that Engarth ... wet cobblestones are lethal ... but glad no serious damage done even if still sore.


Thank you.
It's amazing how one can be aware that the cobblestones are wet and slippery, be aware that one is not wearing "sensible" shoes and be holding anothers arm but yet still slip!
Sometimes I think it's the being aware of all  "dangers" that causes one to become too tense and then you do slip
As usual in Glasgow I was quickly surrounded by helpful and concerned folk.
I'm fine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 29, 2019, 10:41:19 AM
Quite some time ago on the forum I argued that it was highly unlikely that Scotland Yard would not have had feet on the ground at a review stage and might even have done so under the guise of holidaymakers perhaps even taking a holiday rental.

The Portuguese team from the North also reviewed on location.

It is apparent that despite both forces seeing the benefit of investigating Madeleine's case at first hand as well as from accumulated data the will of their political masters appears to have been lacking.

What the McCanns achieved in terms of overcoming that reluctance is nothing short of miraculous ... bearing in mind the political resistance they were up against and the sceptic forces flying banners of "justice for Madeleine" who were actually involved in moving heaven and earth to thwart every positive move her parents instituted on her behalf.

A trend which sceptics continue to pursue up until the present day.
                          ____________________________________________

"Redwood confirmed that his team of more than 30 officers had been to Portugal seven times, including a visit to the family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz"
I think that represents a lot of organisation and a lot of labour ... and I don't think it would or could have taken place without the knowledge and perhaps even the cooperation of the Judicial police from the North of the country.

As I had not heard of OG boots on foot in Luz before the June 2014 dig in Luz, I will prick up my ears.   &^^&*

Over and out.

Doggie is mithrething me again for a tramp round the campo. And it is blisteringly hot.  So I am off for a while.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 10:43:02 AM

I believe it was Barrier who raised the point this morning?
So you believe that  it has no significance?

Questions, questions.... Here is my opinion.

According to the evidence I have seen OG's purpose was to inestigate the abduction as if it occured in the UK. There is no evidence to suggest that they have investigated anything else.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on April 29, 2019, 10:46:20 AM
i  think if   SY said aliens   abducted maddie some supporters would lap it  up

It's a wonder Amaral hasn't said the McCann's are aliens and transported Madeleine back to their planet that is why she wasn't found.   Don't hold your breath   8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 29, 2019, 10:50:34 AM
He's a policeman.
I always find that the police when giving any interview speak in a rather convoluted way.!

Funny because when they have something to say I believe the police can be rather blunt and to the point.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2019, 10:51:16 AM
Questions, questions.... Here is my opinion.

According to the evidence I have seen OG's purpose was to inestigate the abduction as if it occured in the UK. There is no evidence to suggest that they have investigated anything else.

And no evidence that they haven't...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 29, 2019, 10:57:59 AM
Thousands sign Madeleine McCann petition to force joint review by British and Portuguese
By SOPHIE FREEMAN
UPDATED: 07:11, 4 November 2010

The parents of Madeleine McCann spoke of their joy yesterday after more than 9,000 people signed a new search petition.

The online petition calls for the British and Portuguese authorities to hold a joint review of Madeleine's case, which the McCanns feel is vital to finding their daughter.

It comes just a day after Kate and Gerry McCann revealed the fund to help find their missing daughter is about to run out of money.

Mrs McCann also spoke out against ministers who had shrugged off her pleas for help, adding that she needed 'action not fluffy, worthless words'.

Madeleine disappeared on holiday in Portugal in 2007 and would now be seven.

Many of those who signed the petition expressed their sympathy with the McCann's plight.

One woman wrote: 'Please help Kate and Gerry, they shouldn't have to do this on their own. There is a little girl out there.'

Another wrote: 'I support this campaign 100 per cent. Madeleine is a British citizen and she deserves more form our Government.'

The McCanns, from Rothley in Leicestershire, said they were 'pleased and delighted' with the response to the petition but stressed they needed 'lots, lots more signatures'.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/04/article-1326470-0BE2C1C2000005DC-796_468x342.jpg)
Positive: Kate and Gerry McCann said they were 'delighted' with the response but needed 'lots, lots more signatures'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326470/Madeleine-McCann-petition-force-review-British-Portuguese-signed-9k.html



A positive action on Madeleine's behalf by Kate and Gerry is met by the usual sceptic vitriol of the same old same old comment ... which if not a belief system ... why do they say it?

I really am slightly sick of this couple, expecting priority treatment over the hundreds of other missing children who get zero media attention but haven't gone missing because of the actions of their selfish parents, who seem happy to pin the blame for everything that's happened on everyone else. How much money has been spent on this with so little progress? Where do they expect the money to continue to fund the British and Portugeuse investigations to come from? I feel so bad for the little girl in all of this, I hope she is safe and well somewhere and one day finds her way back home, but this enduring legacy of emotional blackmail served up the McCanns, as if their case if so much more of a priority than any other, leaves a taste in the mouth nastier than the Sangria they were probably enjoying when their daughter went missing.

______________________________________

The vital point of this sad incident is that if these supposedly responsible parents had been looking after their children at the time, instead of going out with their friends wining and dining, then the poor child would have still been with them. I do not apologise for stating the obvious but it is the parents responsibility to look after their children 24 hours day, if you want to go wining and dining then you should not have children, when my kids were of that age, we didn´t go out unless we cold get a sitter, granny, when abroad they came out with us or we didn´t go, easy isn´t it.
______________________________________

this child was not abducted in UK, but in Portugal whilst her parents had left her un supervised whilst they enjoyed a social evening I object most strongly if further tax payers money is spent on this case they will have to live with their guilt. Poor little girl
______________________________________

YOU abandoned your children YOU accept resposibility for your actions YOU pay for it, don't expect others to subsidise your actions.
______________________________________

It's sad when a mother loses her daughter, especially when they leave her alone whilst they go 'out on the town'. BUT, it's time to draw a line under it. If she is dead, then she is dead. If she was kidnapped then she will be living a new life be it happy or not. Call it a day, McCanns. You've had trips around the world. End it!
______________________________________

When the Police in Portugal archived this case and Mr and Mrs Mccann lost their arguido status, as parents they were given a period of time to have the Police re-open the case and continue looking for Madeleine. They never asked for this to be re-opened - I can't understand why. They other thing that puzzles me, is why was Madeleine made a Ward of Court in the UK courts.
______________________________________

There's no point of a "review" with probably a "McCann-made -result" . They never asked for a true RE-OPENING of the case - they never wanted that !

______________________________________








Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 11:14:13 AM
Do you mean that NSY couldn't ask the McCanns any questions at all without gaining permission from Portugal?

In relation to the dissapearence,its not their case.
The rogs were done at request of the PJ,Redwoods questioning in Portugal was through ILOR's.The digs in Portugal were done through ILOR's,SY just can't go in mob handed without offical confirmation from the PJ, its their case.
All imo of course just to please some.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 29, 2019, 11:19:38 AM


What is,imo's or all the rest?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 11:39:49 AM
And no evidence that they haven't...

Theres no evidence that they're not all spending their days square dancing; it doesn't mean they are though.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 29, 2019, 12:08:40 PM
Exactly nobody knows!
And that applies to sceptics too.
But one can hazard a guess or an opinion as to which is more likely.

Not "moving on". too quickly.
Had a bit of a tumble early Sunday morning.
Leather soled fancy shoes, wet cobblestones , 2am in the morning and just possibly the last glass of wine not a good combination. @)(++(*

No serious damage!
Just some bruising!
Ahh, sorry to hear that. Never blame the booze, they might take it away from us!
Wishing you a speedy recovery.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2019, 12:18:07 PM
Theres no evidence that they're not all spending their days square dancing; it doesn't mean they are though.

so your claim that no evidence of investigating anything else ...doesnt mean they havent...thanks for teh Clarrie...fication
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 12:28:19 PM
Ahh, sorry to hear that. Never blame the booze, they might take it away from us!
Wishing you a speedy recovery.

Thank you.
My daughter in law had on even more unsuitable shoes, had had the same amount of wine and walked the same slippery cobbles.
She was fine!!
I can only blame hubby!
Definitely not the wine.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 29, 2019, 01:59:50 PM
‘Mr Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”


He could simply have said no when asked if the parents were being investigated. Why do you think he gave such a convoluted answer ?

None of the team will be allowed to reveal the truth but when they continue to spend it means they know. Shhhh!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 03:30:20 PM
Thousands sign Madeleine McCann petition to force joint review by British and Portuguese
By SOPHIE FREEMAN
UPDATED: 07:11, 4 November 2010

The parents of Madeleine McCann spoke of their joy yesterday after more than 9,000 people signed a new search petition.

The online petition calls for the British and Portuguese authorities to hold a joint review of Madeleine's case, which the McCanns feel is vital to finding their daughter.

It comes just a day after Kate and Gerry McCann revealed the fund to help find their missing daughter is about to run out of money.

Mrs McCann also spoke out against ministers who had shrugged off her pleas for help, adding that she needed 'action not fluffy, worthless words'.

Madeleine disappeared on holiday in Portugal in 2007 and would now be seven.

Many of those who signed the petition expressed their sympathy with the McCann's plight.

One woman wrote: 'Please help Kate and Gerry, they shouldn't have to do this on their own. There is a little girl out there.'

Another wrote: 'I support this campaign 100 per cent. Madeleine is a British citizen and she deserves more form our Government.'

The McCanns, from Rothley in Leicestershire, said they were 'pleased and delighted' with the response to the petition but stressed they needed 'lots, lots more signatures'.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/04/article-1326470-0BE2C1C2000005DC-796_468x342.jpg)
Positive: Kate and Gerry McCann said they were 'delighted' with the response but needed 'lots, lots more signatures'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326470/Madeleine-McCann-petition-force-review-British-Portuguese-signed-9k.html



A positive action on Madeleine's behalf by Kate and Gerry is met by the usual sceptic vitriol of the same old same old comment ... which if not a belief system ... why do they say it?

I really am slightly sick of this couple, expecting priority treatment over the hundreds of other missing children who get zero media attention but haven't gone missing because of the actions of their selfish parents, who seem happy to pin the blame for everything that's happened on everyone else. How much money has been spent on this with so little progress? Where do they expect the money to continue to fund the British and Portugeuse investigations to come from? I feel so bad for the little girl in all of this, I hope she is safe and well somewhere and one day finds her way back home, but this enduring legacy of emotional blackmail served up the McCanns, as if their case if so much more of a priority than any other, leaves a taste in the mouth nastier than the Sangria they were probably enjoying when their daughter went missing.

______________________________________

The vital point of this sad incident is that if these supposedly responsible parents had been looking after their children at the time, instead of going out with their friends wining and dining, then the poor child would have still been with them. I do not apologise for stating the obvious but it is the parents responsibility to look after their children 24 hours day, if you want to go wining and dining then you should not have children, when my kids were of that age, we didn´t go out unless we cold get a sitter, granny, when abroad they came out with us or we didn´t go, easy isn´t it.
______________________________________

this child was not abducted in UK, but in Portugal whilst her parents had left her un supervised whilst they enjoyed a social evening I object most strongly if further tax payers money is spent on this case they will have to live with their guilt. Poor little girl
______________________________________

YOU abandoned your children YOU accept resposibility for your actions YOU pay for it, don't expect others to subsidise your actions.
______________________________________

It's sad when a mother loses her daughter, especially when they leave her alone whilst they go 'out on the town'. BUT, it's time to draw a line under it. If she is dead, then she is dead. If she was kidnapped then she will be living a new life be it happy or not. Call it a day, McCanns. You've had trips around the world. End it!
______________________________________

When the Police in Portugal archived this case and Mr and Mrs Mccann lost their arguido status, as parents they were given a period of time to have the Police re-open the case and continue looking for Madeleine. They never asked for this to be re-opened - I can't understand why. They other thing that puzzles me, is why was Madeleine made a Ward of Court in the UK courts.
______________________________________

There's no point of a "review" with probably a "McCann-made -result" . They never asked for a true RE-OPENING of the case - they never wanted that !

______________________________________

In my opinion those comments are not vitriolic. It's true that they left their children alone, that the case is a Portuguese case, and that they didn't ask for the original investigation to be reopened. Why should people be castigated for pointing out the facts?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2019, 05:20:08 PM
In my opinion those comments are not vitriolic. It's true that they left their children alone, that the case is a Portuguese case, and that they didn't ask for the original investigation to be reopened. Why should people be castigated for pointing out the facts?

Could you provide a cite that the mccanns were able to ask for the original investigation to be reopened seeing as you are referring to it as a fact
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 05:22:31 PM
In my opinion those comments are not vitriolic. It's true that they left their children alone, that the case is a Portuguese case, and that they didn't ask for the original investigation to be reopened. Why should people be castigated for pointing out the facts?

Do you agree with the comment sayng that they should be responsible for their actions and they should pay for it and not to expect others to subsidise their actions?

If so would this equally apply to everyone whose " irresponsible" actions led to public money being spent?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 29, 2019, 06:11:50 PM
In my opinion those comments are not vitriolic. It's true that they left their children alone, that the case is a Portuguese case, and that they didn't ask for the original investigation to be reopened. Why should people be castigated for pointing out the facts?

The newspapers have learned that it is necessary to moderate comments under any McCann story prior to publication ... leaving out the less offensive ones.

Given that these were circa 2010 it is amazing how many of the beliefs propounded are still being proselyted in 2019.

These are but a random sample but from them it is self evident that in general - based on comment and likes - that there is a sceptic presence out there which ...
Sceptics spend a lot of their on line activity railing about neglect and as you have done the children being alone ... and are unable to make the connection with their endless campaigns either singularly or in concert with others to advocate the ultimate premeditated neglect of leaving a child to her fate by advocating it is too expensive to look for her.
Why is that?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 29, 2019, 06:25:21 PM
The newspapers have learned that it is necessary to moderate comments under any McCann story prior to publication ... leaving out the less offensive ones.

Given that these were circa 2010 it is amazing how many of the beliefs propounded are still being proselyted in 2019.

These are but a random sample but from them it is self evident that in general - based on comment and likes - that there is a sceptic presence out there which ...
  • objects strongly to any police action being taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann
  • the excuse for that malice being rank hate of her parents for a variety of preconceptions held by the individual sceptics who rush to have them posted to enable them to crow about them on other outlets
  • money is always there in some shape or form
  • and as has been the subject of our discussion here ... the nonsense that all they had to do to get the case opened was ... ... ...

Sceptics spend a lot of their on line activity railing about neglect and as you have done the children being alone ... and are unable to make the connection with their endless campaigns either singularly or in concert with others to advocate the ultimate premeditated neglect of leaving a child to her fate by advocating it is too expensive to look for her.
Why is that?

 there is a sceptic presence out there which ...
objects strongly to any police action being taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann

What???
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 29, 2019, 06:26:13 PM
The newspapers have learned that it is necessary to moderate comments under any McCann story prior to publication ... leaving out the less offensive ones.

Given that these were circa 2010 it is amazing how many of the beliefs propounded are still being proselyted in 2019.

These are but a random sample but from them it is self evident that in general - based on comment and likes - that there is a sceptic presence out there which ...
  • objects strongly to any police action being taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann
  • the excuse for that malice being rank hate of her parents for a variety of preconceptions held by the individual sceptics who rush to have them posted to enable them to crow about them on other outlets
  • money is always there in some shape or form
  • and as has been the subject of our discussion here ... the nonsense that all they had to do to get the case opened was ... ... ...

Sceptics spend a lot of their on line activity railing about neglect and as you have done the children being alone ... and are unable to make the connection with their endless campaigns either singularly or in concert with others to advocate the ultimate premeditated neglect of leaving a child to her fate by advocating it is too expensive to look for her.
Why is that?
I don't think proselyted means what you think it means.
But apart from that, it's an interesting post.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 29, 2019, 06:48:04 PM
I don't think proselyted means what you think it means.
But apart from that, it's an interesting post.

Try thinking of it when used as a verb and you will see I know exactly what it means.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 29, 2019, 07:08:00 PM
Thousands sign Madeleine McCann petition to force joint review by British and Portuguese
By SOPHIE FREEMAN
UPDATED: 07:11, 4 November 2010

The parents of Madeleine McCann spoke of their joy yesterday after more than 9,000 people signed a new search petition.

The online petition calls for the British and Portuguese authorities to hold a joint review of Madeleine's case, which the McCanns feel is vital to finding their daughter.

It comes just a day after Kate and Gerry McCann revealed the fund to help find their missing daughter is about to run out of money.

Mrs McCann also spoke out against ministers who had shrugged off her pleas for help, adding that she needed 'action not fluffy, worthless words'.

Madeleine disappeared on holiday in Portugal in 2007 and would now be seven.

Many of those who signed the petition expressed their sympathy with the McCann's plight.

One woman wrote: 'Please help Kate and Gerry, they shouldn't have to do this on their own. There is a little girl out there.'

Another wrote: 'I support this campaign 100 per cent. Madeleine is a British citizen and she deserves more form our Government.'

The McCanns, from Rothley in Leicestershire, said they were 'pleased and delighted' with the response to the petition but stressed they needed 'lots, lots more signatures'.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/04/article-1326470-0BE2C1C2000005DC-796_468x342.jpg)
Positive: Kate and Gerry McCann said they were 'delighted' with the response but needed 'lots, lots more signatures'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326470/Madeleine-McCann-petition-force-review-British-Portuguese-signed-9k.html





I really am slightly sick of this couple, expecting priority treatment over the hundreds of other missing children who get zero media attention but haven't gone missing because of the actions of their selfish parents, who seem happy to pin the blame for everything that's happened on everyone else. How much money has been spent on this with so little progress? Where do they expect the money to continue to fund the British and Portugeuse investigations to come from? I feel so bad for the little girl in all of this, I hope she is safe and well somewhere and one day finds her way back home, but this enduring legacy of emotional blackmail served up the McCanns, as if their case if so much more of a priority than any other, leaves a taste in the mouth nastier than the Sangria they were probably enjoying when their daughter went missing.

______________________________________

The vital point of this sad incident is that if these supposedly responsible parents had been looking after their children at the time, instead of going out with their friends wining and dining, then the poor child would have still been with them. I do not apologise for stating the obvious but it is the parents responsibility to look after their children 24 hours day, if you want to go wining and dining then you should not have children, when my kids were of that age, we didn´t go out unless we cold get a sitter, granny, when abroad they came out with us or we didn´t go, easy isn´t it.
______________________________________

this child was not abducted in UK, but in Portugal whilst her parents had left her un supervised whilst they enjoyed a social evening I object most strongly if further tax payers money is spent on this case they will have to live with their guilt. Poor little girl
______________________________________

YOU abandoned your children YOU accept resposibility for your actions YOU pay for it, don't expect others to subsidise your actions.
______________________________________

It's sad when a mother loses her daughter, especially when they leave her alone whilst they go 'out on the town'. BUT, it's time to draw a line under it. If she is dead, then she is dead. If she was kidnapped then she will be living a new life be it happy or not. Call it a day, McCanns. You've had trips around the world. End it!
______________________________________

When the Police in Portugal archived this case and Mr and Mrs Mccann lost their arguido status, as parents they were given a period of time to have the Police re-open the case and continue looking for Madeleine. They never asked for this to be re-opened - I can't understand why. They other thing that puzzles me, is why was Madeleine made a Ward of Court in the UK courts.
______________________________________

There's no point of a "review" with probably a "McCann-made -result" . They never asked for a true RE-OPENING of the case - they never wanted that !

______________________________________

A positive action on Madeleine's behalf by Kate and Gerry is met by the usual sceptic vitriol of the same old same old comment ... which if not a belief system ... why do they say it?


It wasn't a positive action when they left them - was it.


why do you call this skeptics vitriol - it is what they think of the mcs a right they have.

You have no right to expect everyone to think as you do B.

They the mcns have to expect condemnation for leaving their babies alone.

Why do you think - you have the right to condemn them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 07:10:58 PM
Could you remind me when and why they wrote to the PJ please?
I think you probably already know the answer to that if you have read Kate’s book.  [ad hom removed]
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 07:16:20 PM
The last few post's imo bring into stark contrast what seperates sceptics from supporters,
The infamous Rowley interview never once mentioned the McCanns being interviewed only that there was not a need reopen that as a line of investigation after having it dealt with the original investigation(a ringing endorsement if ever there was one) this was in response to the question:

"Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right
back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an
abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from
the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine
simply walking out of the apartment.


Supporters as a whole see this as yes they have bound to have been questioned,and never the twain shall meet.
I’m a supporter and I’m totally ambivalent about it.  I doubt they were formally interviewed as in taken down the cop shop with lawyers present, but on the other hand I’ve no doubt that the McCanns have been on hand to answer any queries pertaining to the case or the files that the Yard might have had.  It seems inconceivable that ghere would be NO questions put to the McCanns by the police at any point in the investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 07:17:12 PM
Can't be bothered !
If I may be allowed to say so, you do seem to have a much stricter standard of demanding cites from Davel than any other posters..
This may be a wrong observation on my part but it is my opinion.
I agree wholeheartedly with this, I think Davel must have really upset Rob at some point...  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 07:17:47 PM
i  think if   SY said aliens   abducted maddie some supporters would lap it  up
I would, it would be an amazing revelation. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 29, 2019, 07:41:14 PM

Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is
that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them. When you started
your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under
caution, ever consider them as suspects?

MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 29, 2019, 07:45:43 PM


Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?

MR: No
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 08:03:15 PM

Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?

MR: No

Because they have not been interviewed as potential suspects does not mean they have not been interviewed.
Thank you for reiterating the fact that Madeleine's parents are not suspects.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 29, 2019, 08:17:01 PM
Because they have not been interviewed as potential suspects does not mean they have not been interviewed.
Thank you for reiterating the fact that Madeleine's parents are not suspects.

That was in 2017. They could be suspects now. We have no way of knowing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2019, 08:19:39 PM
That was in 2017. They could be suspects now. We have no way of knowing.

Yes.. If we were told at 8.00am they were not suspects that doesn't mean it's true at 8.30am ...great observation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 08:20:35 PM
That was in 2017. They could be suspects now. We have no way of knowing.
Seriously, how likely do you think it is that the McCanns have suddenly become suspects again in the last two years?  What sort of evidence do you think may have been uncovered to make them suspects now, but still not sufficient to press charges?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 08:20:39 PM
That was in 2017. They could be suspects now. We have no way of knowing.

I believe that is highly unlikely.

How likely do you believe that they are now suspects?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 29, 2019, 08:20:51 PM
Yes.. If we were told at 8.00am they were not suspects that doesn't mean it's true at 8.30am ...great observation

Yes, that's right. Thanks.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 29, 2019, 08:21:53 PM
I believe that is highly unlikely.

How likely do you believe that they are now suspects?

It's not impossible. And even if they're not, that still doesn't mean they didn't do it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 29, 2019, 08:23:11 PM
Seriously, how likely do you think it is that the McCanns have suddenly become suspects again in the last two years?  What sort of evidence do you think may have been uncovered to make them suspects now, but still not sufficient to press charges?

It's possible.

Personally I'm at a loss to understand what evidence the review found which proved the McCanns didn't dunnit.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 08:23:50 PM
It's not impossible. And even if they're not, that still doesn't mean they didn't do it.
It’s not impossible that you’re involved IMO, prove that you’re not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 29, 2019, 08:28:50 PM
It’s not impossible that you’re involved IMO, prove that you’re not.

I didn't have a passport in 2007. I was at home in the UK on the night of Maddies disappearance

That is evidence that I didn't abduct Maddie,personally, but you're right, I could still be involved, No one has said that I'm not a suspect, & even if they did, that still wouldn't prove I'm not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 08:39:22 PM
The newspapers have learned that it is necessary to moderate comments under any McCann story prior to publication ... leaving out the less offensive ones.

Given that these were circa 2010 it is amazing how many of the beliefs propounded are still being proselyted in 2019.

These are but a random sample but from them it is self evident that in general - based on comment and likes - that there is a sceptic presence out there which ...
  • objects strongly to any police action being taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann
  • the excuse for that malice being rank hate of her parents for a variety of preconceptions held by the individual sceptics who rush to have them posted to enable them to crow about them on other outlets
  • money is always there in some shape or form
  • and as has been the subject of our discussion here ... the nonsense that all they had to do to get the case opened was ... ... ...

Sceptics spend a lot of their on line activity railing about neglect and as you have done the children being alone ... and are unable to make the connection with their endless campaigns either singularly or in concert with others to advocate the ultimate premeditated neglect of leaving a child to her fate by advocating it is too expensive to look for her.
Why is that?

Just what is being said in those comments to suggest that those making them feel 'rank hatred' towards the McCanns? That they intend to 'crow' about their comments? That their comments about neglect can be seen as 'railing'? In my opinion you are seriously overreacting and seem to have lost all sense of proportion.

If the McCanns had wanted the investigation to contimue they were entitled to request that.

 anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it...
They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 08:40:40 PM
I didn't have a passport in 2007. I was at home in the UK on the night of Maddies disappearance

That is evidence that I didn't abduct Maddie,personally, but you're right, I could still be involved, No one has said that I'm not a suspect, & even if they did, that still wouldn't prove I'm not.
And if I wanted to write a book about your involvement I could publish it in Portugal and that would be perfectly acceptable.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 29, 2019, 08:42:17 PM
And if I wanted to write a book about your involvement I could publish it in Portugal and that would be perfectly acceptable.

Fine by me, just so long as I get a share of the royalties.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 08:47:40 PM
Fine by me, just so long as I get a share of the royalties.
No chance, you’ll have to sue me for them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 29, 2019, 08:57:43 PM
A positive action on Madeleine's behalf by Kate and Gerry is met by the usual sceptic vitriol of the same old same old comment ... which if not a belief system ... why do they say it?


It wasn't a positive action when they left them - was it.


why do you call this skeptics vitriol - it is what they think of the mcs a right they have.

You have no right to expect everyone to think as you do B.

They the mcns have to expect condemnation for leaving their babies alone.

Why do you think - you have the right to condemn them.

After twelve years I think it is way beyond time for sceptics to stop using the pretext of neglect to attempt to interfere with each and every initiative taken by her parents and by the police on behalf of Madeleine McCann.

Where is the logic in organising a petition claiming neglect which advocates abandoning a missing child in the middle of an active search for her ... it is illogical.

Snip
   William Carr started this petition to UK Parliament
After being awarded another £150,000 on the 14/11/18.!!!! For years the McCanns have gotten off with no proper investigation into their conduct that night, despite plenty of evidence pointing the finger to their involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine . They continue to get vast sums of money from the uk taxpayers to continue the “search”. 140,000 kids a year go missing in Britain alone. What makes the McCanns a special case? There is something that just doesn’t sit right with me. The very least they should be charged for is neglect.

Reasons for signing

Why are we giving all this money for the McCanns when they are living in a nice big house, if it was my child I would have sold my house and used the money to search, as you said there is loads of people and children who go missing but do they get all this help No. the McCanns are disgusting specimens of parents, even a animal wouldn’t leave their babies alone for as long as they did.
_______________________________________________________

It’s an absolute joke these two keep getting more money for leaving their children alone and scared at night. Something needs done about them. They are walking free when they should have been jailed long ago.
_______________________________________________________

There is something strange going on here. Why were they not prosecuted for leaving their children alone in the flat and why did the other two kids get left behind. And why are they still being funded for a search. I didn't see Ben Needhams family gettinh all this support I think Ben was only news for a month and then it was only sporadic mentions

https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-gerry-and-kate-mccann-to-be-investigated-and-all-money-to-them-stopped
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 09:42:36 PM
Do you agree with the comment sayng that they should be responsible for their actions and they should pay for it and not to expect others to subsidise their actions?

If so would this equally apply to everyone whose " irresponsible" actions led to public money being spent?

I can't understand why anyone thought this case being reviewed by the British police would help in a search for Madeleine McCann. Nor why anyone thought that those police were equipped to investigate a crime which occured in Portugal. I don't know of another case where public money has been spent in this way.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 09:53:10 PM
I can't understand why anyone thought this case being reviewed by the British police would help in a search for Madeleine McCann. Nor why anyone thought that those police were equipped to investigate a crime which occured in Portugal. I don't know of another case where public money has been spent in this way.

Well I can fully understand why Madeleine's parents would want the case reviewed.
Hoping perhaps that this might help in finding out what happened to her.
Why shouldn't public money be spent in this way?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
I think you probably already know the answer to that if you have read Kate’s book.  [ad hom removed]

I may have read Kate's book but I haven't learned it off by heart. It isn't up to me to go and find your cires, it's up to you. If you can't provide a cite for the McCanns writing to the PJ just say so.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 10:04:50 PM
I may have read Kate's book but I haven't learned it off by heart. It isn't up to me to go and find your cires, it's up to you. If you can't provide a cite for the McCanns writing to the PJ just say so.
I’m not dancing to your tune.  You are a scholar as far as this case is concerned and I’d be most surprised if you were completely unaware  that Kate wrote to the PJ and that her pleas were ignored. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 10:06:38 PM
I can't understand why anyone thought this case being reviewed by the British police would help in a search for Madeleine McCann. Nor why anyone thought that those police were equipped to investigate a crime which occured in Portugal. I don't know of another case where public money has been spent in this way.
I’m astounded that you can’t see any benefit in reviewing ALL the information collated to see what had and hadn’t been properly investigated or followed up, with a view to reopening the investigation.  Why are you so baffled by this?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 10:15:12 PM
Well I can fully understand why Madeleine's parents would want the case reviewed.
Hoping perhaps that this might help in finding out what happened to her.
Why shouldn't public money be spent in this way?

How would it help? What did they think it might find? I didn't say that public money shouldn't be spent, I said I knew of no precedent.   
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 10:20:33 PM
How would it help? What did they think it might find? I didn't say that public money shouldn't be spent, I said I knew of no precedent.

The  alternative to a review of all the information was what?
Just because there wasn't a precedent makes no difference at all !
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 10:27:40 PM
I’m not dancing to your tune.  You are a scholar as far as this case is concerned and I’d be most surprised if you were completely unaware  that Kate wrote to the PJ and that her pleas were ignored.

I have seen nothing in that book saying the McCanns wrote to the PJ as you claimed and I don't tell lies.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 10:55:01 PM
The  alternative to a review of all the information was what?
Just because there wasn't a precedent makes no difference at all !

It was you who suggested that public money had been spent previously as a result of 'irresponsible' behaviour, not me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2019, 10:58:02 PM
It was you who suggested that public money had been spent previously as a result of 'irresponsible' behaviour, not me.

No I was repeating one of.the comments which Brietta posted.from a newspaper which said that public money shoud not be wasted because of the irresponsible actions of  the McCanns and you seemed to suggest that you thought the comments appropriate.

I did ask if money should be spent because of the irresponsible actions of others.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 11:10:12 PM
I have seen nothing in that book saying the McCanns wrote to the PJ as you claimed and I don't tell lies.
So youhave never heard of Kate McCann’s letter to Rebelo that he ignored?   &%%6
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 29, 2019, 11:38:47 PM
So youhave never heard of Kate McCann’s letter to Rebelo that he ignored?   &%%6

Well, it seems it was Kate McCann who wrote, not both of them, and she wrote to Rebelo, not the PJ. I still can't find anything in her book, but now you've been a little nore specific I assume you're referring to the letter Kate McCann wrote in December 2007 while the investigation was still ongoing. I don't know if he replied or not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 29, 2019, 11:47:03 PM
Well, it seems it was Kate McCann who wrote, not both of them, and she wrote to Rebelo, not the PJ. I still can't find anything in her book, but now you've been a little nore specific I assume you're referring to the letter Kate McCann wrote in December 2007 while the investigation was still ongoing. I don't know if he replied or not.
See?  You knew exactly what I was talking about.  Rebelo isn’t in the PJ then?  Who knew!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 12:30:41 AM
See?  You knew exactly what I was talking about.  Rebelo isn’t in the PJ then?  Who knew!

Omly after you came clean about who actually wrote and to whom. What evidence is there that Rebelo ignored her?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 30, 2019, 06:53:09 AM
After twelve years I think it is way beyond time for sceptics to stop using the pretext of neglect to attempt to interfere with each and every initiative taken by her parents and by the police on behalf of Madeleine McCann.

Where is the logic in organising a petition claiming neglect which advocates abandoning a missing child in the middle of an active search for her ... it is illogical.

Snip
   William Carr started this petition to UK Parliament
After being awarded another £150,000 on the 14/11/18.!!!! For years the McCanns have gotten off with no proper investigation into their conduct that night, despite plenty of evidence pointing the finger to their involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine . They continue to get vast sums of money from the uk taxpayers to continue the “search”. 140,000 kids a year go missing in Britain alone. What makes the McCanns a special case? There is something that just doesn’t sit right with me. The very least they should be charged for is neglect.

Reasons for signing

Why are we giving all this money for the McCanns when they are living in a nice big house, if it was my child I would have sold my house and used the money to search, as you said there is loads of people and children who go missing but do they get all this help No. the McCanns are disgusting specimens of parents, even a animal wouldn’t leave their babies alone for as long as they did.
_______________________________________________________

It’s an absolute joke these two keep getting more money for leaving their children alone and scared at night. Something needs done about them. They are walking free when they should have been jailed long ago.
_______________________________________________________

There is something strange going on here. Why were they not prosecuted for leaving their children alone in the flat and why did the other two kids get left behind. And why are they still being funded for a search. I didn't see Ben Needhams family gettinh all this support I think Ben was only news for a month and then it was only sporadic mentions

https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-gerry-and-kate-mccann-to-be-investigated-and-all-money-to-them-stopped


Not sure what your point is B
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:12:14 AM
Omly after you came clean about who actually wrote and to whom. What evidence is there that Rebelo ignored her?
Kate said so and it was plastered all over the newspapers.  Do you think she would tell such a whopping lie if her lie could so easily be called out by the police themselves?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 08:29:00 AM
Kate said so and it was plastered all over the newspapers.  Do you think she would tell such a whopping lie if her lie could so easily be called out by the police themselves?

Clarence Mitchell said her letter wasn't ignored;

Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell confirmed that Mrs McCann wrote to senior officer Paulo Rebelo but received no reply beyond a formal notification that her correspondence would be placed on file.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7544777.stm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 09:12:15 AM

Not sure what your point is B

You posted ...
Quote
"It wasn't a positive action when they left them - was it.
why do you call this skeptics vitriol - it is what they think of the mcs a right they have.
You have no right to expect everyone to think as you do B.
They the mcns have to expect condemnation for leaving their babies alone.
Why do you think - you have the right to condemn them.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg523919#msg523919 in reply to a post of mine showing the efforts Kate and Gerry have continued to make on Madeleine's behalf in the face of the negative attitude and actions of sceptics implementing their beliefs.
Thousands sign Madeleine McCann petition to force joint review by British and Portuguese
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg523809#msg523809

Quite simply the point I have made which you claim difficulty connecting with ... backed up by cites which tend to indicate that the deduction I have made is validated by the facts ... is that while Madeleine's parents have moved heaven and earth on her behalf ... sceptics have done nothing but spew negativity on one hand while on the other have actively sought to curtail any positive action on her behalf.

It is there, quite clearly delineated in black and white and glorious technicolour as far as I am concerned is that the sceptic belief is destructive for Madeleine McCann as well as being illogical.
How can sceptics advocate opprobrium for the 'neglect' they allege while wilfully perpetrating the huge neglect of doing all in their power to halt the active investigation for a missing child?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 30, 2019, 09:20:28 AM
You posted ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg523919#msg523919 in reply to a post of mine showing the efforts Kate and Gerry have continued to make on Madeleine's behalf in the face of the negative attitude and actions of sceptics implementing their beliefs.
Thousands sign Madeleine McCann petition to force joint review by British and Portuguese
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg523809#msg523809

Quite simply the point I have made which you claim difficulty connecting with ... backed up by cites which tend to indicate that the deduction I have made is validated by the facts ... is that while Madeleine's parents have moved heaven and earth on her behalf ... sceptics have done nothing but spew negativity on one hand while on the other have actively sought to curtail any positive action on her behalf.

It is there, quite clearly delineated in black and white and glorious technicolour as far as I am concerned is that the sceptic belief is destructive for Madeleine McCann as well as being illogical.
How can sceptics advocate opprobrium for the 'neglect' they allege while wilfully perpetrating the huge neglect of doing all in their power to halt the active investigation for a missing child?


sceptics have done nothing but spew negativity








Ah, right well the simple answer to that IMO -  is because they do not believe Maddie was abducted.

Not the nasty insinuation - that you make it out to be.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 09:29:47 AM

Aww, poor kmc - her pleas were ignored.

This would never have happened - if maddies pleas weren't ignored when crying for them.

You asked ... why I think I have the right to condemn sceptics and their actions motivated I think by their beliefs?

May I ask you why you find it necessary at a remove of almost twelve years to scorn a mother seeking information about her missing child ? and why sceptics seek to stop the police investigation which might reveal the answers?

How does an historical allegation weigh against deliberate and continual neglect of the right to be looked for if you are a missing person?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 09:33:02 AM
You asked ... why I think I have the right to condemn sceptics and their actions motivated I think by their beliefs?

May I ask you why you find it necessary at a remove of almost twelve years to scorn a mother seeking information about her missing child ? and why sceptics seek to stop the police investigation which might reveal the answers?

How does an historical allegation weigh against deliberate and continual neglect of the right to be looked for if you are a missing person?

Who do you consider guilty of this neglect?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 09:36:59 AM

sceptics have done nothing but spew negativity


Ah, right well the simple answer to that IMO -  is because they do not believe Maddie was abducted.

Not the nasty insinuation - that you make it out to be.

Well done! ... that is at least confirmation of what I would say is the main plank of sceptic belief.

Would you be so kind as to furnish the evidence which supports that belief complete with cites.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 09:42:36 AM
Who do you consider guilty of this neglect?
The top of the morning to you, Jassie.  Have you really not bothered to read my posts on the subject or is it just an affectation you haven't.
Whichever ... I don't think it is showing you up in the best light if you are trying to contribute to the discussion though.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 09:47:58 AM
The top of the morning to you, Jassie.  Have you really not bothered to read my posts on the subject or is it just an affectation you haven't.
Whichever ... I don't think it is showing you up in the best light if you are trying to contribute to the discussion though.

Been on my hols,  and haven't time to read ALL your back numbers.
However it would be nice if you could answer the question, rather than attempt to deflect & insult - you being a mod & all that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 09:57:57 AM
Been on my hols,  and haven't time to read ALL your back numbers.
However it would be nice if you could answer the question, rather than attempt to deflect & insult - you being a mod & all that.
I hope you had a good holiday.  Might I be so churlish as to suggest you read back a few pages on this thread just for information if you really wish to catch up on where we are in the debate regarding sceptcs beliefs ?.
I have found it is really a dark convoluted subject to enter cold.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 10:00:52 AM
I hope you had a good holiday.  Might I be so churlish as to suggest you read back a few pages on this thread just for information if you really wish to catch up on where we are in the debate regarding sceptcs beliefs ?.
I have found it is really a dark convoluted subject to enter cold.

Justifying the comment you made that I high-lighted will be quite sufficient for now, thank you.

Who are you blaming for this neglect ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 10:06:59 AM
jassi  she isnt worth  replying to imo


Do you ever reply to any supporter?
Certainly not to any post which I have directed at you.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 10:12:36 AM
You asked ... why I think I have the right to condemn sceptics and their actions motivated I think by their beliefs?

May I ask you why you find it necessary at a remove of almost twelve years to scorn a mother seeking information about her missing child ? and why sceptics seek to stop the police investigation which might reveal the answers?

How does an historical allegation weigh against deliberate and continual neglect of the right to be looked for if you are a missing person?

In my opinion your behaviour is motivated purely by your beliefs. You believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted
and therefore believe, imo, that gives you the right to judge, condemn and verbally abuse anyone who disagrees with you. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 10:15:32 AM
In my opinion your behaviour is motivated purely by your beliefs. You believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted
and therefore believe, imo, that gives you the right to judge, condemn and verbally abuse anyone who disagrees with you.


Similar to the manner in which sceptics do not believe Madeleine was abducted and many of those sceptics judge, condemn and verbally abuse the family of Madeleine?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 10:16:39 AM

Similar to the manner in which sceptics do not believe Madeleine was abducted and many of those sceptics judge, condemn and verbally abuse the family of Madeleine?

Would you care to support that statement ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 30, 2019, 10:19:13 AM
In my opinion your behaviour is motivated purely by your beliefs. You believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted
and therefore believe, imo, that gives you the right to judge, condemn and verbally abuse anyone who disagrees with you.

Belief.. Opinion... Theory... Based on the evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 10:24:26 AM
Would you care to support that statement ?

Really?
You don't believe that Madeleine's family have been judged, condemned and verbally abused by many sceptics?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 30, 2019, 10:26:09 AM
You asked ... why I think I have the right to condemn sceptics and their actions motivated I think by their beliefs?

May I ask you why you find it necessary at a remove of almost twelve years to scorn a mother seeking information about her missing child ? and why sceptics seek to stop the police investigation which might reveal the answers?

How does an historical allegation weigh against deliberate and continual neglect of the right to be looked for if you are a missing person?

May I ask you why you find it necessary at a remove of almost twelve years to scorn a mother seeking information about her missing child ?

Because surely it must be obvious - I don't believe Maddie was abducted.

The same as thousands more who don't believe the mcns - version of events.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 10:27:12 AM
May I ask you why you find it necessary at a remove of almost twelve years to scorn a mother seeking information about her missing child ?

Because surely it must be obvious - I don't believe Maddie was abducted.

The same as thousands more who don't believe the mcns - version of events.



What do you believe happened to Madeleine?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 10:27:33 AM
Would you care to support that statement ?
The worst of the abuse cannot be reproduced on this forum ... the rules just will not allow it.  As it is, I think I have skated on thin ice posting some of the exhibits from comments under newspaper articles.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 30, 2019, 10:32:20 AM
The worst of the abuse cannot be reproduced on this forum ... the rules just will not allow it.  As it is, I think I have skated on thin ice posting some of the exhibits from comments under newspaper articles.

There certainly one from a mod on this forum which would be removed if anyone posted the words used
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 30, 2019, 10:45:47 AM
The worst of the abuse cannot be reproduced on this forum ... the rules just will not allow it.  As it is, I think I have skated on thin ice posting some of the exhibits from comments under newspaper articles.
Meh, you can post what you like when referencing your sources to show the level of abuse. It may be prudent to blur out some naughty words.....besides, you're a mod - moderate.
But please remember that you are referencing the basest of all vitriol and opinion. This subset of people who vent their ire appear on all social media platforms and all subjects. You only need to go to a random Youtube video and it won't take long for you to find some utterly out of proportion, borderline illiterate diatribe about the subject matter - accurate or not - supportive or not. It's a by product of the concept of free speech, in harness with an available platform. Doesn't make it right, but neither does it make it representative of the rest of the population.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 30, 2019, 10:48:21 AM


What do you believe happened to Madeleine?



That she wasn't abducted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
May I ask you why you find it necessary at a remove of almost twelve years to scorn a mother seeking information about her missing child ?

Because surely it must be obvious - I don't believe Maddie was abducted.

The same as thousands more who don't believe the mcns - version of events.

Not that I could ever condone or participate in what I think is a vindictive twelve year long enterprise directed in the most part by faceless persons preserving anonymity but venting their spleen on a known family ... I read what you are saying in justification and (no ... actually I do not understand it).

You feel free as an individual to indulge in the scorn I asked about because ... ... while at the same time aligning yourself with 'thousands' who are like minded.

I think you have summed up a sceptic belief system very well ... what you haven't done is give details of the evidence supporting why you believe what you do ... and more importantly why others think it justifies attempts to derail active police investigations into what happened to Madeleine which we have been told at the stage of the investigation when we were being given information ... are in relation to her abduction.

Care to do that?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 10:51:56 AM


That she wasn't abducted.

Yes, you have said that before.
Do you believe Amaral's theory?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 10:57:28 AM
Meh, you can post what you like when referencing your sources to show the level of abuse. It may be prudent to blur out some naughty words.....besides, you're a mod - moderate.
But please remember that you are referencing the basest of all vitriol and opinion. This subset of people who vent their ire appear on all social media platforms and all subjects. You only need to go to a random Youtube video and it won't take long for you to find some utterly out of proportion, borderline illiterate diatribe about the subject matter - accurate or not - supportive or not. It's a by product of the concept of free speech, in harness with an available platform. Doesn't make it right, but neither does it make it representative of the rest of the population.

It is representative of the abuse of the internet among the first of which to be let loose was abuse of the McCanns.

Many of the same people who perpetrated that abuse then are still doing exactly the same thing using much of the same abusive material.

In the context of the thread ... that interests me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 30, 2019, 11:04:27 AM
It is representative of the abuse of the internet among the first of which to be let loose was abuse of the McCanns.

Many of the same people who perpetrated that abuse then are still doing exactly the same thing using much of the same abusive material.

In the context of the thread ... that interests me.
Trolls and abusers have been in existence since man (or woman) were scratching on cave walls with bits of flint.
Online abuse is ubiquitous and precedes the McCann's by a decade on line - PowWow, ICQ, and AOL Instant Messenger were overrun with imbeciles posting any old sh**e to whomever they chose, as it was largely unmoderated, as were most other platforms.
You see it as a focussed campaign because you're focussing on it - Joey Essex probably gets more intense online abuse, you just don't have an interest in it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 11:09:25 AM
Meh, you can post what you like when referencing your sources to show the level of abuse. It may be prudent to blur out some naughty words.....besides, you're a mod - moderate.
But please remember that you are referencing the basest of all vitriol and opinion. This subset of people who vent their ire appear on all social media platforms and all subjects. You only need to go to a random Youtube video and it won't take long for you to find some utterly out of proportion, borderline illiterate diatribe about the subject matter - accurate or not - supportive or not. It's a by product of the concept of free speech, in harness with an available platform. Doesn't make it right, but neither does it make it representative of the rest of the population.

I think it is tenable to suggest that "... utterly out of proportion, borderline illiterate diatribe about the subject matter - accurate or not - supportive or not." in relation to the abuse of the McCann family has dedicated followers which could be considered makes it representative of them as a whole.

For confirmation of that, one only has to read some of the comments left behind by them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 11:12:07 AM
Trolls and abusers have been in existence since man (or woman) were scratching on cave walls with bits of flint.
Online abuse is ubiquitous and precedes the McCann's by a decade on line - PowWow, ICQ, and AOL Instant Messenger were overrun with imbeciles posting any old sh**e to whomever they chose, as it was largely unmoderated, as were most other platforms.
You see it as a focussed campaign because you're focussing on it - Joey Essex probably gets more intense online abuse, you just don't have an interest in it.


I had to google  to find out who is Joey Essex.
I doubt he has been been subjected to even a fraction of the abuse directed at Madeleine's family.
Like Brietta I too am interested in why this one particular case has attracted so much vitriol and abuse.
This has lasted nearly twelve years!

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 11:16:33 AM
Trolls and abusers have been in existence since man (or woman) were scratching on cave walls with bits of flint.
Online abuse is ubiquitous and precedes the McCann's by a decade on line - PowWow, ICQ, and AOL Instant Messenger were overrun with imbeciles posting any old sh**e to whomever they chose, as it was largely unmoderated, as were most other platforms.
You see it as a focussed campaign because you're focussing on it - Joey Essex probably gets more intense online abuse, you just don't have an interest in it.

Please direct me to hundreds if not thousands of platforms many of which have been in existence for the sole purpose of abusing a single family for over twelve years ... when you can achieve that I will assume you are comparing like with like.
If you cannot achieve that ... might you consider the abuse levelled at that family is unconscionable.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 11:17:46 AM

I had to google  to find out who is Joey Essex.
I doubt he has been been subjected to even a fraction of the abuse directed at Madeleine's family.
Like Brietta I too am interested in why this one particular case has attracted so much vitriol and abuse.
This has lasted nearly twelve years!


Don't think you'll find the answer here.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 30, 2019, 11:18:51 AM
Not that I could ever condone or participate in what I think is a vindictive twelve year long enterprise directed in the most part by faceless persons preserving anonymity but venting their spleen on a known family ... I read what you are saying in justification and (no ... actually I do not understand it).

You feel free as an individual to indulge in the scorn I asked about because ...
  • you do not believe Madeleine was abducted
  • you do not believe witness 'version of events'
... while at the same time aligning yourself with 'thousands' who are like minded.

I think you have summed up a sceptic belief system very well ... what you haven't done is give details of the evidence supporting why you believe what you do ... and more importantly why others think it justifies attempts to derail active police investigations into what happened to Madeleine which we have been told at the stage of the investigation when we were being given information ... are in relation to her abduction.

Care to do that?


Would you care to show the evidence that Maddie -  was abducted.

Just been listening to the podcast 9 -  there are so many doubts and inaccuracy about so-called evidence.


It's not as cut a dried as you think B - or try to make it out to be.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 11:20:31 AM
Please direct me to hundreds if not thousands of platforms many of which have been in existence for the sole purpose of abusing a single family for over twelve years ... when you can achieve that I will assume you are comparing like with like.
If you cannot achieve that ... might you consider the abuse levelled at that family is unconscionable.


I fancy you exaggerate somewhat - unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 30, 2019, 11:32:58 AM

I had to google  to find out who is Joey Essex.
I doubt he has been been subjected to even a fraction of the abuse directed at Madeleine's family.
Like Brietta I too am interested in why this one particular case has attracted so much vitriol and abuse.
This has lasted nearly twelve years!
It hasn't. It's longevity sets it apart. It's not difficult to explain - data in, data out. There's a different story issued weekly about it, so it is perpetuated in the media for the idiots to shout naughty words about.
The 'abuse' is broadly in proportion with everything else they find distasteful - if Katy Hopkins makes an appearance there's a spike in abuse that is off the scale - it's the brevity and shelf life is the difference, but proportionately it's about the same.
There's nothing special about the McCann's.
And Joey Essex was an example.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 30, 2019, 11:36:17 AM
It hasn't. It's longevity sets it apart. It's not difficult to explain - data in, data out. There's a different story issued weekly about it, so it is perpetuated in the media for the idiots to shout naughty words about.
The 'abuse' is broadly in proportion with everything else they find distasteful - if Katy Hopkins makes an appearance there's a spike in abuse that is off the scale - it's the brevity and shelf life is the difference, but proportionately it's about the same.
There's nothing special about the McCann's.
And Joey Essex was an example.
I think you are wrong based on the fact that there, are, almost no other subjects where newspapers have had to close off comments... The abuse being so bad
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 11:41:14 AM

Would you care to show the evidence that Maddie -  was abducted.

Just been listening to the podcast 9 -  there are so many doubts and inaccuracy about so-called evidence.


It's not as cut a dried as you think B - or try to make it out to be.

So you believe Madeleine was not abducted ... but are unable to show the evidence for that belief.

I think that regrettable but is par for the course of sceptic belief.



I did mention to you that two national police forces have launched investigations into Madeleine's abduction which are still live?  If not, I do so now.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 11:44:29 AM

Similar to the manner in which sceptics do not believe Madeleine was abducted and many of those sceptics judge, condemn and verbally abuse the family of Madeleine?

Two wrongs don't make a right. The comments posted weren't anywhere near as abusive as the reaction to them either imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 11:47:01 AM
I think you are wrong based on the fact that there, are, almost no other subjects where newspapers have had to close off comments... The abuse being so bad

Or where a convicted axe murderer can set up a blog to denigrate the family of a missing child and gains credence and apparent acceptance from like minded sceptics.  So bizarre ... but so true.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 11:50:42 AM
Two wrongs don't make a right. The comments posted weren't anywhere near as abusive as the reaction to them either imo.

Still nothing about why the abuse has lasted for twelve years and why it is apparently wrong to question that level of opprobrium directed anonymously at strangers..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 11:54:50 AM
Belief.. Opinion... Theory... Based on the evidence

Nothing is proved. Until it is different opinions are inevitable and understandable. In my opinion name-calling is unacceptible no matter who does it. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 12:01:14 PM
Still nothing about why the abuse has lasted for twelve years and why it is apparently wrong to question that level of opprobrium directed anonymously at strangers..

I thought the General had covered that in his observation of constant, or at least ongoing  McCann-related articles in the media.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 30, 2019, 12:02:05 PM
Nothing is proved. Until it is different opinions are inevitable and understandable. In my opinion name-calling is unacceptible no matter who does it.

There s evidence... No one has mentioned proof.. I agree about the name calling...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 12:08:57 PM
Still nothing about why the abuse has lasted for twelve years and why it is apparently wrong to question that level of opprobrium directed anonymously at strangers..

As the case is active, of course it is going to be discussed and commented on.  Sheesh!

And as Team McCann uses 'a friend of the family' or 'a source close to the family' to make comments on developments, whilst relying on personal anonymity, and the mantra of 'the McCanns will not comment about developments during a live investigation', why should those querying what happened to MBM not use similar tactics?   Sheesh!

In my working days the term used for this was a 'no brainer'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 30, 2019, 12:13:47 PM
As the case is active, of course it is going to be discussed and commented on.  Sheesh!

And as Team McCann uses 'a friend of the family' or 'a source close to the family' to make comments on developments, whilst relying on personal anonymity, and the mantra of 'the McCanns will not comment about developments during a live investigation', why should those querying what happened to MBM not use similar tactics?   Sheesh!

In my working days the term used for this was a 'no brainer'.

We are not talking about comments... The topic is abuse
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 12:22:16 PM
I think you are wrong based on the fact that there, are, almost no other subjects where newspapers have had to close off comments... The abuse being so bad

There are no other stories that have been reported so frequently for so long imo. One wonders why the comments were allowed, then not allowed, then allowed again. Was that really just a reaction to their content?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 12:23:58 PM
We are not talking about comments... The topic is abuse

The word used was opprobrium.  I'm confident you can tell the difference.

And the topic is "Sceptics beliefs", not abuse.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 12:26:10 PM
There are no other stories that have been reported so frequently for so long imo. One wonders why the comments were allowed, then not allowed, then allowed again. Was that really just a reaction to their content?

It's what the McCanns wanted - constant exposure in the media. Hence Bell Pottinger, etc.
They just failed to factor in the downside of such exposure.
All IMO, of course.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 30, 2019, 12:31:24 PM
As the case is active, of course it is going to be discussed and commented on.  Sheesh!

And as Team McCann uses 'a friend of the family' or 'a source close to the family' to make comments on developments, whilst relying on personal anonymity, and the mantra of 'the McCanns will not comment about developments during a live investigation', why should those querying what happened to MBM not use similar tactics?   Sheesh!

In my working days the term used for this was a 'no brainer'.

You have used the word comment throughout your post so I think it's, safe to assume it's comments you are referring to... Comments, are fine but what is being discussed here is, abuse
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 30, 2019, 12:34:14 PM
There are no other stories that have been reported so frequently for so long imo. One wonders why the comments were allowed, then not allowed, then allowed again. Was that really just a reaction to their content?

I think it's just the level of abuse.... Abuse being what is being discussed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 30, 2019, 12:36:02 PM
So you believe Madeleine was not abducted ... but are unable to show the evidence for that belief.

I think that regrettable but is par for the course of sceptic belief.



I did mention to you that two national police forces have launched investigations into Madeleine's abduction which are still live?  If not, I do so now.



So you keep saying - so what.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 30, 2019, 12:53:11 PM
Poor child. If only the landfill nearest Luz had been checked soon after May 3rd.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-missing-boy-landfill-20190429-story.html

Homicide detectives will continue the search Tuesday for a missing 6-year-old boy whose body is believed to be in a landfill in Victorville.
Duke Flores had been missing for two weeks, his mother, Jackee Contreras, told deputies with the Apple Valley Police Department on Thursday after a family member requested a welfare check.
On Monday, the San Bernardino County district attorney's office filed charges against Contreras, 29, and the boy’s aunt, Jennifer Contreras, also 29, of one count each of murder.
The boy’s mother was initially booked into the High Desert Detention Center on suspicion of child neglect after her delay in reporting that her son was missing. She and the boy’s aunt were arrested on suspicion of murder after detectives from the Specialized Investigations Division and homicide detail responded to the 22000 block of Cherokee Avenue for further investigation.
Detectives believe, based off investigative leads, that Duke was placed in a trash bin, authorities said Monday.
Dozens of people — including homicide detectives, 36 San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department volunteers, 17 additional Sheriff’s Department personnel and landfill staff — and three dogs from K-9 units searched the landfill Monday for Duke.
The search area is an estimated 4,900 feet square and 10 feet deep, which is about 600 tons of material.
The investigation is ongoing, and both women are being held without bail.
Authorities ask that anyone with information contact Det. Narcie Sousa or Sgt. AJ Gibilterra at (909) 387-3589.
The two women will be arraigned on Tuesday at the Victorville Superior Court.
Times staff writer Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this report.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 12:58:48 PM
Poor child. If only the landfill nearest Luz had been checked soon after May 3rd.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-missing-boy-landfill-20190429-story.html

Homicide detectives will continue the search Tuesday for a missing 6-year-old boy whose body is believed to be in a landfill in Victorville.
Duke Flores had been missing for two weeks, his mother, Jackee Contreras, told deputies with the Apple Valley Police Department on Thursday after a family member requested a welfare check.
On Monday, the San Bernardino County district attorney's office filed charges against Contreras, 29, and the boy’s aunt, Jennifer Contreras, also 29, of one count each of murder.
The boy’s mother was initially booked into the High Desert Detention Center on suspicion of child neglect after her delay in reporting that her son was missing. She and the boy’s aunt were arrested on suspicion of murder after detectives from the Specialized Investigations Division and homicide detail responded to the 22000 block of Cherokee Avenue for further investigation.
Detectives believe, based off investigative leads, that Duke was placed in a trash bin, authorities said Monday.
Dozens of people — including homicide detectives, 36 San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department volunteers, 17 additional Sheriff’s Department personnel and landfill staff — and three dogs from K-9 units searched the landfill Monday for Duke.
The search area is an estimated 4,900 feet square and 10 feet deep, which is about 600 tons of material.
The investigation is ongoing, and both women are being held without bail.
Authorities ask that anyone with information contact Det. Narcie Sousa or Sgt. AJ Gibilterra at (909) 387-3589.
The two women will be arraigned on Tuesday at the Victorville Superior Court.
Times staff writer Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this report.

Do you believe that the landfill nearest Liuz is where Madeleine's little body can be found?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 01:00:13 PM


So you keep saying - so what.

Don't you believe the fact that two national police forces are investigating Madeleine's disappearance is mportant?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 01:12:19 PM
Still nothing about why the abuse has lasted for twelve years and why it is apparently wrong to question that level of opprobrium directed anonymously at strangers..

The  alleged abduction has been publicised for twelve years as a fact. although that has never been proved. Why should those who know it's not a proven fact not be allowed to say so? Not all of the comments are objectionable, so
I find it difficult to understand your anonymous defence of these strangers. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 30, 2019, 01:17:38 PM
Still nothing about why the abuse has lasted for twelve years and why it is apparently wrong to question that level of opprobrium directed anonymously at strangers..


Unlike you, some are experts in their field -  who have doubts about mcns.


Dr Christian Ludke - Criminal Psychologist

Interviewer: You have since early on warned that behavior of Gerry and Kate McCann is pointing towards them being involved, what had made you feel that way?

Ludke: In the latest years I have often been in contact with parents who had lost their child due to a crime. They are under massive shock, were helpless, were insecure, withdrawing themselves. They have an inner struggle, blaming themselves for possibly not have looked enough after their child.

Interviewer: Was it different with the McCanns?

Ludke: They live completely different, often harmonic. Already after a few days they went jogging, as if that was a normal thing to do, they always came together. These parents took matters into their own hands instead of leaving matters in the hands of the police. They distanced themselves from their two other children by going on a European tour, that to me is very strange.

Interviewer: Maybe it was an accident?

Ludke: No. In such a case, after the first shock they would have trusted the police. Both parents are doctors, in case of an accident they would have tried to get help. It is even more unrealistic that of all people two doctors would leave 3 children alone in a strange environment, even more at night. I have many doctors as patients. As professionals they know all that can happen to children, and as parents they are overly protective.

Interviewer: What could have been the motive, to disappear their own daughter?

Ludke: There are parents who have little to no emotional binding with a child. Often such a child is considered a burden, that is treated in a brutal or perverse way. The most known is the Munchhausen-by proxy-Syndrome: The mother hurts the child until it is almost not alive anymore and then calls for the police because she herself has a huge wish for attention.

Interviewer: Do you think it is possible that Madeleine’s parents have killed Madeleine together and hidden her?

Ludke: I believe both have perpetrator knowledge.

Interviewer: You mean, the McCanns have planned the death of their daughter?

Ludke: Yes, it is possible that they have planned the act for a long time, at least in must have been in their minds often and they must have spoken about it together. Otherwise they would now be contradicting each others.

Interviewer: When parents are guilty of killing their child, do they block that out of their minds?

Ludke: not likely. Both are very much conscious, give interviews, travel. It is for them easier to lie than to tell the truth.
One can rule out a psychoses. Many things are pointing towards mentally disturbed. The children of the McCanns were conceived artificially, that can lead to problems in parenthood. Maybe a lack of self esteem that is not often talked about. Maybe the child had to die for a problem that had been going on for many years.

Interviewer: But the McCanns seem perfect and loving parents.

Ludke: That image to the outside world can be due to a guilt mechanism when on a media campaign, and to distract from the real problem.

Interviewer: Why do they not go back to Great Britain?

Ludke: That also speaks against them, when someone looses a child they want to be with loved ones in a trusted surrounding. When they continue to stay on that resort, there were something terrible happened the worse that can happen to a parent, being loosing a child, that points towards a permanent survival instinct, images of what happened must pop up when being there. That the McCanns do not return home, where they also can have memories of happy times with their children can be a way out, to not be de-connected with what they have done.

Interviewer: The world thinks it is impossible that these parents can be guilty.

Ludke: the media are probably been taken on by the McCanns. Very soon they have been thinking of themselves instead of of the child. De parents were treated like the Beckhams. In his Internet diary the father writes almost daily about that and irrelevant/banal things, which shirt he was wearing, what the weather is like. That isn’t a father that is worried. Statistically 70 percent of all the violence against children is caused by the parents, family members or friends. That has unfortunately not been looked into. The Portuguese police was treated very unfairly when pointing towards that.
About

Criminal Psychologist Dr. Christian Ludke
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 01:21:48 PM

Unlike you, some are experts in their field -  who have doubts about mcns.


Dr Christian Ludke - Criminal Psychologist

Interviewer: You have since early on warned that behavior of Gerry and Kate McCann is pointing towards them being involved, what had made you feel that way?

Ludke: In the latest years I have often been in contact with parents who had lost their child due to a crime. They are under massive shock, were helpless, were insecure, withdrawing themselves. They have an inner struggle, blaming themselves for possibly not have looked enough after their child.

Interviewer: Was it different with the McCanns?

Ludke: They live completely different, often harmonic. Already after a few days they went jogging, as if that was a normal thing to do, they always came together. These parents took matters into their own hands instead of leaving matters in the hands of the police. They distanced themselves from their two other children by going on a European tour, that to me is very strange.

Interviewer: Maybe it was an accident?

Ludke: No. In such a case, after the first shock they would have trusted the police. Both parents are doctors, in case of an accident they would have tried to get help. It is even more unrealistic that of all people two doctors would leave 3 children alone in a strange environment, even more at night. I have many doctors as patients. As professionals they know all that can happen to children, and as parents they are overly protective.

Interviewer: What could have been the motive, to disappear their own daughter?

Ludke: There are parents who have little to no emotional binding with a child. Often such a child is considered a burden, that is treated in a brutal or perverse way. The most known is the Munchhausen-by proxy-Syndrome: The mother hurts the child until it is almost not alive anymore and then calls for the police because she herself has a huge wish for attention.

Interviewer: Do you think it is possible that Madeleine’s parents have killed Madeleine together and hidden her?

Ludke: I believe both have perpetrator knowledge.

Interviewer: You mean, the McCanns have planned the death of their daughter?

Ludke: Yes, it is possible that they have planned the act for a long time, at least in must have been in their minds often and they must have spoken about it together. Otherwise they would now be contradicting each others.

Interviewer: When parents are guilty of killing their child, do they block that out of their minds?

Ludke: not likely. Both are very much conscious, give interviews, travel. It is for them easier to lie than to tell the truth.
One can rule out a psychoses. Many things are pointing towards mentally disturbed. The children of the McCanns were conceived artificially, that can lead to problems in parenthood. Maybe a lack of self esteem that is not often talked about. Maybe the child had to die for a problem that had been going on for many years.

Interviewer: But the McCanns seem perfect and loving parents.

Ludke: That image to the outside world can be due to a guilt mechanism when on a media campaign, and to distract from the real problem.

Interviewer: Why do they not go back to Great Britain?

Ludke: That also speaks against them, when someone looses a child they want to be with loved ones in a trusted surrounding. When they continue to stay on that resort, there were something terrible happened the worse that can happen to a parent, being loosing a child, that points towards a permanent survival instinct, images of what happened must pop up when being there. That the McCanns do not return home, where they also can have memories of happy times with their children can be a way out, to not be de-connected with what they have done.

Interviewer: The world thinks it is impossible that these parents can be guilty.

Ludke: the media are probably been taken on by the McCanns. Very soon they have been thinking of themselves instead of of the child. De parents were treated like the Beckhams. In his Internet diary the father writes almost daily about that and irrelevant/banal things, which shirt he was wearing, what the weather is like. That isn’t a father that is worried. Statistically 70 percent of all the violence against children is caused by the parents, family members or friends. That has unfortunately not been looked into. The Portuguese police was treated very unfairly when pointing towards that.
About

Criminal Psychologist Dr. Christian Ludke


Absolutely overflowing with solid evidence that the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance.
NOT!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 30, 2019, 01:28:00 PM

Absolutely overflowing with solid evidence that the McCanns are complicit in Madeleine's disappearance.
NOT!!

Who mentioned solid evidence - do you mind not twisting my words to suit your agenda.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 01:28:27 PM
Or where a convicted axe murderer can set up a blog to denigrate the family of a missing child and gains credence and apparent acceptance from like minded sceptics.  So bizarre ... but so true.

An anonymous undiscovered paedophile spent years attacking those who didn't believe the McCanns and being praised for doing so. Equally bizarre and equally true. Better the devil you know imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 01:35:12 PM
Poor child. If only the landfill nearest Luz had been checked soon after May 3rd.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-missing-boy-landfill-20190429-story.html

Homicide detectives will continue the search Tuesday for a missing 6-year-old boy whose body is believed to be in a landfill in Victorville.
Duke Flores had been missing for two weeks, his mother, Jackee Contreras, told deputies with the Apple Valley Police Department on Thursday after a family member requested a welfare check.
On Monday, the San Bernardino County district attorney's office filed charges against Contreras, 29, and the boy’s aunt, Jennifer Contreras, also 29, of one count each of murder.
The boy’s mother was initially booked into the High Desert Detention Center on suspicion of child neglect after her delay in reporting that her son was missing. She and the boy’s aunt were arrested on suspicion of murder after detectives from the Specialized Investigations Division and homicide detail responded to the 22000 block of Cherokee Avenue for further investigation.
Detectives believe, based off investigative leads, that Duke was placed in a trash bin, authorities said Monday.
Dozens of people — including homicide detectives, 36 San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department volunteers, 17 additional Sheriff’s Department personnel and landfill staff — and three dogs from K-9 units searched the landfill Monday for Duke.
The search area is an estimated 4,900 feet square and 10 feet deep, which is about 600 tons of material.
The investigation is ongoing, and both women are being held without bail.
Authorities ask that anyone with information contact Det. Narcie Sousa or Sgt. AJ Gibilterra at (909) 387-3589.
The two women will be arraigned on Tuesday at the Victorville Superior Court.
Times staff writer Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this report.

There was one, and only one, landfill site on the western Algarve in 2007.  That took all of the rubbish (domestic and commercial) from Albufeira, Portimão, Lagos, Luz, Sagres, and many towns north of here, up to the border with the Alentejo.

Two weeks is roughly two weeks too long.  It might have been different if the McCanns had been suspected from day 1.  But as that was not the case, the police dilly-dallied around with things like a week-long ground search.

Cite is Mark Harrison.  Before anyone asks.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 01:39:20 PM
Do you believe that the landfill nearest Liuz is where Madeleine's little body can be found?

After the Corrie McKeague case, it is a distinct possibility to be considered, is it not?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 01:39:40 PM
Who mentioned solid evidence - do you mind not twisting my words to suit your agenda.

Lol.
I was being just  a little sarcastic!
Of course there is no solid evidence in that interview, there's no evidence at all,  just a great deal of meaningless waffle. I M O
Could you explain to me what my "agenda" is.?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 01:50:34 PM
You have used the word comment throughout your post so I think it's, safe to assume it's comments you are referring to... Comments, are fine but what is being discussed here is, abuse

The abuse posted in this thread was aimed at people making comments which were not, imo, abusive.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 30, 2019, 02:11:54 PM
The abuse posted in this thread was aimed at people making comments which were not, imo, abusive.

One persons, abuse is another's fair comment..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 02:43:14 PM
Poor child. If only the landfill nearest Luz had been checked soon after May 3rd.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-missing-boy-landfill-20190429-story.html

Homicide detectives will continue the search Tuesday for a missing 6-year-old boy whose body is believed to be in a landfill in Victorville.
Duke Flores had been missing for two weeks, his mother, Jackee Contreras, told deputies with the Apple Valley Police Department on Thursday after a family member requested a welfare check.
On Monday, the San Bernardino County district attorney's office filed charges against Contreras, 29, and the boy’s aunt, Jennifer Contreras, also 29, of one count each of murder.
The boy’s mother was initially booked into the High Desert Detention Center on suspicion of child neglect after her delay in reporting that her son was missing. She and the boy’s aunt were arrested on suspicion of murder after detectives from the Specialized Investigations Division and homicide detail responded to the 22000 block of Cherokee Avenue for further investigation.
Detectives believe, based off investigative leads, that Duke was placed in a trash bin, authorities said Monday.
Dozens of people — including homicide detectives, 36 San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department volunteers, 17 additional Sheriff’s Department personnel and landfill staff — and three dogs from K-9 units searched the landfill Monday for Duke.
The search area is an estimated 4,900 feet square and 10 feet deep, which is about 600 tons of material.
The investigation is ongoing, and both women are being held without bail.
Authorities ask that anyone with information contact Det. Narcie Sousa or Sgt. AJ Gibilterra at (909) 387-3589.
The two women will be arraigned on Tuesday at the Victorville Superior Court.
Times staff writer Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this report.

Is it a sceptic belief that the police search under the coordinator Amaral was inadequate?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on April 30, 2019, 02:48:34 PM
Lol.
I was being just  a little sarcastic!
Of course there is no solid evidence in that interview, there's no evidence at all,  just a great deal of meaningless waffle. I M O
Could you explain to me what my "agenda" is.?


Same as the meaningless waffle from the mcns IMO -  doctors

Its an expert opinion of what he is paid/trained  to do - Criminal Psychologist Dr. Christian Ludke
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 02:56:37 PM
Is it a sceptic belief that the police search under the coordinator Amaral was inadequate?

Difficult to assess, given the short period of time he was involved.
OG have been investigating for much longer and have failed to to advance any further, as far as we can see.
Are they proving inadequate ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on April 30, 2019, 02:58:17 PM
Is it a sceptic belief that the police search under the coordinator Amaral was inadequate?
And here we are again with the tiresome, loaded question. If 'we' as 'sceptics' Borg Collective respond no, then it  invalidates the initial point. If we say yes, then it's another 'thank you, finally! Pats self on head moment'.
It's pretty transparent.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
The  alleged abduction has been publicised for twelve years as a fact. although that has never been proved. Why should those who know it's not a proven fact not be allowed to say so? Not all of the comments are objectionable, so
I find it difficult to understand your anonymous defence of these strangers.


I don't see anyone disallowing individuals their say ... is that what you are contending in your post?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 03:17:43 PM
An anonymous undiscovered paedophile spent years attacking those who didn't believe the McCanns and being praised for doing so. Equally bizarre and equally true. Better the devil you know imo.

Can't you see the difference?  The crimes of the paedophile were unsuspected and unknown ... there was no secret that the axe murderer had battered a woman to death using an axe.

I rather think that exposure of the former guaranteed his ostracisation ... whereas I know the latter became a celebrated blogger despite prior knowledge of his crime.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 03:25:31 PM
Lol.
I was being just  a little sarcastic!
Of course there is no solid evidence in that interview, there's no evidence at all,  just a great deal of meaningless waffle. I M O
Could you explain to me what my "agenda" is.?

I believe there was a spate of such 'expert' pronouncements on body language on Portuguese TV at the time ... who needs them? ... America has shared Pat Brown with us.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 03:32:18 PM
Difficult to assess, given the short period of time he was involved.
OG have been investigating for much longer and have failed to to advance any further, as far as we can see.
Are they proving inadequate ?

If refuse disposal methods and appliances were not checked out in the immediate aftermath of a disappearance by the police isn't that negligent to say the least?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 03:33:39 PM

Same as the meaningless waffle from the mcns IMO -  doctors

Its an expert opinion of what he is paid/trained  to do - Criminal Psychologist Dr. Christian Ludke


And his expert opinion proves zilch!

I'm still waiting for you to explain what my  "agenda" is?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 03:33:44 PM
And here we are again with the tiresome, loaded question. If 'we' as 'sceptics' Borg Collective respond no, then it  invalidates the initial point. If we say yes, then it's another 'thank you, finally! Pats self on head moment'.
It's pretty transparent.

Then what is the answer?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 03:35:04 PM
If refuse disposal methods and appliances were not checked out in the immediate aftermath of a disappearance by the police isn't that negligent to say the least?

Not necessarily.
Even to this day, there is no evidence to believe that she is festering away at the bottom of one of these.
Indeed the McCanns would be the first to refute any such suggestion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 03:37:01 PM
Not necessarily.
Even to this day, there is no evidence to believe that she is festering away at the bottom of one of these.
Indeed the McCanns would be the first to refute any such suggestion.

Understandable, don't you think?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 03:39:51 PM
Understandable, don't you think?

Indeed, but unless they were being totally hypocritical, they wouldn't slag the PJ off for not looking in the tips.
Why should others?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 03:44:10 PM
Indeed, but unless they were being totally hypocritical, they wouldn't slag the PJ off for not looking in the tips.
Why should others?

They might not want to think of such a possibility but if the PJ had presented them with the fact that it was a possibility and that a search should take place, I don't think they would have slagged them off.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 03:47:28 PM
If refuse disposal methods and appliances were not checked out in the immediate aftermath of a disappearance by the police isn't that negligent to say the least?

In a word, nope.

Here's the longer explanation, should you need it.

Suppose Madeleine had been taken to the eastern Algarve, dumped in a wheelie bin, and went into the single landfill along the coast?  Should that have been searched too?

Or however many landfill sites there might have been in the Alentejo?  Or those taking rubbish from Lisbon or Porto?  How about the landfill sites in Spain?  Or Morocco?  Or any of the other countries alleging a sighting?

In summary, nope.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 03:53:06 PM
In a word, nope.

Here's the longer explanation, should you need it.

Suppose Madeleine had been taken to the eastern Algarve, dumped in a wheelie bin, and went into the single landfill along the coast?  Should that have been searched too?

Or however many landfill sites there might have been in the Alentejo?  Or those taking rubbish from Lisbon or Porto?  How about the landfill sites in Spain?  Or Morocco?  Or any of the other countries alleging a sighting?

In summary, nope.

Maybe even a metal recycling plant somewhere in Spain where a crushed fridge can nestle in beside a crushed Cipriano vehicle ... pity the diplomatic bag got clear of the country too.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 03:59:37 PM
You see, the possibilities are endless.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 04:03:52 PM
They might not want to think of such a possibility but if the PJ had presented them with the fact that it was a possibility and that a search should take place, I don't think they would have slagged them off.


There is also the possibility that was was taken out to sea and eaten by a shark or other sea creature.
How would you go about testing that possibility?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 04:05:23 PM

There is also the possibility that was was taken out to sea and eaten by a shark or other sea creature.
How would you go about testing that possibility?

I've no idea.
Why don't you tell me?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 04:09:41 PM
I've no idea.
Why don't you tell me?


That's because it can't be done.
Neither can the police run around testing out every invented possibility just to satisfy a handful of airmchair detectives.
 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 04:17:40 PM
Maybe even a metal recycling plant somewhere in Spain where a crushed fridge can nestle in beside a crushed Cipriano vehicle ... pity the diplomatic bag got clear of the country too.

I haven't researched metal recycling plants in Spain.  Have you?

What diplomatic bag?  Are you teasing?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 04:32:16 PM

That's because it can't be done.
Neither can the police run around testing out every invented possibility just to satisfy a handful of airmchair detectives.

I'm not an armchair detective, never have been.
I leave that to others here.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 30, 2019, 04:36:10 PM
Do you believe that the landfill nearest Liuz is where Madeleine's little body can be found?

I believe that is where it may have ended up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 30, 2019, 04:39:17 PM
Is it a sceptic belief that the police search under the coordinator Amaral was inadequate?

I don’t know if it’s a sceptic belief as I can’t talk for everyone who doesn’t believe the parents but for me Amaral and Rebelo certainly missed investigative opportunities .
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 04:42:29 PM
I'm not an armchair detective, never have been.
I leave that to others here.

True, you seem more the armchair defence barrister
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 04:43:48 PM
I believe that is where it may have ended up.

You still believe her father put her in the rubbish bin?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 04:44:15 PM
True, you seem more the armchair defence barrister


Thank you.

But only when I believe a client to be innocent

I couldn't defend anyone if I believed them to be guilty!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 05:39:29 PM
Not necessarily.
Even to this day, there is no evidence to believe that she is festering away at the bottom of one of these.
Indeed the McCanns would be the first to refute any such suggestion.
(http://i2-prod.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/article3259101.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/tia-sharp-620-image-3-723567883.jpg)
I think it is a pretty usual police procedure in missing person investigations. Wonder why Amaral didn't bother? It helps in a process of elimination.  I think it might have been a useful device for Amaral to think about when not planning what his next press release implicating witnesses was going to consist of.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 05:40:55 PM
One persons, abuse is another's fair comment..

Most well-balanced, reasonably literate, non-paranoid people can distinguish the difference. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 30, 2019, 05:48:27 PM
Most well-balanced, reasonably literate, non-paranoid people can distinguish the difference.

The McCann's were referred to as.. Shit Parents... on this forum.. I thought it was abusive... Sceptics here thought it was fair comment

So who's well balance... Literate.. Non paranoid
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 30, 2019, 05:49:29 PM
Is it a sceptic belief that the police search under the coordinator Amaral was inadequate?

Was he given enough time seeing as grange are racing ahead after 8 yrs.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 05:51:51 PM


I don't see anyone disallowing individuals their say ... is that what you are contending in your post?

It would be nice if others refrained from heaping abuse on them when they did so. 

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 30, 2019, 05:52:29 PM
Would you care to support that statement ?
Without being verbally abusive.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 30, 2019, 05:59:59 PM
You have used the word comment throughout your post so I think it's, safe to assume it's comments you are referring to... Comments, are fine but what is being discussed here is, abuse
Abusive comments too.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 30, 2019, 06:02:01 PM


So you keep saying - so what.
So I think you need to include abduction in the list of reasons Madeleine hasn't been found.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 06:12:25 PM
I haven't researched metal recycling plants in Spain.  Have you?

What diplomatic bag?  Are you teasing?

I have read up somewhat on the previous missing child case Amaral was involved with.

Nope ... I never tease ... I believe it was discussed by sceptics that Madeleine had been smuggled out of the country using that method.  Why not when we have a plethora of blue bags ... tennis bags ... and a golf bag 
Snip
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-86nZRQUATh4/T1IC3W_sswI/AAAAAAAAIcQ/T0r6HPiDnfM/s400/vlcsnap-2012-03-03-11h20m03s47.png)
09:44 Cut to Studio

JP: Hernâni, I hand over to you the first comments.

HC: The question is, following that thesis regarding the hypothesis that the girl was carried in a bag…

JP: In a golf bag.

HC: In a golf bag or in a sports bag, the question is...

JP: Let me just show the picture. [Behind HC and GA there is a flat TV screen, Gerald McCann carrying a Golf bag is shown] Here it is, Gerry McCann with the golf bag, I have to stress that this picture was taken by a British photojournalist, Brian Bould.           ~   Morais
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 06:24:45 PM
I have read up somewhat on the previous missing child case Amaral was involved with.

Nope ... I never tease ... I believe it was discussed by sceptics that Madeleine had been smuggled out of the country using that method.  Why not when we have a plethora of blue bags ... tennis bags ... and a golf bag 
Snip
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-86nZRQUATh4/T1IC3W_sswI/AAAAAAAAIcQ/T0r6HPiDnfM/s400/vlcsnap-2012-03-03-11h20m03s47.png)
09:44 Cut to Studio

JP: Hernâni, I hand over to you the first comments.

HC: The question is, following that thesis regarding the hypothesis that the girl was carried in a bag…

JP: In a golf bag.

HC: In a golf bag or in a sports bag, the question is...

JP: Let me just show the picture. [Behind HC and GA there is a flat TV screen, Gerald McCann carrying a Golf bag is shown] Here it is, Gerry McCann with the golf bag, I have to stress that this picture was taken by a British photojournalist, Brian Bould.           ~   Morais

OK.  So nothing to do with a diplomatic bag.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 06:38:26 PM
OK.  So nothing to do with a diplomatic bag.


Do you believe there is any merit  in the theory that Madeleine's body was hidden in a blue bag or a golf bag?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 30, 2019, 06:40:02 PM
You still believe her father put her in the rubbish bin?

I think it’s a possibility....I’m sure, if he did it, it was heartbreaking for him.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 06:45:49 PM

Do you believe there is any merit  in the theory that Madeleine's body was hidden in a blue bag or a golf bag?

Is there anything to refute it as a possibility ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 30, 2019, 06:46:11 PM
(http://i2-prod.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/article3259101.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/tia-sharp-620-image-3-723567883.jpg)
I think it is a pretty usual police procedure in missing person investigations. Wonder why Amaral didn't bother? It helps in a process of elimination.  I think it might have been a useful device for Amaral to think about when not planning what his next press release implicating witnesses was going to consist of.

What is the picture supposed to represent,are they looking for a body,body parts,drug paraphanalia,guns,knives?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 06:46:32 PM
I think it’s a possibility....I’m sure, if he did it, it was heartbreaking for him.

Do you believe he would have wrapped her little body carefully in some type of covering and placed her tenderly in the bin or just opened the lid of the bin and thrown her in with just her little pyjamas on?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on April 30, 2019, 06:46:57 PM
Is there anything to refute it as a possibility ?

tannerman made no mention. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 06:47:35 PM
Is there anything to refute it as a possibility ?

So you do believe it is a possibility.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 06:49:42 PM
So you do believe it is a possibility.

Your level of comprehension of the written word seems very low, considering that you are supposed to be a teacher.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 06:51:36 PM
Your level of comprehension of the written word seems very low, considering that you are supposed to be a teacher.

How pleasant of you to say so..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:03:58 PM
Clarence Mitchell said her letter wasn't ignored;

Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell confirmed that Mrs McCann wrote to senior officer Paulo Rebelo but received no reply beyond a formal notification that her correspondence would be placed on file.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7544777.stm
As I said, Rebelo ignored her letter, how incredibly insensitive and rude of him. considering the heartfelt contents of the letter.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:06:59 PM

Do you ever reply to any supporter?
Certainly not to any post which I have directed at you.
I imagine Carlymichelle on the sidelines with pom-poms, cheering on her team. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 07:10:35 PM

Do you believe there is any merit  in the theory that Madeleine's body was hidden in a blue bag or a golf bag?

No.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:14:49 PM
Trolls and abusers have been in existence since man (or woman) were scratching on cave walls with bits of flint.
Online abuse is ubiquitous and precedes the McCann's by a decade on line - PowWow, ICQ, and AOL Instant Messenger were overrun with imbeciles posting any old sh**e to whomever they chose, as it was largely unmoderated, as were most other platforms.
You see it as a focussed campaign because you're focussing on it - Joey Essex probably gets more intense online abuse, you just don't have an interest in it.
I think there is a slight difference in that the McCanns (collectively ) have suffered a terrible tragedy (unlike Joey Essex as far as I know) and the attacks on them IMO serve only to heap more cruelty onto individuals who have suffered the cruellest misfortune.  Now, obviously if you believe they are murderers or evil liars then that gives you some justification for your sport, but it still really doesn’t reflect very well on those doing the abusing IMO, and I’d include everyone who is STILL banging on about the neglect issue 12 years later.  We hear you, we heard you 12 years ago, it may make you feel good about yourselves to harp on continually about it, bit at the end of the day it achieves precisely f-all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 07:18:05 PM
I think there is a slight difference in that the McCanns (collectively ) have suffered a terrible tragedy (unlike Joey Essex as far as I know) and the attacks on them IMO serve only to heap more cruelty onto individuals who have suffered the cruellest misfortune.  Now, obviously if you believe they are murderers or evil liars then that gives you some justification for your sport, but it still really doesn’t reflect very well on those doing the abusing IMO, and I’d include everyone who is STILL banging on about the neglect issue 12 years later.  We hear you, we heard you 12 years ago, it may make you feel good about yourselves to harp on continually about it, bit at the end of the day it achieves precisely f-all.


I agree entirely, so why worry about it ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:21:40 PM
Poor child. If only the landfill nearest Luz had been checked soon after May 3rd.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-missing-boy-landfill-20190429-story.html

Homicide detectives will continue the search Tuesday for a missing 6-year-old boy whose body is believed to be in a landfill in Victorville.
Duke Flores had been missing for two weeks, his mother, Jackee Contreras, told deputies with the Apple Valley Police Department on Thursday after a family member requested a welfare check.
On Monday, the San Bernardino County district attorney's office filed charges against Contreras, 29, and the boy’s aunt, Jennifer Contreras, also 29, of one count each of murder.
The boy’s mother was initially booked into the High Desert Detention Center on suspicion of child neglect after her delay in reporting that her son was missing. She and the boy’s aunt were arrested on suspicion of murder after detectives from the Specialized Investigations Division and homicide detail responded to the 22000 block of Cherokee Avenue for further investigation.
Detectives believe, based off investigative leads, that Duke was placed in a trash bin, authorities said Monday.
Dozens of people — including homicide detectives, 36 San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department volunteers, 17 additional Sheriff’s Department personnel and landfill staff — and three dogs from K-9 units searched the landfill Monday for Duke.
The search area is an estimated 4,900 feet square and 10 feet deep, which is about 600 tons of material.
The investigation is ongoing, and both women are being held without bail.
Authorities ask that anyone with information contact Det. Narcie Sousa or Sgt. AJ Gibilterra at (909) 387-3589.
The two women will be arraigned on Tuesday at the Victorville Superior Court.
Times staff writer Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this report.
Didn’t someone on here claim search dogs were useless on landfill?  Why were they not deployed in PdL when disposing of bodies in bins is such a common and sure proof method of disposal?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on April 30, 2019, 07:23:32 PM
Do you believe he would have wrapped her little body carefully in some type of covering and placed her tenderly in the bin or just opened the lid of the bin and thrown her in with just her little pyjamas on?

I neither know nor care.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:25:25 PM
An anonymous undiscovered paedophile spent years attacking those who didn't believe the McCanns and being praised for doing so. Equally bizarre and equally true. Better the devil you know imo.
No it is not equally bizarre.  For one, the two crimes are not equal, and for two, no one knew he was a paedo otherwise they wouldn’t have given him the time of day, the axe murderer on thr other hand was known to be an axe murderer from day one and welcomed with open arms by many “well respected” anti McCann posters and bloggers. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:26:23 PM
There was one, and only one, landfill site on the western Algarve in 2007.  That took all of the rubbish (domestic and commercial) from Albufeira, Portimão, Lagos, Luz, Sagres, and many towns north of here, up to the border with the Alentejo.

Two weeks is roughly two weeks too long.  It might have been different if the McCanns had been suspected from day 1.  But as that was not the case, the police dilly-dallied around with things like a week-long ground search.

Cite is Mark Harrison.  Before anyone asks.
Why would thr McCanns being suspects from day one have made any difference to whether or not landfill was searched?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:28:36 PM
In a word, nope.

Here's the longer explanation, should you need it.

Suppose Madeleine had been taken to the eastern Algarve, dumped in a wheelie bin, and went into the single landfill along the coast?  Should that have been searched too?

Or however many landfill sites there might have been in the Alentejo?  Or those taking rubbish from Lisbon or Porto?  How about the landfill sites in Spain?  Or Morocco?  Or any of the other countries alleging a sighting?

In summary, nope.
What utter nonsense, IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 07:31:03 PM
Didn’t someone on here claim search dogs were useless on landfill?  Why were they not deployed in PdL when disposing of bodies in bins is such a common and sure proof method of disposal?

What search dogs?  Eddie? Would you deploy a cadaver dog on a landfill site 4 months after the event?

 &%%6
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 07:32:53 PM
As I said, Rebelo ignored her letter, how incredibly insensitive and rude of him. considering the heartfelt contents of the letter.

You said the PJ ignored a letter written to them by the McCanns.
The truth (when it finally emerged) is that Kate McCann wrote a letter to Amaral's replacement which, it seems, was officially acknowledged but not replied to personally. In your opinion he should have replied, even though you have no idea why he didn't.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:33:34 PM

I agree entirely, so why worry about it ?
Message for Jassi: I am not remotely worried about it.  I’m worried about Brexit and Climate change, but tw..ty trolls on the internet don’t worry me in the slightest.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 07:35:31 PM
Message for Jassi: I am not remotely worried about it.  I’m worried about Brexit and Climate change, but tw..ty trolls on the internet don’t worry me in the slightest.

Well you certainly give the impression that it causes you concern - unless you just like to bang on about it for fun.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:36:24 PM
What search dogs?  Eddie? Would you deploy a cadaver dog on a landfill site 4 months after the event?

 &%%6
Would you deploy a cadaver dog in a rental apartment four months after the event?  But actually within a few days of the event would have been a good idea, why did no one think of shipping in Grime and his dogs earlier?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:36:54 PM
Well you certainly give the impression that it causes you concern - unless you just like to bang on about it for fun.
Correct, I do, just like you enjoy slagging off the McCanns for your own amusement and nothing else.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 07:38:24 PM
You said the PJ ignored a letter written to them by the McCanns.
The truth (when it finally emerged) is that Kate McCann wrote a letter to Amaral's replacement which, it seems, was officially acknowledged but not replied to personally. In your opinion he should have replied, even though you have no idea why he didn't.
You are taking pedantry to new heights, well done.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 07:43:33 PM
Would you deploy a cadaver dog in a rental apartment four months after the event?  But actually within a few days of the event would have been a good idea, why did no one think of shipping in Grime and his dogs earlier?

Indeed, given the number of UK police present on the ground, one would have thought it an obvious suggestion for them to make.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 07:45:01 PM
Correct, I do, just like you enjoy slagging off the McCanns for your own amusement and nothing else.

I think my posts will show that I seldom slag them off.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2019, 07:48:24 PM
Would you deploy a cadaver dog in a rental apartment four months after the event?  But actually within a few days of the event would have been a good idea, why did no one think of shipping in Grime and his dogs earlier?

I'm confident that 5A was not a landfill site.  How about you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 08:21:17 PM
I think my posts will show that I seldom slag them off.
IMO you can be one of the most spiteful posters on here re: the McCanns.  But I guess it’s something you feel you need to do for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 08:23:44 PM
IMO you can be one of the most spiteful posters on here re: the McCanns.  But I guess it’s something you feel you need to do for whatever reason.

I like to be waspish now and again  8)--))
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 08:25:43 PM
I like to be waspish now and again  8)--))
Never mind.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 08:26:16 PM
I'm confident that 5A was not a landfill site.  How about you?
I didn’t say it was did I?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 08:27:05 PM
Never mind.


Funnily enough, I don't.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 08:32:03 PM
Indeed, given the number of UK police present on the ground, one would have thought it an obvious suggestion for them to make.
The offer was made ... but was knocked back.

Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
 
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
 
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
 
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
 
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
 
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
 
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
 
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
 
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
 
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
 
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
 
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
 
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
 
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6271.msg237330#msg237330
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 30, 2019, 08:32:38 PM
Would you deploy a cadaver dog in a rental apartment four months after the event?  But actually within a few days of the event would have been a good idea, why did no one think of shipping in Grime and his dogs earlier?

They can't use dogs for every person that disappears. When it becomes suspected murder then the specialist dogs are brought in.

Theresa Parker went missing on 22 March 2007. Eddie alerted in the garage in September 2007 so that is 6 months after.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 08:32:45 PM

Funnily enough, I don't.
Good for you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 08:34:19 PM
The offer was made ... but was knocked back.

Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
 
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
 
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
 
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
 
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
 
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
 
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
 
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
 
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
 
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
 
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
 
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
 
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
 
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6271.msg237330#msg237330


You did notice that these were tracker dogs, not cadaver dogs ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 08:34:35 PM
They can't use dogs for every person that disappears. When it becomes suspected murder then the specialist dogs are brought in.

Theresa Parker went missing on 22 March 2007. Eddie alerted in the garage in September 2007 so that is 6 months after.
Did it really not cross the PJ’s collective brain cell that Madeleine might have been killed in the first few days after her disappearance?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 08:38:59 PM
You are taking pedantry to new heights, well done.

Saying that the McCann's wrote to the PJ and were ugnored is liable to lead people to believe they were bedly treated. Examining the details demonstrates that it wasn't quite as you described it. You created a false impression. That's deceptive and makes me wonder if that was your intention.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 30, 2019, 08:43:56 PM
Did it really not cross the PJ’s collective brain cell that Madeleine might have been killed in the first few days after her disappearance?

No because they found no evidence of a break-in or an abductor inside the apartment. Not even one glove mark and a tidy bed!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 08:48:54 PM
You are taking pedantry to new heights, well done.
[/quote[

Saying that the McCann's wrote to the PJ and were ugnored is liable to lead people to believe they were bedly treated. Examining the details demonstrates that it wasn't quite as you described it. You created a false impression. That's deceptive and makes me wonder if that was your intention.
That’s absolute rubbish IMO.  The McCanns DID write to the PJ and were ignored.  That is not a false impression, it is a fact, and it is a fact that they were treated with contempt as a result. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 08:49:58 PM
No because they found no evidence of a break-in or an abductor inside the apartment. Not even one glove mark and a tidy bed!
Then they’re not  very bright policemen, thanks for confirming this.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 08:51:44 PM
You can't find what isn't there in the first place.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 08:58:57 PM
You can't find what isn't there in the first place.
So you don’t think a search of the local tip in the first few days after the disappearance would have turned up a corpse?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 09:01:28 PM
So you don’t think a search of the local tip in the first few days after the disappearance would have turned up a corpse?

My comment pertained to evidence of a break in. I never mentioned a rubbish tip.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 09:12:30 PM

You did notice that these were tracker dogs, not cadaver dogs ?

Sigh ... the reporter wasn't yet on first name terms with Eddie and Keela ... but it is obvious which the spaniel with the ability to smell blood on knives which have been washed clean is ... and she is CSI.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2019, 09:16:31 PM
Sigh ... the reporter wasn't yet on first name terms with Eddie and Keela ... but it is obvious which the spaniel with the ability to smell blood on knives which have been washed clean is ... and she is CSI.

That's right, try and avoid the point.
These were tracker dogs not cadaver dogs.
The PJ already had it's own tracker dogs, so didn't need UK ones.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 30, 2019, 09:28:54 PM
Sigh ... the reporter wasn't yet on first name terms with Eddie and Keela ... but it is obvious which the spaniel with the ability to smell blood on knives which have been washed clean is ... and she is CSI.

They looked for evidence of blood in the apartment and didn't find any on 4 May 2007.

"There proceeded the search for possible blood traces in all of the apartment, using a variable- wave light source appropriate for the task.This search resulted in the detection of several spots having a red-brown tone that suggested blood, which were subjected to a "Kastle-Mayer" peroxidise test, the result obtained, in all cases, being negative.

There also proceeded the observation and search for blood traces inside the apartment using a chemical product to find latent blood traces. In the application of the referred product no results characteristic of the presence of blood traces were found."

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on April 30, 2019, 09:33:04 PM
That's right, try and avoid the point.
These were tracker dogs not cadaver dogs.
The PJ already had it's own tracker dogs, so didn't need UK ones.

The reporter said they were tracker dogs ... one of which he described as a blood dog ...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 30, 2019, 10:34:37 PM
Did it really not cross the PJ’s collective brain cell that Madeleine might have been killed in the first few days after her disappearance?

I am sure quite a ,ot of thinghs crossed their minds... Now how about the SY and that 12 million quid  what have their brains found?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 30, 2019, 10:35:51 PM
Then they’re not  very bright policemen, thanks for confirming this.


A lot brighter than two doctors who left their children alone everynight- one disappeared.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on April 30, 2019, 10:39:11 PM
That’s absolute rubbish IMO.  The McCanns DID write to the PJ and were ignored.  That is not a false impression, it is a fact, and it is a fact that they were treated with contempt as a result.

Kate McCann wrote to Rebelo and recieved an acknowledgement. Her letter may not have been answered but it wasn't ignored. The contempt assertion is just your opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 30, 2019, 10:44:20 PM
Message for Jassi: I am not remotely worried about it.  I’m worried about Brexit and Climate change, but tw..ty trolls on the internet don’t worry me in the slightest.

tw..TY trolls? what language,

But here you are going on and on about trolls 12 years on....YAWN. So they do bother you enough for you to call those who do not buy into the mCcanns versoin of events on may 3rd, names... tw..ty trolls   ew   ew

It bothers you because here you are spending hours and hours - slagging off people who disagree with your beliefs=weird

Hey its your life mister...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 10:47:04 PM
Kate McCann wrote to Rebelo and recieved an acknowledgement. Her letter may not have been answered but it wasn't ignored. The contempt assertion is just your opinion.

Why no answer to her heartfelt letter.
And why would she write such a pleading letter to him if she was guilty of what many sceptics believe.( Not you)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 10:58:02 PM
Kate McCann wrote to Rebelo and recieved an acknowledgement. Her letter may not have been answered but it wasn't ignored. The contempt assertion is just your opinion.
Kate wrote to Rebelo, a heartfelt letter appealing to him as one human to another, begging on behalf of her husband and herself to be kept in the loop concerning the investigation into their daughter’s disappearance  .  Did he reply?  No.  He ignored the letter That is contemtible and contemptuous IMO.  Now we can keep arguing about it (though how you can keep on denying the facts are beyond me) or we can drop the discussion now.  Your choice.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 11:00:39 PM
tw..TY trolls? what language,

But here you are going on and on about trolls 12 years on....YAWN. So they do bother you enough for you to call those who do not buy into the mCcanns versoin of events on may 3rd, names... tw..ty trolls   ew   ew

It bothers you because here you are spending hours and hours - slagging off people who disagree with your beliefs=weird

Hey its your life mister...
And of course you never slag off anyone, nor have you spent years and years doing so, lol.  Hey it’s your life, doll.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 30, 2019, 11:03:58 PM
Why no answer to her heartfelt letter.
And why would she write such a pleading letter to him if she was guilty of what many sceptics believe.( Not you)

Perhaps one reason is she was a suspect and detectives just don't normally cry,or fall to peices when parents send emotional letters. It was dealt with appropriatly- filed way.

If she was guilty, as you claim some suspect why would she not try everything to deflect negative attention from herself and potray her self as a victim. This is a good way of achieving that- just saying...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2019, 11:11:33 PM
Perhaps one reason is she was a suspect and detectives just don't normally cry,or fall to peices when parents send emotional letters. It was dealt with appropriatly- filed way.

If she was guilty, as you claim some suspect why would she not try everything to deflect negative attention from herself and potray her self as a victim. This is a good way of achieving that- just saying...

You really do believe that if she was guilty of whatever you suspect her to be guilty of ( because I have no idea of what you do suspect), she would really pen such a letter to the Portuguese police in order to deflect negative attention away from herself?
Really??
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 30, 2019, 11:14:32 PM
And of course you never slag off anyone, nor have you spent years and years doing so, lol.  Hey it’s your life, doll.

I have never slagged anyone.  That is beneath me.  Challenging the behaviour of parents who make claims that cannot be collaborated  is just that challenging their claims. You see it as a war situation and are happy to 'claim victories'  well if that is your thing hey...

I have an interest what happened to a child who was left all alone every night, couldn't care less about the parents or their supporters feelings about me challenging them. I very rarely come here.... unlike you.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on April 30, 2019, 11:19:47 PM
I have never slagged anyone.  That is beneath me.  Challenging the behaviour of parents who make claims that cannot be collaborated  is just that challenging their claims. You see it as a war situation and are happy to 'claim victories'  well if that is your thing hey...

I have an interest what happened to a child who was left all alone every night, couldn't care less about the parents or their supporters feelings about me challenging them. I very rarely come here.... unlike you.
Is coming here often a bad thing in your opinion? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 30, 2019, 11:54:06 PM
You really do believe that if she was guilty of whatever you suspect her to be guilty of ( because I have no idea of what you do suspect), she would really pen such a letter to the Portuguese police in order to deflect negative attention away from herself?
Really??

They were arguidos/suspects and they expected the PJ to work with them and share information. Like that was gonna happen! Only in Fantasy land!

4 December 2007

"I am appealing to you as a fellow human being to work with us."

"I would be grateful if you were able to keep us informed to some degree as to how the investigation is going."

"I am fairly familiar now with the workings of 'judicial secrecy' but even if we could have a little bit of information in the broadest of terms it would help."

"We will continue to work with the PJ." 48 non-answered questions Kate have you forgotten?  *%87
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 30, 2019, 11:55:32 PM
You really do believe that if she was guilty of whatever you suspect her to be guilty of ( because I have no idea of what you do suspect), she would really pen such a letter to the Portuguese police in order to deflect negative attention away from herself?
Really??

Guilty people do all sorts of manipulation to deflect any accusations. ask any police officer prison warden,

I do not know what happened to MBM I wasn't there. I didn't read Amarals book, I agree of his freedom to write it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on May 01, 2019, 12:02:51 AM
Guilty people do all sorts of manipulation to deflect any accusations. ask any police officer prison warden,

I do not know what happened to MBM I wasn't there. I didn't read Amarals book, I agree of his freedom to write it.

I'm sorry but your answer is not convincing to me.

I can understand that guilty people will try to convince others that they are not but to openly write such a letter to the Portuguese police and to ask our government to review the evidence in Madeleine's disappearance,  you really do believe that both of these actions were to deflect from their guilt?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 01, 2019, 12:26:09 AM
I'm sorry but your answer is not convincing to me.

I can understand that guilty people will try to convince others that they are not but to openly write such a letter to the Portuguese police and to ask our government to review the evidence in Madeleine's disappearance,  you really do believe that both of these actions were to deflect from their guilt?

I have not tried to convince you of anything- why would I bother to do that? I have nothing to gain as I care not what you believe.

I never said  'they' are guilty of anything I made a generalisation. Oh do pay attention!

The plea was to extract information about an  ongoing investigation - they wanted to control the media , the investigation-the whole circus.  They made a cross for their own back when they accused ,via  aunty phil, on national TV that their daughter was abducted and the police were doing nothing and they were left to search all alone... lies absolute lies! No wonder the police refused to cooperate with them, they saw them for what they were really like!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 01, 2019, 12:34:52 AM
I didn’t say it was did I?

So why compare a dog search in 5A to a dog search in a landfill site?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on May 01, 2019, 12:36:48 AM
I have not tried to convince you of anything- why would I bother to do that? I have nothing to gain as I care not what you believe.

I never said  'they' are guilty of anything I made a generalisation. Oh do pay attention!

The plea was to extract information about an  ongoing investigation - they wanted to control the media , the investigation-the whole circus.  They made a cross for their own back when they accused ,via  aunty phil, on national TV that their daughter was abducted and the police were doing nothing and they were left to search all alone... lies absolute lies! No wonder the police refused to cooperate with them, they saw them for what they were really like!



This is the problem when exchanging posts with sceptics,I have no idea of what each one believes .
Which police "saw them for what they were really like and refused to cooperate with them"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 01, 2019, 12:43:46 AM


This is the problem when exchanging posts with sceptics,I have no idea of what each one believes .
Which police "saw them for what they were really like and refused to cooperate with them"

Is it important for us all to think different things? don't you and the other supporters enjoy putting us all into a big bad troll bag? I feel the hissing from my screen...

The PJ observed their behaviour, they saw the TV claims about them doing nothing as an abduction was claimed- which was lies. They knew it was not a windy evening- they were there . Why would they cooperate with the McCanns- they were quickly becoming suspects.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on May 01, 2019, 12:51:50 AM
Is it important for us all to think different things? don't you and the other supporters enjoy putting us all into a big bad troll bag? I feel the hissing from my screen...

The PJ observed their behaviour, they saw the TV claims about them doing nothing as an abduction was claimed- which was lies. They knew it was not a windy evening- they were there . Why would they cooperate with the McCanns- they were quickly becoming suspects.


Yes indeed sceptics do think differently, so differently that it is difficult to know what they think/ believe.

You constantly refer back to the initial investigation of almost twelve years ago.
You are aware that there is a current joint investigation by both police forces?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 01, 2019, 12:59:00 AM

Yes indeed sceptics do think differently, so differently that it is difficult to know what they think/ believe.

You constantly refer back to the initial investigation of almost twelve years ago.
You are aware that there is a current joint investigation by both police forces?


Why do you need to know what others think? what are you going to do about it ? the 'thought police' are just behind the bookburners...

 Maddie dissappeared 12 years ago,the begining is where the truth lies. Why should I  not discsuss it, if you don't want to fine- but others do.

I do not believe their is a joint investigation going on. If there was anything really worth pursuing they would have got it by now. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on May 01, 2019, 01:06:29 AM

Why do you need to know what others think? what are you going to do about it ? the 'thought police' are just behind the bookburners...

 Maddie dissappeared 12 years ago,the begining is where the truth lies. Why should I  not discsuss it, if you don't want to fine- but others do.

I do not believe their is a joint investigation going on. If there was anything really worth pursuing they would have got it by now.

Goodness me, now Im a  book burner because I said it's difficult to know what each individual sceptic suspects, thinks, believes.
How you do like to exaggerate!.
Discuss the happenings of twelve years ago askuch as you like.
I personally feel it's all been discussed quite thoroughly.
You don't believe there is a joint investigation.
Fair enough!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 01, 2019, 06:44:33 AM

Do you believe there is any merit  in the theory that Madeleine's body was hidden in a blue bag or a golf bag?
What about another body other than Madeleine hidden in a bag?  That is my belief.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 01, 2019, 06:48:42 AM
Your level of comprehension of the written word seems very low, considering that you are supposed to be a teacher.
This is what I call an "ad hominem argument"  Try and write posts which don't criticise other members.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 07:16:51 AM
So why compare a dog search in 5A to a dog search in a landfill site?
Because the passage of time which you specified (four months) means that any alerts by the dogs in the apartment (which was subsequently rented out to others after the disappearance) are IMO highly questionable. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 01, 2019, 08:20:37 AM
Because the passage of time which you specified (four months) means that any alerts by the dogs in the apartment (which was subsequently rented out to others after the disappearance) are IMO highly questionable.
Perhaps you should have said that in the first place.

I see no reason why dog alerts in 5A, Rua das Flores, and the hire car can be dismissed purely on the passage of time.

It has nothing to do with landfill.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 08:25:03 AM
Perhaps you should have said that in the first place.

I see no reason why dog alerts in 5A, Rua das Flores, and the hire car can be dismissed purely on the passage of time.

It has nothing to do with landfill.
Why not?  Is cadaver odour eternal?  Is transferrance by others impossible?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 01, 2019, 09:35:19 AM
Why no answer to her heartfelt letter.
And why would she write such a pleading letter to him if she was guilty of what many sceptics believe.( Not you)

There is indeed plenty of pleading for sympathy, but what does she want? She wants specific information. What work is being done to help find her missing daughter? She goes on to mention that moment when she discovered that Madeleine had been taken. She then says "It would be good for Madeleine if we could all work together to help find her and the person(s) who took her."

She has left Rebelo in no doubt that she, despite being an arguida, is sticking to her story. Whatever the investigation has thought or is thinking she is saying that Madeleine was abducted and that the PJ should be looking for her and whoever took her.

She appears to be accusing the PJ of a couple of things too; "This shouldn't be about "finger pointing blame" nor should it be about differences in culture."

She then makes a claim that the PJ may not agree with; "We will continue to work with the PJ (and we are keen to do so as soon as possible!) as we have done since that moment when I discovered that Madeleine had been taken."

If the PJ don't agree with her abduction story and are not searching for a live child they can't tell her what she wants to hear. Judicial secrecy forbids them from telling her what else they might be investigating, so the letter is unanswerable.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 01, 2019, 09:52:06 AM
Then they’re not  very bright policemen, thanks for confirming this.


Don't you think the PJ did a very good job then VS.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 09:58:55 AM
There is indeed plenty of pleading for sympathy, but what does she want? She wants specific information. What work is being done to help find her missing daughter? She goes on to mention that moment when she discovered that Madeleine had been taken. She then says "It would be good for Madeleine if we could all work together to help find her and the person(s) who took her."

She has left Rebelo in no doubt that she, despite being an arguida, is sticking to her story. Whatever the investigation has thought or is thinking she is saying that Madeleine was abducted and that the PJ should be looking for her and whoever took her.

She appears to be accusing the PJ of a couple of things too; "This shouldn't be about "finger pointing blame" nor should it be about differences in culture."

She then makes a claim that the PJ may not agree with; "We will continue to work with the PJ (and we are keen to do so as soon as possible!) as we have done since that moment when I discovered that Madeleine had been taken."

If the PJ don't agree with her abduction story and are not searching for a live child they can't tell her what she wants to hear. Judicial secrecy forbids them from telling her what else they might be investigating, so the letter is unanswerable.
The Letter IS answerable.  In the same way that if you write to an organisation to complain about bad service, the organisation would reply to you thanking you for your letter,  say it values your feedback and will address your complaint, either by offering to make recompense, or investigate further and get back to you, or if that is not appropriate, explaining the reasons why they cannot.  It's called common courtesy.  What you would not be satisfied is a curt response saying your letter has been put on file and never hear back from them. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 09:59:33 AM

Don't you think the PJ did a very good job then VS.
No.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 01, 2019, 10:41:23 AM
The Letter IS answerable.  In the same way that if you write to an organisation to complain about bad service, the organisation would reply to you thanking you for your letter,  say it values your feedback and will address your complaint, either by offering to make recompense, or investigate further and get back to you, or if that is not appropriate, explaining the reasons why they cannot.  It's called common courtesy.  What you would not be satisfied is a curt response saying your letter has been put on file and never hear back from them.

You seem to be criticising the PJ for poor customer service. What a peculiar idea,  Of course their reply might not have been curt. Have you seen it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 01, 2019, 10:59:07 AM
No.


So why is it SY did - because according to them PJ did such a good job in investigating K & G tapas 7

They decided not to go over it again because

The Metropolitan Police has confirmed it didn’t formally interview the McCanns because it was satisfied the couple had been ruled out by the initial Portuguese investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 01, 2019, 11:00:02 AM
Goodness me, now Im a  book burner because I said it's difficult to know what each individual sceptic suspects, thinks, believes.
How you do like to exaggerate!.
Discuss the happenings of twelve years ago askuch as you like.
I personally feel it's all been discussed quite thoroughly.
You don't believe there is a joint investigation.
Fair enough!

There is definately no formal joint investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 11:43:24 AM
You seem to be criticising the PJ for poor customer service. What a peculiar idea,  Of course their reply might not have been curt. Have you seen it?
What is peculiar about common courtesy?  Of course police are public servants and answerable to the public, or maybe not in Portugal, I don't know. 

"Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell confirmed that Mrs McCann wrote to senior officer Paulo Rebelo but received no reply beyond a formal notification that her correspondence would be placed on file".

How many words does it take to say the correspondence would be placed on file?  The letter was addressed to Rebelo - did he reply?  No. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 11:44:29 AM

So why is it SY did - because according to them PJ did such a good job in investigating K & G tapas 7

They decided not to go over it again because

The Metropolitan Police has confirmed it didn’t formally interview the McCanns because it was satisfied the couple had been ruled out by the initial Portuguese investigation.
What do you think?  Did the PJ do a good job or not? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 01, 2019, 12:32:22 PM
What do you think?  Did the PJ do a good job or not?


Well not if - the couple had been ruled out by the initial Portuguese investigation.

But there again it could be just SY excuse -  for not starting at the beginning.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 01, 2019, 12:38:57 PM
What is peculiar about common courtesy?  Of course police are public servants and answerable to the public, or maybe not in Portugal, I don't know. 

"Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell confirmed that Mrs McCann wrote to senior officer Paulo Rebelo but received no reply beyond a formal notification that her correspondence would be placed on file".

How many words does it take to say the correspondence would be placed on file?  The letter was addressed to Rebelo - did he reply?  No.

The PJ may be answerable to the Portuguese public but not to other nationalities and their obligations to suspects are restricted to those laid down by Portuguese law imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 12:56:23 PM
The PJ may be answerable to the Portuguese public but not to other nationalities and their obligations to suspects are restricted to those laid down by Portuguese law imo.
Do you accept now that the McCanns wrote to the PJ and their pleas were ignored.  Probably not! 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 01, 2019, 01:40:52 PM
Do you accept now that the McCanns wrote to the PJ and their pleas were ignored.  Probably not!

I think Kate McCann knew very well that the PJ weren't able to give her any information due to the judicial secrecy laws. I think she knew very well that they were not going to work togather with atguidos. Therefore I'm not sure what she hoped to acieve. Maybe she would have got a better reaction if she'd offered to return to Portugal and answer those questions she refused to answer when she was 'working with them' previously?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on May 01, 2019, 01:44:03 PM
I think Kate McCann knew very well that the PJ weren't able to give her any information due to the judicial secrecy laws. I think she knew very well that they were not going to work togather with atguidos. Therefore I'm not sure what she hoped to acieve. Maybe she would have got a better reaction if she'd offered to return to Portugal and answer those questions she refused to answer when she was 'working with them' previously?

That would have been a novel approach.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 01:44:59 PM
I think Kate McCann knew very well that the PJ weren't able to give her any information due to the judicial secrecy laws. I think she knew very well that they were not going to work togather with atguidos. Therefore I'm not sure what she hoped to acieve. Maybe she would have got a better reaction if she'd offered to return to Portugal and answer those questions she refused to answer when she was 'working with them' previously?
Yes, but do you now accept that the McCanns wrote to the PJ and their please were ignored, like I said many dozens of posts ago and about which you have been nit-picking ever since?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 01:53:44 PM
I think Kate McCann knew very well that the PJ weren't able to give her any information due to the judicial secrecy laws. I think she knew very well that they were not going to work togather with atguidos. Therefore I'm not sure what she hoped to acieve. Maybe she would have got a better reaction if she'd offered to return to Portugal and answer those questions she refused to answer when she was 'working with them' previously?

It would appear to be a constant sceptic belief that Kate McCann was not entitled to refuse to answer questions when she was made an arguida in accordance with Portuguese law.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on May 01, 2019, 01:57:33 PM
Cooperation is a two way street.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 02:01:04 PM
Cooperation is a two way street.
Gerry cooperated with the PJ, if he'd written the letter instead do you think his letter wouldn't have been ignored? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on May 01, 2019, 02:02:39 PM
Gerry cooperated with the PJ, if he'd written the letter instead do you think his letter wouldn't have been ignored?

We will never know,so why speculate ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 01, 2019, 02:05:23 PM
It would appear to be a constant sceptic belief that Kate McCann was not entitled to refuse to answer questions when she was made an arguida in accordance with Portuguese law.


Whatever - she refused to answer although knowing it could harm the investigation as to what happened to Maddie

Why do that - oh yes she thought it may harm her IMO if she answered the questions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 02:07:19 PM
It would appear to be a constant sceptic belief that Kate McCann was not entitled to refuse to answer questions when she was made an arguida in accordance with Portuguese law.
What would be the reason for her not answering a pretty routine set of questions? After all, in the one question she did answer, she confirmed that not doing so may impede the search for her daughter - so she's aware of the ramifications.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 02:11:23 PM
Gerry cooperated with the PJ, if he'd written the letter instead do you think his letter wouldn't have been ignored?
Maybe relations had soured to the point where professional responses were not forthcoming.
Or perhaps they perceived it as a gimmick, bearing in mind their stance on the outcome of their investigation.
Perhaps there was a legal embargo on such responses, including discussing responses.
Perhaps it was poorly translated, then poorly transcribed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 02:20:24 PM

Whatever - she refused to answer although knowing it could harm the investigation as to what happened to Maddie

Why do that - oh yes she thought it may harm her IMO if she answered the questions.

You've got that entirely wrong.  The moment Kate was made an arguida she was the focus of the police case not Madeleine.

What makes you think the police were looking for Madeleine when they were obviously looking for a conviction?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on May 01, 2019, 02:23:00 PM
You've got that entirely wrong.  The moment Kate was made an arguida she was the focus of the police case not Madeleine.

What makes you think the police were looking for Madeleine when they were obviously looking for a conviction?


In the expectation that one might follow the other.

Isn't that what OG is attempting to do, for they are certainly not actually looking for Madeleine ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 02:39:18 PM
What would be the reason for her not answering a pretty routine set of questions? After all, in the one question she did answer, she confirmed that not doing so may impede the search for her daughter - so she's aware of the ramifications.
Snip
Today Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that this was my right as an arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way.
He knew the system better than I ever would, so it struck me as prudent to accept his guidance.
Since I was unable to comprehend how anything I’d said already could have led me to this point, I wasn’t about to try to get through to the police again now.    Kate McCann

She acted on legal advice and having spent many hours being interrogated on the previous day knew that the police just weren't listening to what she had to say or they would not have made her arguida.

I think she was well aware of the ramifications.  She would know that Joana Cipriano's mother was in jail and that no-one was looking for Joana who was the last missing child case Amaral had worked.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 02:47:54 PM
Snip
Today Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that this was my right as an arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way.
He knew the system better than I ever would, so it struck me as prudent to accept his guidance.
Since I was unable to comprehend how anything I’d said already could have led me to this point, I wasn’t about to try to get through to the police again now.    Kate McCann

She acted on legal advice and having spent many hours being interrogated on the previous day knew that the police just weren't listening to what she had to say or they would not have made her arguida.

I think she was well aware of the ramifications.  She would know that Joana Cipriano's mother was in jail and that no-one was looking for Joana who was the last missing child case Amaral had worked.
Plausible on the face of it. I'm not sure she would have been aware of Cipriano case to that degree, however.
And it doesn't explain why then Gerry thought it necessary to cooperate fully. An interesting change in strategy and advice tailored to each.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 03:05:22 PM
Plausible on the face of it. I'm not sure she would have been aware of Cipriano case to that degree, however.
And it doesn't explain why then Gerry thought it necessary to cooperate fully. An interesting change in strategy and advice tailored to each.
I think there is a very high probability that having been informed of the attacks on British children Kate and Gerry would also have been informed of Leonor Cipriano's fate.  If she had had any doubts these would have been allayed when she read the following ...

I think Gerry was safe enough ... they obviously thought the weakest link was Madeleine's mother.


'Portuguese police framed my wife'
By Andrew Johnson
September 10 2007

The husband of a woman jailed in Portugal for killing her child in a case with uncanny similarities to that of Madeleine McCann has spoken of his fear that Madeleine's parents may be framed for their daughter's murder.

Leonor Cipriano, 36, is serving a 16-year jail sentence following the disappearance of her daughter, Joana, nine, in September 2004, just seven miles from where Madeleine McCann vanished. The investigating officer was Detective Goncalo Amaral, now leading the McCann inquiry.

Yesterday, however, Leonor's husband, Leandro Silva, reiterated claims that his wife had been beaten by Mr Amaral during interrogation. Mr Amaral and four other officers were charged over the allegations. Despite this, he has not been removed from the McCann case.

"I am worried Kate McCann will be framed, the way it happened to my wife," Mr Silva said.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/portuguese-police-framed-my-wife-28437583.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 03:37:34 PM
We will never know,so why speculate ?
A nice adage to abide by yet it doesn't stop people speculating about what happened to Madeleine and who did it, especially with reference to her parents.  Incidentally G-Unit was speculating and you didn't seem to have a problem with that!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on May 01, 2019, 03:41:53 PM
Snip
Today Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that this was my right as an arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way.
He knew the system better than I ever would, so it struck me as prudent to accept his guidance.
Since I was unable to comprehend how anything I’d said already could have led me to this point, I wasn’t about to try to get through to the police again now.    Kate McCann

She acted on legal advice and having spent many hours being interrogated on the previous day knew that the police just weren't listening to what she had to say or they would not have made her arguida.

I think she was well aware of the ramifications.  She would know that Joana Cipriano's mother was in jail and that no-one was looking for Joana who was the last missing child case Amaral had worked.

I think it's important to remember what happened on the evening of 6th September 2007 following Kate's first day of interviews. This was the evening Carlos Abreu & his assistant Sophia arrived at the McCanns' rental villa with the news of the proposed "plea bargain" for Kate to consider. Gerry was not being implicated. In the circumstances, there was every reason for Kate to take her lawyer's advice & refuse to co-operate any further when it was abundantly clear what the PJ intentions were. All imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 03:46:33 PM
I think there is a very high probability that having been informed of the attacks on British children Kate and Gerry would also have been informed of Leonor Cipriano's fate.  If she had had any doubts these would have been allayed when she read the following ...

I think Gerry was safe enough ... they obviously thought the weakest link was Madeleine's mother.


'Portuguese police framed my wife'


I'm going to stick my neck out on this one* - having re-read the evidence this afternoon - it's safe for me to assume that:
1. The police kicked lumps out of the accused, making any conviction unsound.
2. They absolutely killed that girl and disposed of her body (and I'm not even basing that on the fact that they were convicted). She wasn't framed. Quite why the husband defends the wretch is beyond comprehension.

I would not be using that case as a like for like. She's not 'missing'; she's been well disposed of.

*all opinions are purely that of The General and are not attributable to the forum, authors, owners and associates. All rights reserved. Your home is at risk if you set fire to it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 03:53:05 PM
I'm going to stick my neck out on this one* - having re-read the evidence this afternoon - it's safe for me to assume that:
1. The police kicked lumps out of the accused, making any conviction unsound.
2. They absolutely killed that girl and disposed of her body (and I'm not even basing that on the fact that they were convicted). She wasn't framed. Quite why the husband defends the wretch is beyond comprehension.

I would not be using that case as a like for like. She's not 'missing'; she's been well disposed of.

*all opinions are purely that of The General and are not attributable to the forum, authors, owners and associates. All rights reserved. Your home is at risk if you set fire to it.

I take it you know very little about the cipriano case... Such as the evidence against her
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 03:53:56 PM
I'm going to stick my neck out on this one* - having re-read the evidence this afternoon - it's safe for me to assume that:
1. The police kicked lumps out of the accused, making any conviction unsound.
2. They absolutely killed that girl and disposed of her body (and I'm not even basing that on the fact that they were convicted). She wasn't framed. Quite why the husband defends the wretch is beyond comprehension.

I would not be using that case as a like for like. She's not 'missing'; she's been well disposed of.

*all opinions are purely that of The General and are not attributable to the forum, authors, owners and associates. All rights reserved. Your home is at risk if you set fire to it.
Can I ask what makes you so absolutely certain they killed her?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 03:54:37 PM
I take it you know very little about the cipriano case... Such as the evidence against her
You take it right. Convince me. In the appropriate thread, obviously. Let's take this out in to the car park.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 03:59:57 PM
Can I ask what makes you so absolutely certain they killed her?
Call it a hunch.
No seriously, on balance, given the history of abuse and neglect that residents report, the manner in which she was brought up, the multi-farious means by which they attempted to explain.....blah, blah..
....BECAUSE THE DUDE CONFESSED TO IT! And he didn't need that much of a pasting for him to sing either.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 04:05:59 PM
Plausible on the face of it. I'm not sure she would have been aware of Cipriano case to that degree, however.
And it doesn't explain why then Gerry thought it necessary to cooperate fully. An interesting change in strategy and advice tailored to each.

Gerry watched the dog videos?? (which calls to mind my own bemusement at first sighting)  and was refused sight of the DNA evidence.  I think he might have been angry?? just a guess though since I wasn't there.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 04:16:04 PM
I think it's important to remember what happened on the evening of 6th September 2007 following Kate's first day of interviews. This was the evening Carlos Abreu & his assistant Sophia arrived at the McCanns' rental villa with the news of the proposed "plea bargain" for Kate to consider. Gerry was not being implicated. In the circumstances, there was every reason for Kate to take her lawyer's advice & refuse to co-operate any further when it was abundantly clear what the PJ intentions were. All imo.

It is my opinion that Kate was the target.  She is a highly intelligent woman whose anger at the knowledge that the search for Madeleine had been abandoned to concentrate resources on her gave her the strength to resist what was a pretty brutal interrogation.
There was also zero chance of her appearing at the door of the police station in front of the world media having had her face and body severely injured by going head first down stairs???
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 04:22:24 PM
I'm going to stick my neck out on this one* - having re-read the evidence this afternoon - it's safe for me to assume that:
1. The police kicked lumps out of the accused, making any conviction unsound.
2. They absolutely killed that girl and disposed of her body (and I'm not even basing that on the fact that they were convicted). She wasn't framed. Quite why the husband defends the wretch is beyond comprehension.

I would not be using that case as a like for like. She's not 'missing'; she's been well disposed of.

*all opinions are purely that of The General and are not attributable to the forum, authors, owners and associates. All rights reserved. Your home is at risk if you set fire to it.

Joana went missing and no trace of her was found ... the case was 'solved' in much the same manner as the PJ hoped to 'solve' Madeleine's case.
It seems that sceptics don't like the idea that unlike Joana's ... Madeleine's case is still being worked.

By the way ~ having reviewed the evidence in Joana's case ... what is your opinion of the forensics, particularly the blood evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 04:23:16 PM
You take it right. Convince me. In the appropriate thread, obviously. Let's take this out in to the car park.

When the ONLY evidence in any case is confessions... With NO supporting evidence... I think there is reason to question the conviction
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 04:26:32 PM
Joana went missing and no trace of her was found ... the case was 'solved' in much the same manner as the PJ hoped to 'solve' Madeleine's case.
It seems that sceptics don't like the idea that unlike Joana's ... Madeleine's case is still being worked.

By the way ~ having reviewed the evidence in Joana's case ... what is your opinion of the forensics, particularly the blood evidence?
If I may I will read a little more and respond later.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 04:28:32 PM
If I may I will read a little more and respond later.

Amaral worked how they did it.... Including the fridge... It didn't seem to matter there wasn't one piece if evidence to support his theory
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 04:28:52 PM
If I may I will read a little more and respond later.

I'm interested in the forensic reports.  So in your own time.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 04:32:30 PM
Amaral worked how they did it.... Including the fridge... It didn't seem to matter there wasn't one piece if evidence to support his theory

Or that the fridge was never going to be big enough for Joana's body even if dismembered as gruesomely demonstrated.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on May 01, 2019, 05:10:37 PM
Or that the fridge was never going to be big enough for Joana's body even if dismembered as gruesomely demonstrated.

Yes, I found that very strange that the body parts wouldn't have fitted in the freezer,  yet nothing was said about that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 01, 2019, 05:46:11 PM
Yes, but do you now accept that the McCanns wrote to the PJ and their please were ignored, like I said many dozens of posts ago and about which you have been nit-picking ever since?

Your words are incorrect.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 01, 2019, 05:53:11 PM
It would appear to be a constant sceptic belief that Kate McCann was not entitled to refuse to answer questions when she was made an arguida in accordance with Portuguese law.

She was perfectly entitled to refuse to answer questions. Trying to suggest three months later that she had always 'worked with' the police obviously wasn't correct.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 01, 2019, 06:17:20 PM
Snip
Today Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that this was my right as an arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way.
He knew the system better than I ever would, so it struck me as prudent to accept his guidance.
Since I was unable to comprehend how anything I’d said already could have led me to this point, I wasn’t about to try to get through to the police again now.    Kate McCann

She acted on legal advice and having spent many hours being interrogated on the previous day knew that the police just weren't listening to what she had to say or they would not have made her arguida.

I think she was well aware of the ramifications.  She would know that Joana Cipriano's mother was in jail and that no-one was looking for Joana who was the last missing child case Amaral had worked.

Oh dear, where to start?

She wasn't 'interrogated', she was questioned as a witness.  Regarding events that would not incriminate her.

As to why she was made an arguida the next day.  When one is asked questions that might lead to incrimination,  Portugal requires that one is made an arguido, as it confers rights and freedoms not open to a witness.  Notice the word 'might'.  7 arguidos on, and not one has been charged with anything.

If you have any information that Kate was aware of the Cipriano case, this would be a good time to reveal it.  I do not recall Kate making such a claim.  If you don't it is pure speculation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 01, 2019, 06:26:36 PM
Amaral worked how they did it.... Including the fridge... It didn't seem to matter there wasn't one piece if evidence to support his theory

There is plenty of evidence Joana is dead.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 06:33:34 PM
There is plenty of evidence Joana is dead.

there is no evidence to support amarals theory
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 01, 2019, 06:34:34 PM
there is no evidence to support amarals theory

Of course there is?!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 01, 2019, 06:47:45 PM
there is no evidence to support amarals theory

Supposedly Grange had evidence of some burglary gone wrong, dug up the countryside to prove themselves wrong,go figure.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 06:55:39 PM
She was perfectly entitled to refuse to answer questions. Trying to suggest three months later that she had always 'worked with' the police obviously wasn't correct.

Of course she was ... that being the case one has to wonder why sceptics feel the need to make such a song and dance about it.

What were they doing at the weekly meetings held with the PJ then if not discussing Madeleine ... giving the translators some practice?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 07:00:04 PM
Supposedly Grange had evidence of some burglary gone wrong, dug up the countryside to prove themselves wrong,go figure.

They may well.. But the evidence amaral thought implicated the McCann's didn't exist
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 07:03:09 PM
Of course there is?!

Then let's hear it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 01, 2019, 07:05:18 PM
Then let's hear it

Joana hasn't been seen since 2004.

That's evidence she is dead.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 07:08:50 PM
Oh dear, where to start?

She wasn't 'interrogated', she was questioned as a witness.  Regarding events that would not incriminate her.

As to why she was made an arguida the next day.  When one is asked questions that might lead to incrimination,  Portugal requires that one is made an arguido, as it confers rights and freedoms not open to a witness.  Notice the word 'might'.  7 arguidos on, and not one has been charged with anything.

If you have any information that Kate was aware of the Cipriano case, this would be a good time to reveal it.  I do not recall Kate making such a claim.  If you don't it is pure speculation.
Kate describes her interrogation in detail ... in the interrogation room ... including her lawyer's warning that she was being too forthcoming in some of her answers.
I take it that she was far better informed of her situation than you ever could expect to be.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 07:09:16 PM
Joana hasn't been seen since 2004.

That's evidence she is dead.

I agree... But wheres the evidence against Leonora
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 01, 2019, 07:11:11 PM
I agree... But wheres the evidence against Leonora

Her confession.  That's evidence enough for me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 07:17:07 PM
Her confession.  That's evidence enough for me.

So the only evidence you can come up with is a confession beaten out of her...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 01, 2019, 07:24:15 PM
So the only evidence you can come up with is a confession beaten out of her...

She confessed before the beating iirc.

I think she was only (deservedly) slapped about after attempting to retract.
 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 07:35:01 PM
She confessed before the beating iirc.

I think she was only (deservedly) slapped about after attempting to retract.

She didn't confess before the beating.... Read the official court report
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 07:36:57 PM
She didn't confess before the beating.... Read the official court report
Looks like she changed her statement while in nick, pinning it on her brother - 15.09.2009
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 07:40:24 PM
Looks like she changed her statement while in nick, pinning it on her brother - 15.09.2009

She was sentenced to about 20 years having been beaten to a pulp in order to make her confess... Her only chance of parole is to show remorse... Fir a crime she didn't commit... Otherwise she serves the whole 20; years...

Again... Apart from her forced... Tortured confession... What evidence was there... Absolutely  none
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 01, 2019, 07:41:52 PM
Kate describes her interrogation in detail ... in the interrogation room ... including her lawyer's warning that she was being too forthcoming in some of her answers.
I take it that she was far better informed of her situation than you ever could expect to be.

What 'interrogation" room?  Do you reckon Portimão has a room reserved for interrogations?  And as she was a witness at the time you referred to, why was she in this hypothetical interrogation room?

It not adding up, is it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 07:43:33 PM
What 'interrogation" room?  Do you reckon Portimão has a room reserved for interrogations?  And as she was a witness at the time you referred to, why was she in this hypothetical interrogation room?

It not adding up, is it?

It might not to you... But perhaps you are not very good at maths
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 07:44:00 PM
She was sentenced to about 20 years having been beaten to a pulp in order to make her confess... Her only chance of parole is to show remorse... Fir a crime she didn't commit... Otherwise she serves the whole 20; years...

Again... Apart from her forced... Tortured confession... What evidence was there... Absolutely  none
Trying to pin it on her brother is not showing remorse. She admitted she was dead and she participated.
No duress in a revised statement taken whilst inside.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 07:46:08 PM
What 'interrogation" room?  Do you reckon Portimão has a room reserved for interrogations?  And as she was a witness at the time you referred to, why was she in this hypothetical interrogation room?

It not adding up, is it?
A little emotive labelling goes a long way. We call it an Interview Room.
(The Interrogation Dungeon is down stairs, 2nd on the left)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 07:47:14 PM
Trying to pin it on her brother is not showing remorse. She admitted she was dead and she participated.
No duress in a revised statement taken whilst inside.
That's admitting the crime which you have to di to get parole


So what evidence was there apart from the confession by torture
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 01, 2019, 07:50:09 PM
It might not to you... But perhaps you are not very good at maths
As my degree included 4 years of applied maths, perhaps you should look in a mirror.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 07:50:16 PM
That's admitting the crime which you have to di to get parole


So what evidence was there apart from the confession by torture
Eh, have you read it? It's a sack of sh**.
It's a desperate attempt to get out.
Your evidence threshold changes with every post.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 07:51:21 PM
I the undersigned Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano, inmate number 34 at the Prison of Odemira, today the 15th of January 2009, confess and swear that this is the entire truth that I know about the disappearance of my daughter Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro – that my brother João Manuel Domingos Cipriano convinced me on the day that he arrived at my house in Figueira (in the early morning of the 12th of September 2004) that I had no financial conditions to care for three children, that they would become miserable persons like myself, without a future and without money and without an education. That he knew a couple that couldn’t have children and that he thought they could be a new family at least for Joana, as Laura and Ruben were too small and everyone would suspect if one of them went missing. About Joana they could say that she was abducted, that Joana would be well cared for, by a family that would give her everything, as they had money that he knew them and guaranteed that they were trustworthy, that they would never hurt Joana, that they only wanted a daughter that they couldn’t have. That Joana would be taken abroad and that I could never see her again personally, but that they would do everything to send me news about her and even send some photos of her when she would be grown. That he (João Cipriano) was my brother and that I could trust him, because he also wanted the best for Joana. That they had to invent a story for Joana’s disappearance, because lawfully I couldn’t give Joana away to this couple as an adoptive daughter in this manner, because the law of Portugal didn’t allow it. But that I shouldn’t worry, because Joana would be very well cared for and it would be the best for her future. At the beginning I refused, but he insisted so much that he managed to make me believe that what he was saying was truly the best for my children. That I would receive a financial help so I could look properly after my two youngest children (Laura and Ruben). That everything would be fine, he would talk to Joana to explain to her what was going to happen, everything had been agreed already. I believed and trusted my brother João Cipriano. He arrived on the 12th for that purpose already. I never met any of the persons that he told me would take Joana abroad. But he always asserted me that they were trustworthy and that he would put his hands into the fire for them. He arranged everything for 8 p.m. Then he asked me to fetch Joana shortly after 6 p.m. from the house of my mother-in-law, Maria de Lurdes David. I went, took Joana home and in front of me he told her that she would have a good surprise on that day, because she was about to go on a great trip. Joana was happy, she wanted to know more, but he didn’t reveal a lot of details to her, that she would find out later. My younger children were playing but they didn’t hear anything, because they were in the living room but further away from us. At 8 p.m. I sent Joana to do the shopping at Pastelaria Célia. As soon as Joana left, João placed some of her clothes in a plastic bag, and never returned either with the bag or with Joana. I knew that he was going to deliver Joana to that couple as soon as she returned home from the shopping, but without entering the house. João told me that we both should make believe that Joana had been abducted by strangers. It was only one and a half hours later that I saw João Cipriano again, but he arrived without money, the money that he told me the couple would give me to help my younger children. I asked him what had happened. At the beginning he didn’t answer me, he only said that everything had gone well. It was only later that I saw blood on the lower part of his trousers. I was alarmed. I asked him about Joana. Then he told me that things had not gone well. That the “guys” (citation) didn’t have the money. That Joana knew about everything already, that he had told her that she was going to spend holidays in Spain with a couple that were his friends. That she then heard the verbal fight between him (João) and the “guys” and realised that she was “going for good”. That they didn’t take her because he didn’t give her away because there was no money. That he sent the “guys” away and the Joana started to say that she was going to tell everything. That he slapped her in the face. That she protested even more. That he slapped her again, but she wouldn’t shut up. That he lost control and the girl had died. That the body was hidden for him to dispose of it later. I panicked. But he told me it was no use anymore, that if someone heard me we would both go to jail, because we were both into it. I screamed at him that I didn’t kill Joana, he replied that if I didn’t kill her at least I wanted to sell her. After a big verbal fight, I agreed to say nothing. Later on, he told me that he had buried the body “up in the hills of Figueira”. I was scared. I cried very hard for my daughter. I prayed for her. I know that I didn’t kill her. But I was afraid of being arrested because I tried to sell Joana. I only wanted the best for her. But people might not understand. I decided since then that I never went through any of that, and that I would always say that I didn’t know anything, just like my murderous brother said that he would do. I couldn’t bring Joana back anymore. When I was spanked by the Polícia Judiciária, which is true that I was just like I said at the Court in Faro, I signed what they wanted me to sign, I didn’t even read what it was. I never said anything, I just said what they wanted, what they wrote, which I only found out later what it was. I didn’t kill Joana. Mr Gonçalo Amaral knows that, then why did he order them to spank me? Why? Why am I in prison for the murder of my daughter Joana? Why? I didn’t kill her! It was my brother João Cipriano, the monster, who killed her. The police knows that... Why did they arrest me? I erred, I trusted João, that monster, I regret what I did, but I only wanted the best for my children, for Joana. Forgive me Joana. My beloved, my angel, from heaven where you are, my dear Joana, forgive me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 07:53:54 PM
What a coincidence - she was going to sell her on the same night she was killed.
Evidence? The wretch.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 08:07:36 PM
What a coincidence - she was going to sell her on the same night she was killed.
Evidence? The wretch.

No evidence... You are obviously  easily fooled... There's an interview on here with amaral and a Portuguese reporter.. The reporter statesvthat most Portuguese think cipriano is not guilty.. I've looked at all the evidence and I agree..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 08:12:57 PM
No evidence... You are obviously  easily fooled... There's an interview on here with amaral and a Portuguese reporter.. The reporter statesvthat most Portuguese think cipriano is not guilty.. I've looked at all the evidence and I agree..
Then you are easily fooled, etc, etc, let's insult each other, yawn.
The statement is a tissue of lies and purely self serving.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 08:20:33 PM
Then you are easily fooled, etc, etc, let's insult each other, yawn.
The statement is a tissue of lies and purely self serving.

I think Portuguese justice stinks...
Recently  a woman who was beaten by her ex husband was told it's understandable as the bible supports such punishment  for adultery... And a man who picked up a British hitch hiker.. Vilently raped her front and back.. Was given a suspended sentence

We've debated the cipriano case here and nauseam.. Ive researched all the evidence and I think it's highly likely she's innocent... I've no wish to go through it all again for your benefit
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 08:24:40 PM
I think Portuguese justice stinks...
Recently  a woman who was beaten by her ex husband was told it's understandable as the bible supports such punishment  for adultery... And a man who picked up a British hitch hiker.. Vilently raped her front and back.. Was given a suspended sentence

We've debated the cipriano case here and nauseam.. Ive researched all the evidence and I think it's highly likely she's innocent... I've no wish to go through it all again for your benefit
You've debated it ad nauseum, reviewed the evidence at length and come to the totally wrong conclusion. There's a pattern emerging.
Consider it closed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 08:27:00 PM
As my degree included 4 years of applied maths, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

That's, what you claim.. I simply dont believe you.. Basic applied maths perhaps.. I doubt you did anything as complex as, I did at, school.. Ever heard of e to the i pi plus one equals zero
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 08:28:08 PM
You've debated it ad nauseum, reviewed the evidence at length and come to the totally wrong conclusion. There's a pattern emerging.
Consider it closed.

The only pattern is posters, such as yourself refusing to face reality
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 08:34:07 PM
The only pattern is posters, such as yourself refusing to face reality
No, I said it first.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 08:57:52 PM
What 'interrogation" room?  Do you reckon Portimão has a room reserved for interrogations?  And as she was a witness at the time you referred to, why was she in this hypothetical interrogation room?

It not adding up, is it?

I think I prefer the account of the person undergoing the experience than your conjecture which I think is ill informed.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 09:08:38 PM
I think I prefer the account of the person undergoing the experience than your conjecture which I think is ill informed.
So what, there's an interrogation chamber at the local nick?
It's an Interview Room and probably doubles as a canteen or somewhere to put the photocopier when they're not busy. This isn't East Berlin circa 1976, it's a quaint little seaside resort in the back of beyond.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 01, 2019, 09:21:00 PM
So what, there's an interrogation chamber at the local nick?
It's an Interview Room and probably doubles as a canteen or somewhere to put the photocopier when they're not busy. This isn't East Berlin circa 1976, it's a quaint little seaside resort in the back of beyond.
No it wasntm.. It was portimao.. Probably the same place cipriano wad tortured
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 01, 2019, 10:09:31 PM
No it wasntm.. It was Portimao.. Probably the same place Cipriano was tortured
Sounds a bit like a ghoul tour!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 01, 2019, 10:14:33 PM
That's, what you claim.. I simply dont believe you.. Basic applied maths perhaps.. I doubt you did anything as complex as, I did at, school.. Ever heard of e to the i pi plus one equals zero
e to the i pi plus one equals zero?  What's that got to do with applied maths?  I studied Physics with Applied Maths.  Get over it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 10:18:38 PM
Your words are incorrect.
She wouldn’t let it lie!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 01, 2019, 10:22:08 PM
Snip
Today Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that this was my right as an arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way.
He knew the system better than I ever would, so it struck me as prudent to accept his guidance.
Since I was unable to comprehend how anything I’d said already could have led me to this point, I wasn’t about to try to get through to the police again now.    Kate McCann

She acted on legal advice and having spent many hours being interrogated on the previous day knew that the police just weren't listening to what she had to say or they would not have made her arguida.

I think she was well aware of the ramifications.  She would know that Joana Cipriano's mother was in jail and that no-one was looking for Joana who was the last missing child case Amaral had worked.

Then her not answering questions certainly didn’t have the outcome she hoped for, did it ?

Every time I watch a documentary programme where the case of a known criminal is laid out to inform the viewer why he was found guilty and we have the suspect answering no comment to police questions I think of Kate McCann.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 01, 2019, 10:30:30 PM
She wouldn’t let it lie!
You wouldn't let it lie!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 10:46:14 PM
Then her not answering questions certainly didn’t have the outcome she hoped for, did it ?

Every time I watch a documentary programme where the case of a known criminal is laid out to inform the viewer why he was found guilty and we have the suspect answering no comment to police questions I think of Kate McCann.

You've lost me ... what was the outcome she hoped for?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 10:46:25 PM
You wouldn't let it lie!
Don’t you start.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 01, 2019, 10:47:40 PM
Then her not answering questions certainly didn’t have the outcome she hoped for, did it ?

Every time I watch a documentary programme where the case of a known criminal is laid out to inform the viewer why he was found guilty and we have the suspect answering no comment to police questions I think of Kate McCann.

I would worry about that were I you ... seems to becoming obsessive.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on May 01, 2019, 10:57:41 PM
e to the i pi plus one equals zero?  What's that got to do with applied maths?  I studied Physics with Applied Maths.  Get over it.

Have you ever heard of Euler?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 01, 2019, 11:08:29 PM
Then her not answering questions certainly didn’t have the outcome she hoped for, did it ?

Every time I watch a documentary programme where the case of a known criminal is laid out to inform the viewer why he was found guilty and we have the suspect answering no comment to police questions I think of Kate McCann.
How many documentaries have you watched recently of perfectly innocent people being questioned by the police? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 02, 2019, 12:02:11 AM
Have you ever heard of Euler?

Yes.

What does it have to do with Applied Maths?

Answers on a postcard please.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on May 02, 2019, 12:37:27 AM
Yes.

What does it have to do with Applied Maths?

Answers on a postcard please.

Far too much information to fit on a postcard. It's mathematical beauty.
http://www.math.wichita.edu/history/men/euler.html

Google will help refresh your memory.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 02, 2019, 01:18:31 AM
Far too much information to fit on a postcard. It's mathematical beauty.
http://www.math.wichita.edu/history/men/euler.html

Google will help refresh your memory.

What does that have to with Applied Maths, or Davel's claim?  I'm at the not a jot point.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: misty on May 02, 2019, 01:28:18 AM
What does that have to with Applied Maths, or Davel's claim?  I'm at the not a jot point.

It holds an equal importance in Physics to Maxwell's equations.
Possibly Davel is just trying to show his knowledge of Applied Maths is superior to yours when it comes to metaphorically adding up 2+2 in a criminal investigation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 02, 2019, 01:59:33 AM
It holds an equal importance in Physics to Maxwell's equations.
Possibly Davel is just trying to show his knowledge of Applied Maths is superior to yours when it comes to metaphorically adding up 2+2 in a criminal investigation.

I know what he is trying to do.  It just doesn't stack up.

He has no clue about basic statistics or probability theory.  Or about Applied Maths.  I went to a high quality university which required that for 4 years I studied both.

Time to move on.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 02, 2019, 07:38:37 AM
No evidence... You are obviously  easily fooled... There's an interview on here with amaral and a Portuguese reporter.. The reporter statesvthat most Portuguese think cipriano is not guilty.. I've looked at all the evidence and I agree..


Lol, most Portuguese think cipriano is not guilty - seems your easy fooled to make that comment D

What do you think most Portuguese think of mcs - if IRC most thinks mcs involved.

That cipriano statement screams cover up - something terrible happened and they covered it with abduction.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: niklasericson on May 02, 2019, 07:47:22 AM
I think Portuguese justice stinks...
Recently  a woman who was beaten by her ex husband was told it's understandable as the bible supports such punishment  for adultery... And a man who picked up a British hitch hiker.. Vilently raped her front and back.. Was given a suspended sentence

We've debated the cipriano case here and nauseam.. Ive researched all the evidence and I think it's highly likely she's innocent... I've no wish to go through it all again for your benefit
Is the British justice any better?
The innocent man, Barry George was sentenced to life in prison for the Jill Dando murder.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 02, 2019, 08:15:24 AM
Is the British justice any better?
The innocent man, Barry George was sentenced to life in prison for the Jill Dando murder.

portugal never admits to its miscariagesof justice...according to a portuguese poster theres never been one
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2019, 02:14:53 PM
Is the British justice any better?
The innocent man, Barry George was sentenced to life in prison for the Jill Dando murder.

He was retried ... and found 'not guilty' as a result.  It was judged that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody ... she had time added on to her sentence as a result.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 02, 2019, 09:52:45 PM
He was retried ... and found 'not guilty' as a result.  It was judged that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody ... she had time added on to her sentence as a result.

She had time added to her sentence because she perjured herself.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on May 02, 2019, 10:32:47 PM
She had time added to her sentence because she perjured herself.

Have you any concerns about this case?
Do you believe there was enough satisfactory evidence to convict her?

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 02, 2019, 11:21:00 PM
Do sceptics believe that based on the alleged evidence against the McCanns they would both be found guilty in a court of law? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 02, 2019, 11:23:12 PM
Do sceptics believe that based on the alleged evidence against the McCanns they would both be found guilty in a court of law?

What evidence?

We are always told there isn't any?!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 02, 2019, 11:35:09 PM
What evidence?

We are always told there isn't any?!
The evidence you believe confirms the McCanns’ guilt..  Are you able to answer the question or not?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 02, 2019, 11:40:48 PM
The evidence you believe confirms the McCanns’ guilt..  Are you able to answer the question or not?

Yes I'm able to answer the question.

No, I don't think the evidence is sufficient, either with or without a body.

But this is all hypothetical since Maggie was abducted according to the police.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 03, 2019, 12:03:53 AM
Yes I'm able to answer the question.

No, I don't think the evidence is sufficient, either with or without a body.

But this is all hypothetical since Maggie was abducted according to the police.
Shame you can’t be bothered to show the child some respect on the eve of her disappearance, ah well I guess it’s par for the course.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 03, 2019, 12:19:59 AM
Shame you can’t be bothered to show the child some respect on the eve of her disappearance, ah well I guess it’s par for the course.

On the eve of her dissappearence...??
I think you'll find that was May 2nd 2007.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2019, 01:34:42 AM
She had time added to her sentence because she perjured herself.
She couldn't identify the men who tortured her because they had put a bag over her head ... why was that perjury? and why did she receive time for perjury when Amaral received a suspended sentence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 03, 2019, 01:43:02 AM
Do sceptics believe that based on the alleged evidence against the McCanns they would both be found guilty in a court of law?
You would also have to define the charge.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 03, 2019, 07:08:54 AM
Have you any concerns about this case?
Do you believe there was enough satisfactory evidence to convict her?
I love how all of the supporters here have to support convicted child killer Leonor Cipriano by default, en masse, because if they don't they validate their nemesis Amaral.
So maybe the question should be, how dogmatic and pious does one need to be to defend a convicted child killer to prove a point. We can all do the closed, loaded question routine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 03, 2019, 07:22:41 AM
On the eve of her dissappearence...??
I think you'll find that was May 2nd 2007.
Why did you refer to her as Maggie?  You seem to be taking the piss out of a missing child.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 03, 2019, 07:25:06 AM
I love how all of the supporters here have to support convicted child killer Leonor Cipriano by default, en masse, because if they don't they validate their nemesis Amaral.
So maybe the question should be, how dogmatic and pious does one need to be to defend a convicted child killer to prove a point. We can all do the closed, loaded question routine.
I certainly don’t support her but I think the evidence against her was shamefully weak, and that she was possibly the victim of a miscarriage of justice.  She was definitely a victim of torture.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2019, 07:36:15 AM
I love how all of the supporters here have to support convicted child killer Leonor Cipriano by default, en masse, because if they don't they validate their nemesis Amaral.
So maybe the question should be, how dogmatic and pious does one need to be to defend a convicted child killer to prove a point. We can all do the closed, loaded question routine.

I think she may well be innocent.... Why is it all the sceptics En masse support her conviction when she was brutally tortured into confessing... And the confession being the only evidence against her... The prosecution claimed blood in the fridge belonged to Joanna and the court accepted this... Yet it, was never tested and as I understand was never confirmed  to be human
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 03, 2019, 07:37:44 AM
I certainly don’t support her but I think the evidence against her was shamefully weak, and that she was possibly the victim of a miscarriage of justice.  She was definitely a victim of torture.
You see, at this point, us 'sceptics' (collective), are now challenged as to why we didn't answer the question, so 'you obviously agree then don't you?' This is how these conversations play out. Oh, and conveniently ignore the point of whatever it is you did write.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 03, 2019, 07:39:34 AM
I think she may well be innocent.... Why is it all the sceptics En masse support her conviction when she was brutally tortured into confessing... And the confession being the only evidence against her... The prosecution claimed blood in the fridge belonged to Joanna and the court accepted this... Yet it, was never tested and as I understand was never confirmed  to be human
You didn't answer the question. So you admit it then? etc, etc. I knew it all along, typical McSupporters always do this, all of them at the same time.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2019, 07:42:44 AM
You didn't answer the question. So you admit it then? etc, etc. I knew it all along, typical McSupporters always do this, all of them at the same time.

I think the reason supporters En masse question the conviction is because they don't feel the need to defend the torture by the PJ and the lies by amaral... Both which have been proven in court by overwhelming evidence...
Sceptics have to pretend neither ever happened
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 03, 2019, 07:46:31 AM
I think the reason supporters En masse question the conviction is because they don't feel the need to defend the torture by the PJ and the lies by amaral... Both which have been proven in court by overwhelming evidence...
Sceptics have to pretend neither ever happened
Still not answering the question. So therefore you all agree. Knew it.

Irritating isn't it, this bull**** way of questioning. Shoe on the other foot.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2019, 07:49:47 AM
Still not answering the question. So therefore you all agree. Knew it.

Irritating isn't it, this bull**** way of questioning. Shoe on the other foot.

could you clarify the wuestion and I will answer it...if I alraedy havent
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2019, 08:01:03 AM
I love how all of the McBelievers here have to support convicted child killer Leonor Cipriano by default, en masse, because if they don't they validate their nemesis Amaral.
So maybe the question should be, how dogmatic and pious does one need to be to defend a convicted child killer to prove a point. We can all do the closed, loaded question routine.

your whole sateemnt is based on a false premise that sceptics see a miscarriage of justice purely so as to attack amral...thats absolute rubbish...Ive given the reasons i question the conviction and then we have this..

MST : Let me ask you a question, do you think that in this country many people believes that Leonor Cipriano killed her daughter ?
GA : I think so.
MST : Very few people, Gonçalo Amaral, very few people.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7483.0
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 03, 2019, 08:03:54 AM
could you clarify the wuestion and I will answer it...if I alraedy havent
Can't remember now. Lost in the quagmire of prevarication.

Found it 11 pages back: how dogmatic and pious does one need to be to defend a convicted child killer to prove a point?
It was in context originally, but I can't be arsed copying it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 03, 2019, 08:05:09 AM
You see, at this point, us 'sceptics' (collective), are now challenged as to why we didn't answer the question, so 'you obviously agree then don't you?' This is how these conversations play out. Oh, and conveniently ignore the point of whatever it is you did write.
What??
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 03, 2019, 08:06:55 AM
Can't remember now. Lost in the quagmire of prevarication.

Found it 11 pages back: how dogmatic and pious does one need to be to defend a convicted child killer to prove a point?
It was in context originally, but I can't be arsed copying it.
It’s an unanswerable question, but I’ll give it a go:  4.2

Is that acceptable?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 03, 2019, 08:16:47 AM
your whole sateemnt is based on a false premise that sceptics see a miscarriage of justice purely so as to attack amral...thats absolute rubbish...Ive given the reasons i question the conviction and then we have this..

MST : Let me ask you a question, do you think that in this country many people believes that Leonor Cipriano killed her daughter ?
GA : I think so.
MST : Very few people, Gonçalo Amaral, very few people.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7483.0
Just because you pasted it in bold, doesn't make it any more valid.
Those very few people are right.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 03, 2019, 08:18:50 AM
Just because you pasted it in bold, doesn't make it any more valid.
Those very few people are right.
Why are they?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 03, 2019, 08:20:34 AM
Why are they?
Sorry, yes. In my opinion.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2019, 08:57:24 AM
Just because you pasted it in bold, doesn't make it any more valid.
Those very few people are right.

I posted the quote in bold to distinguish it from my own comment... How do you know those few people, are right.. Or are you just posting spam... I expected more from you... I won't in future
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 03, 2019, 12:32:30 PM
I posted the quote in bold to distinguish it from my own comment... How do you know those few people, are right.. Or are you just posting spam... I expected more from you... I won't in future

When VS had posted the answer to a question was 4.2?

Seriously?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2019, 12:35:00 PM
When VS had posted the answer to a question was 4.2?

Seriously?

That's nothing to do with me...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 03, 2019, 07:12:17 PM
Have you any concerns about this case?
Do you believe there was enough satisfactory evidence to convict her?

I believe the truth was obscured because of her lies.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 03, 2019, 07:13:29 PM
I believe the truth was obscured because of her lies.
Not. Answering. The. Question.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 04, 2019, 09:00:47 AM
just some of the reasons - I became a so called skeptic in the first place.

The things that should have been done - for some reason wasn't.

Abduction should not have been the only theory -  now or then. [interesting what he says about theories]







https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2019/05/francisco-moita-flores-in-maddie-case.html



 What is your theory about this case?

- I have no theories, because according to a professor that I had: 'he who does not know, theorizes'. I was in Greece when the case happened and the first news I saw was on an English channel. I saw some detectives talking, who were supposed to have been hired by Maddie's parents, pulling out theories about what might have happened. It was so absurd what they said that I called a colleague to investigate the parents and the group of friends, which is something you have to do in a criminal investigation: investigate those closest to the victim.



Why were they absurd?

- It is unthinkable that a group of parents go to a foreign country and abandon their children at home to go to dinner eighty or one hundred meters away. That was the first error in the investigation: all those theories of fantasies based on a network of paedophiles that abducted children. In a criminal investigation there must be no theories. We must raise hypotheses and questions for the events that occurred. Theories are for romances and movies, but a criminal investigation is very pragmatic, very practical, very empirical, and is not compatible with moral judgments. Those who theorize so much instead of focusing on the facts it's because they do not know how to investigate.

- How come twelve years later we still do not know what happened?

- The Judiciary Police has made mistakes. The first was to not consider the parents as suspects for the crime of abandonment and exposure that they did with their children. This crime is known in Portuguese law: crime of exposure and abandonment of minors. This is the main mistake that was made, and from this point on everything has been manipulated.

- Do you think it will be resolved?

- I do not think it's going to be resolved. The only way to solve this case would be to do a reconstruction of that night, because if you read the case files you realize that within the group of eight people who were there, there are people who are lying, and some, blatantly.


Read more

https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2019/05/francisco-moita-flores-in-maddie-case.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 09:17:55 AM
Does anyone still believe  the parents, are still suspects and still being investigated... By either SY or the PJ
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 09:23:52 AM
Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range

I wonder if Erngath has the answer after almost 200 pages? Recent posts suggest some disappointment as these 'beliefs' still can't be properly identified. Perhaps the wtong question was asked? The supporters clearly believe that sceptics have beliefs, but maybe their belief is wrong.

In my opinion supporters do have identifiable beliefs, but sceptics don't have such firm convictions. For exanple;

Supporters believe Madeleine was abducted. Sceptics see it as just one possibility.
Supporters believe the parents were not involved in MBM's disappearance. Sceptics see it as a possibility.
Supporters believe Amaral is beyond the pale. Sceptics see him as imperfect, but not evil.
Supporters believe sceptic's doubt because of Amaral. Sceptics know that's not true.
Suppotyers believe what the police say publicly. Sceptics don't.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 09:27:33 AM
I wonder if Erngath has the answer after almost 200 pages? Recent posts suggest some disappointment as these 'beliefs' still can't be properly identified. Perhaps the wtong question was asked? The supporters clearly believe that sceptics have beliefs, but maybe their belief is wrong.

In my opinion supporters do have identifiable beliefs, but sceptics don't have such firm convictions. For exanple;

Supporters believe Madeleine was abducted. Sceptics see it as just one possibility.
Supporters believe the parents were not involved in MBM's disappearance. Sceptics see it as a possibility.
Supporters believe Amaral is beyond the pale. Sceptics see him as imperfect, but not evil.
Supporters believe sceptic's doubt because of Amaral. Sceptics know that's not true.
Suppotyers believe what the police say publicly. Sceptics don't.

Do all supporters believe all those things... I believe  that it's most probable Maddie was abducted.. It's one possibility..
Does that make me, a sceptic now... I don't think you understand  what supporters think... You just think you do...
All your other statements are wring too
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 04, 2019, 09:32:52 AM
Do all supporters believe all those things... I believe  that it's most probable Maddie was abducted.. It's one possibility..
Does that make me, a sceptic now... I don't think you understand  what supporters think... You just think you do...
All your other statements are wring too

What are the other possibilities IYO?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 09:39:52 AM
What are the other possibilities IYO?

I've stated them previously... Perhaps I can find the posts..
Woke and wandered and parental involvement
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 09:43:44 AM
Do all supporters believe all those things... I believe  that it's most probable Maddie was abducted.. It's one possibility..
Does that make me, a sceptic now... I don't think you understand  what supporters think... You just think you do...
All your other statements are wring too

Now the boot is on the other foot, isn't it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 09:49:39 AM
Now the boot is on the other foot, isn't it?

Ive just shown your facts re supporters are wrong..
i havent seen anyone claim that all sceptics believe all the same things...thats just your assumption as well
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 09:53:49 AM
Ive just shown your facts re supporters are wrong..
i havent seen anyone claim that all sceptics believe all the same things...thats just your assumption as well

As stated, it's my opinion.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 09:54:45 AM
As stated, it's my opinion.

and its my opinion you are totally wrong...i thought you did facts...not opinions
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 04, 2019, 09:56:15 AM
Does anyone still believe  the parents, are still dusoects and still being investigated... By either SY or the PJ

I believe the parents are dusoects.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2019, 09:57:59 AM
As stated, it's my opinion.

Glad you have an opinion on something/anything that you are prepared to share ... but just a reminder ... the topic of the thread is sceptic beliefs 'twould be great if you kept to that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 04, 2019, 10:06:23 AM
Glad you have an opinion on something/anything that you are prepared to share ... but just a reminder ... the topic of the thread is sceptic beliefs 'twould be great if you kept to that.

If there aren't any, then what?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2019, 10:59:56 AM
If there aren't any, then what?
We really don't have to reference anything denied by sceptics on this forum.  Very much a case of 'that's my story and I'm sticking to it' I have found.
There are so many, many examples of fervently held sceptic beliefs on the internet ... much of it highly repetitive I must admit (but reinforcing the fact of widely held beliefs) ... that I think this thread could run ad infinitum.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 11:23:28 AM
We really don't have to reference anything denied by sceptics on this forum.  Very much a case of 'that's my story and I'm sticking to it' I have found.
There are so many, many examples of fervently held sceptic beliefs on the internet ... much of it highly repetitive I must admit (but reinforcing the fact of widely held beliefs) ... that I think this thread could run ad infinitum.

No-one here is answerable for what is said by unknown, unconnected others elsewhere on the internet. Perhaps one day you'll understand that and stop trying to perpetuate your (imo) myth that sceptics are collectively responsible.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 12:22:27 PM
Glad you have an opinion on something/anything that you are prepared to share ... but just a reminder ... the topic of the thread is sceptic beliefs 'twould be great if you kept to that.

In my opinion there are none. All I can see is sceptics being accused of having beliefs. Those accusing them believe they have beliefs and they believe they know what they are. In almost 200 pages they have, imo, failed to prove their beliefs are correct.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 12:32:10 PM
In my opinion there are none. All I can see is sceptics being accused of having beliefs. Those accusing them believe they have beliefs and they believe they know what they are. In almost 200 pages they have, imo, failed to prove their beliefs are correct.

Sceptics do have beliefs... I dint know why you are so offended
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 12:33:28 PM
In my opinion there are none. All I can see is sceptics being accused of having beliefs. Those accusing them believe they have beliefs and they believe they know what they are. In almost 200 pages they have, imo, failed to prove their beliefs are correct.

You've just stated your opinion.. That's a belief..
You believe the statements are accurate.. That's a belief
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 04, 2019, 12:37:00 PM
Ive just shown your facts re supporters are wrong..
i havent seen anyone claim that all sceptics believe all the same things...thats just your assumption as well
Take the wonky gigs off - every other post on this thread from a McBliever states 'sceptics believe'. I'm not going to be arsed to quote them.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 12:38:53 PM
Take the wonky gigs off - every other post on this thread from a McBliever states 'sceptics believe'. I'm not going to be arsed to quote them.

Yes sceptics believe.... Not ALL sceptics believe  ALL same
things.. .and what a pathetic point to argue about..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 04, 2019, 12:43:26 PM
Yes sceptics believe.... Not ALL sceptics believe  ALL same
things.. .and what a pathetic point to argue about..
Neh neh, no, you're pathetic, neh, neh.........how old?
So stop arguing then.
By definition you apply the label to all sceptics whether you use the word 'all' or not, unless you qualify with 'some' or 'a number'.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 01:03:12 PM
Neh neh, no, you're pathetic, neh, neh.........how old?
So stop arguing then.
By definition you apply the label to all sceptics whether you use the word 'all' or not, unless you qualify with 'some' or 'a number'.

No it doesn't.. It's a GENERALisation.... I thought you of all would realise
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 04, 2019, 01:16:06 PM
No it doesn't.. It's a GENERALisation.... I thought you of all would realise
You've literally just agreed - you've forgotten what you were arguing about, clearly.
Another generalisation - If all the sceptics you know can spell, you might make the generalisation that all sceptics can spell.

Anyway, it's moot. Let's move on, you big, scary cuddly badger.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 01:42:10 PM
You've just stated your opinion.. That's a belief..
You believe the statements are accurate.. That's a belief

I don't equate opinions with beliefs. In my opinion beliefs are opinions based on faith rather than evidence.
 
That's a very good example actually. I accepted the statements for what they are; a record of what people told the PJ. The question of accuracy is of interest only to supporters, and is only used to defend the McCanns and their friends imo. The starting point isn't that I believe they're accurate, it's that I disbelieve the supporter claim that they're inaccurate because I've seen no real evidence of it, just speculation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 02:14:06 PM
I don't equate opinions with beliefs. In my opinion beliefs are opinions based on faith rather than evidence.
 
That's a very good example actually. I accepted the statements for what they are; a record of what people told the PJ. The question of accuracy is of interest only to supporters, and is only used to defend the McCanns and their friends imo. The starting point isn't that I believe they're accurate, it's that I disbelieve the supporter claim that they're inaccurate because I've seen no real evidence of it, just speculation.

semantics ...believed are often based on evidence..
The stateemnts are not a record of what people told the PJ ..thats your belief....a more accurate stateemnt of fact is that the statement are a record what the interpreter beleived the mccanns said...they are not even verbatim so by definition are not a record of what teh mccanns said...


could you provide a cite where i have said the stateemnt are innaccurate....Ive said they may well be innaccurate...it is highly unlikely that they are accurate...it seems you read what you believe to be posted rather than what is actually posted
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 02:16:58 PM
I don't equate opinions with beliefs. In my opinion beliefs are opinions based on faith rather than evidence.
 
That's a very good example actually. I accepted the statements for what they are; a record of what people told the PJ. The question of accuracy is of interest only to supporters, and is only used to defend the McCanns and their friends imo. The starting point isn't that I believe they're accurate, it's that I disbelieve the supporter claim that they're inaccurate because I've seen no real evidence of it, just speculation.

you believe taht beliefs are opinions based on faith....if you type in "scientist believe" into google you get 256,000,000 hits...are you suggesting scientists base their beliefs on faith rather tahn evidence...your argument is patently absurd
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 04, 2019, 02:26:43 PM
you believe taht beliefs are opinions based on faith....if you type in "scientist believe" into google you get 256,000,000 hits...are you suggesting scientists base their beliefs on faith rather tahn evidence...your argument is patently absurd
Just considering how many logical fallacies one post can contain.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 02:31:36 PM
Just considering how many logical fallacies one post can contain.

point out one....otherwise its just more spam from you
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 04, 2019, 02:42:59 PM
point out one....otherwise its just more spam from you
All of your posts could be spam, it's just that most are undecipherable with the ranty keyboard mash in sheepskin mittens. (Ad hom)
You've tried the old straw man by attacking an almost irrelevant, unrelated point that you created (type 'scientist believe' in to Google?? What?
Then, as if that wasn't enough, you used this new, skewed point to use that as a bizarre attack on the original point, appeal to ignorance (as if anyone would know the result of this bizarre google search), by distilling the possible answers down to two  - yes or no (closed question), thus creating a false dichotomy.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 02:48:33 PM
All of your posts could be spam, it's just that most are undecipherable with the ranty keyboard mash in sheepskin mittens. (Ad hom)
You've tried the old straw man by attacking an almost irrelevant, unrelated point that you created (type 'scientist believe' in to Google?? What?
Then, as if that wasn't enough, you used this new, skewed point to use that as a bizarre attack on the original point, appeal to ignorance (as if anyone would know the result of this bizarre google search), by distilling the possible answers down to two  - yes or no (closed question), thus creating a false dichotomy.

Try and be a little more precise and to the point...you are ranting and making little sense..

Gunit thinks beliefs are based on faith....my argument is 260 million posts by scientists relating to what they believe...scientific beleifs are based on evidence not faith,...

so wheres the straw man...wheres the appeal to ignorance....i know exactly where the BS is....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 04, 2019, 02:57:01 PM
Try and be a little more precise and to the point...you are ranting and making little sense..

Gunit thinks beliefs are based on faith....my argument is 260 million posts by scientists relating to what they believe...scientific beleifs are based on evidence not faith,...

so wheres the straw man...wheres the appeal to ignorance....i know exactly where the BS is....

Ad hom. I'm telling a sceptical mod off you.......
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 02:58:55 PM
Ad hom. I'm telling a sceptical mod off you.......

dou you mean ....of you..

 I post thousands of posts very quickly....I could go back and correct the mistakes...I really cant be bothered
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 04, 2019, 03:03:34 PM
dou you mean ....of you..

 I post thousands of posts very quickly....I could go back and correct the mistakes...I really cant be bothered
No, it's a colloquialism.
You called me a bullshitter, I'm telling a sceptical mod. Honest.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 03:06:11 PM
No, it's a colloquialism.
You called me a bullshitter, I'm telling a sceptical mod. Honest.

i think some of your posts are BS...particularly your recent accusations wshich you have meserably failed to support wiathany evidence...forum rules say its ok to attack your posts...which I have...not you persoanlly
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 04, 2019, 03:08:16 PM
i think some of your posts are BS...particularly your recent accusations wshich you have meserably failed to support wiathany evidence...forum rules say its ok to attack your posts...which I have...not you persoanlly
No not good enough. I'm calling the police.
Nah, it's all good. I get it, no problem, I mainly post bullshit. Be lucky pal.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 03:09:55 PM
No not good enough. I'm calling the police.
Nah, it's all good. I get it, no problem, I mainly post bullshit. Be lucky pal.

as you are obviously such  anice person Ill pm you the link re grime...it may be BS...it may be not...who knows
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 04, 2019, 03:10:56 PM
as you are obviously such  anice person Ill pm you the link re grime...it may be BS...it may be not...who knows
Thanks.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2019, 04:32:15 PM
semantics ...believed are often based on evidence..
The stateemnts are not a record of what people told the PJ ..thats your belief....a more accurate stateemnt of fact is that the statement are a record what the interpreter beleived the mccanns said...they are not even verbatim so by definition are not a record of what teh mccanns said...


could you provide a cite where i have said the stateemnt are innaccurate....Ive said they may well be innaccurate...it is highly unlikely that they are accurate...it seems you read what you believe to be posted rather than what is actually posted

In Madeleine, Kate recounts 'choosing' an interpreter for her arguida interview I think (it could have been the marathon interrogation of the previous day) who to her astonishment roundly berated her for criticising interpreters when she tried to correct translation errors in her previous statement.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 04, 2019, 06:57:19 PM
I wonder if Erngath has the answer after almost 200 pages? Recent posts suggest some disappointment as these 'beliefs' still can't be properly identified. Perhaps the wtong question was asked? The supporters clearly believe that sceptics have beliefs, but maybe their belief is wrong.

In my opinion supporters do have identifiable beliefs, but sceptics don't have such firm convictions. For exanple;

Supporters believe Madeleine was abducted. Sceptics see it as just one possibility.
Supporters believe the parents were not involved in MBM's disappearance. Sceptics see it as a possibility.
Supporters believe Amaral is beyond the pale. Sceptics see him as imperfect, but not evil.
Supporters believe sceptic's doubt because of Amaral. Sceptics know that's not true.
Suppotyers believe what the police say publicly. Sceptics don't.
Can I ask why some/most sceptics never publicly seriously  explore the possibility that Madeleine was abducted and the parents not  guilty without at the same time making it patently clear that they think the idea is risible and virtually impossible?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 07:30:02 PM
In Madeleine, Kate recounts 'choosing' an interpreter for her arguida interview I think (it could have been the marathon interrogation of the previous day) who to her astonishment roundly berated her for criticising interpreters when she tried to correct translation errors in her previous statement.

Why, without knowing the interpreter's opinion, do you believe Kate's account of what happened?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 07:45:23 PM
Can I ask why some/most sceptics never publicly seriously  explore the possibility that Madeleine was abducted and the parents not  guilty without at the same time making it patently clear that they think the idea is risible and virtually impossible?

Is that meant to be an answer to my post? I don't see the connection, sorry.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 07:52:15 PM
Why, without knowing the interpreter's opinion, do you believe Kate's account of what happened?

for me...because its very plausible...it perfectly fits the rest of the narrative....i dont see why kate would say this when she could easily be contradicted...and based on all the evidence I think Kate is innocent and believable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 08:31:59 PM
for me...because its very plausible...it perfectly fits the rest of the narrative....i dont see why kate would say this when she could easily be contradicted...and based on all the evidence I think Kate is innocent and believable

What makes it very plausible?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 04, 2019, 08:35:32 PM
Is that meant to be an answer to my post? I don't see the connection, sorry.
Not an answer just a question.  Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 08:43:03 PM
What makes it very plausible?

its plausible because translation is not an exact science...the translators as i understand were amateurs
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 08:55:15 PM
its plausible because translation is not an exact science...the translators as i understand were amateurs

Neither is memory. Kare signed the statement as correct on 4th May, then disagrees with ot on 6th September. Which translator do you think was an amateur and why?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 09:12:48 PM
Neither is memory. Kare signed the statement as correct on 4th May, then disagrees with ot on 6th September. Which translator do you think was an amateur and why?
You are making assumptions.. Murat was amateur... Was kates translator  professional..
Kate signed that she had read the, statement.. We know that is untrue



Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 09:44:47 PM
You are making assumptions.. Murat was amateur... Was kates translator  professional..
Kate signed that she had read the, statement.. We know that is untrue

I think it's you who are making assumptions. Assuning that all the interpreters were amateurs because one was.
You clearly have no idea what the status of Kate's interpreter on 6th May was, but you are quite happy to make  assertions despite your ignorance.

Kate ratified her statement, no matter how much you want to deny it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 09:53:04 PM
I think it's you who are making assumptions. Assuning that all the interpreters were amateurs because one was.
You clearly have no idea what the status of Kate's interpreter on 6th May was, but you are quite happy to make  assertions despite your ignorance.

Kate ratified her statement, no matter how much you want to deny it.

Kate didn't ratify her statement... That would be impossible.. She signed it..
And you are assuming kates intepreter was professionally qualified when we know the PJ used a complete amateur..
So what evidence is there that the intepreter was professionally qualified... None you are making an assumption
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 10:18:37 PM
Kate didn't ratify her statement... That would be impossible.. She signed it..
And you are assuming kates intepreter was professionally qualified when we know the PJ used a complete amateur..
So what evidence is there that the intepreter was professionally qualified... None you are making an assumption

The PJ used one amateur interpreter during a time of exceptional demand. The only assumption I'm making is that the British Consulate would only recommend qualified interpreters.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 10:25:56 PM
The PJ used one amateur interpreter during a time of exceptional demand. The only assumption I'm making is that the British Consulate would only recommend qualified interpreters.
cite for one amateur...its about time yoou started to abide by forum rules..lets start now...CITE...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2019, 10:45:33 PM
cite for one amateur...its about time yoou started to abide by forum rules..lets start now...CITE...
Well we know of at least one amateur translator - Robert Murat.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 04, 2019, 10:47:12 PM
Because no one has ever asked this sceptic to explore it publicly. I have explored the idea both and came to the conclusion that the so called evidence of an abduction was actually evidence of a staged one.

I'll be getting proved wrong shortly if the new suspect is ever convicted.
Yet we are led to believe that sceptics hold that abduction is just one of several possibilities and therefore cannot be ruled out. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 10:48:49 PM
Well we know of at least one amateur translator - Robert Murat.

so did the PJ use only one amateur...if they used one they may have used more...was Kates interpreter an amateur...perhaps she was...we dont know
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2019, 10:51:39 PM
so did the PJ use only one amateur...if they used one they may have used more...was Kates interpreter an amateur...perhaps she was...we dont know
Wasn't there supposed to be a list of approved interpreters?
IMO We'll never know the answer to that question.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 04, 2019, 11:00:42 PM
Yes, you may well be right but I'm on my own, I'm a sceptic. A sceptic who ruled out abduction as soon as he got to considering the window. The window with no jemmied shutter.
It’s amazing that the police are looking at German paedos seeing as how it’s so blatantly obvious the window wasn’t jemmied, innit though... (^&&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 11:04:35 PM
Yes, you may well be right but I'm on my own, I'm a sceptic. A sceptic who ruled out abduction as soon as he got to considering the window. The window with no jemmied shutter.

the window was never jemmied....and kate nor gerry ever said it was...but it was opened from the outside..thats my view
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 11:04:57 PM
cite for one amateur...its about time yoou started to abide by forum rules..lets start now...CITE...

You told ne there was one, despite having claimed there were more. Perhaps I should have demanded a cite from you to support your claim.

"the translators as i understand were amateurs" (your post at 8.43)

You wouldn't be trying to deflect from your attempt to suggest that Kate's interpreter on 6th September was an amateur, would you?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2019, 11:08:55 PM
Wasn't there supposed to be a list of approved interpreters?
IMO We'll never know the answer to that question.

If you read Kate's book she chose from a list. If you look at her 06/09 statement the list was provided by the British Consulate. No PJ involvement at all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 11:09:48 PM
You told ne there was one, despite having claimed there were more. Perhaps I should have demanded a cite from you to support your claim.

"the translators as i understand were amateurs" (your post at 8.43)

You wouldn't be trying to deflect from your attempt to suggest that Kate's interpreter on 6th September was an amateur, would you?

I never claimed there were more...my understanding is not a claim of fact..its my understanding....

lets look at the facts..
was the interpreter professional....we do not know ..FACT

is the transaltion accurate...we do not know...FACT
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2019, 11:11:06 PM
If you read Kate's book she chose from a list. If you look at her 06/09 statement the list was provided by the British Consulate. No PJ involvement at all.

who supplied the list to the consulate...were they professional...you dont know....FACT
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2019, 11:49:06 PM
If you read Kate's book she chose from a list. If you look at her 06/09 statement the list was provided by the British Consulate. No PJ involvement at all.

Kate recounted that she was handed a list of interpreters by Ricardo Paiva who instructed her to choose one.  That was no way to make any sort of informed decision.
She opted for the first name on the list provided by the PJ and handed to her by the PJ.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2019, 08:35:35 AM
Kate recounted that she was handed a list of interpreters by Ricardo Paiva who instructed her to choose one.  That was no way to make any sort of informed decision.
She opted for the first name on the list provided by the PJ and handed to her by the PJ.

A list provided by the British Consulate. I think that was very wise of the PJ. Using the Consulate's list and letting her choose meant they couldn't be accused of providing a biased interpreter. Every British Consulate has such a list.
 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/lists-of-translators-and-interpreters
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2019, 08:49:00 AM
A list provided by the British Consulate. I think that was very wise of the PJ. Using the Consulate's list and letting her choose meant they couldn't be accused of providing a biased interpreter. Every British Consulate has such a list.
 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/lists-of-translators-and-interpreters

I haven't  been able to open the list yet... But how reliable are these interpreters... This is what the guidance is...


20 Dec 2013 · These lists have been compiled by British embassies, high commissions and consulates abroad. Our aim is to provide British nationals with relevant information to make better-informed decisions but they are not recommendations and should not be treated as such.




So not recommendations
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2019, 09:11:22 AM
I haven't  been able to open the list yet... But how reliable are these interpreters... This is what the guidance is...


20 Dec 2013 · These lists have been compiled by British embassies, high commissions and consulates abroad. Our aim is to provide British nationals with relevant information to make better-informed decisions but they are not recommendations and should not be treated as such.
So not recommendations

Also untouched by PJ hands, which in this case is the important point imo. I expect they could have hired their own interpreter had they had concerns. Strangely there's no mention of them seeking advice or support before these interviews. They didn't even seem to consult their lawyer.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2019, 09:14:32 AM
Also untouched by PJ hands, which in this case is the important point imo. I expect they could have hired their own interpreter had they had concerns. Strangely there's no mention of them seeking advice or support before these interviews. They didn't even seem to consult their lawyer.
Why would they need to consult a lawyer... Innocent parents being interviewed as witnesses... Still no idea on the qualifications of the interpreters
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2019, 09:24:17 AM
A list provided by the British Consulate. I think that was very wise of the PJ. Using the Consulate's list and letting her choose meant they couldn't be accused of providing a biased interpreter. Every British Consulate has such a list.
 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/lists-of-translators-and-interpreters
If the PJ had been eise they would have recorded the statements in English... It was pretty stupid of them not to
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2019, 10:27:49 AM
Why would they need to consult a lawyer... Innocent parents being interviewed as witnesses... Still no idea on the qualifications of the interpreters

They were informed on 3rd that they were going to be made arguidos. Accotding to Kate they socialised and went running. No mention of seeking advice. They only reacted after Kate's 6th Sept interview, it seems.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 05, 2019, 10:30:43 AM
the window was never jemmied....and kate nor gerry ever said it was...but it was opened from the outside..thats my view
Big man, old ground again, but both Kate and Gerry told numerous friends and family, and in turn they told the media many, many times.
Unless the friends and family all lied, of course. Or Gerry and/or Kate lied, of course.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2019, 10:33:37 AM
Big man, old ground again, but both Kate and Gerry told numerous friends and family, and in turn they told the media many, many times.
Unless the friends and family all lied, of course. Or Gerry and/or Kate lied, of course.

no one lied...and there is no comfirmation that Kate or Gerry used the word Gemmied...its a  chinese whisper
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 05, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
no one lied...and there is no comfirmation that Kate or Gerry used the word Gemmied...its a  chinese whisper
. There's a very well established list of people who all went on record and discussed 'jemmied' or a variation thereof and they all state Kate or Gerry said so.
I would be arsed to provide a list, but you would dismiss it out of hand, so no real point.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2019, 10:39:21 AM
Big man, old ground again, but both Kate and Gerry told numerous friends and family, and in turn they told the media many, many times.
Unless the friends and family all lied, of course. Or Gerry and/or Kate lied, of course.

You obviously don't understand the term, "Jemmied."  And I thought you were from Glasgow.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2019, 10:41:59 AM
No it's not, racist*. There's a very well established list of people who all went on record and discussed 'jemmied' or a variation thereof and they all state Kate or Gerry said so.
I would be arsed to provide a list, but you would dismiss it out of hand, so no real point.


*That's a joke, you're not racist, big man.

AFAIAC...neither kate nor Gerry used teh ...they were under the impression taht the window had been forced open...which suggests to me they were telling the truth
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 05, 2019, 10:44:33 AM
You obviously don't understand the term, "Jemmied."  And I thought you were from Glasgow.
Jemmied: To crack open with a big, old crow bar. To go equipped to break and enter. To lever open a locked shutter, window, roller shutter, car door.
I understand the term alright. But an unlocked shutter doesnae need nae jemmyin.
'Look, I can literally open it from the outside, look everyone, it merely pushes up'.
Hence the revisionism.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 05, 2019, 10:46:23 AM
AFAIAC...neither kate nor Gerry used teh ...they were under the impression taht the window had been forced open...which suggests to me they were telling the truth
So all of these friends and family all decided upon the same term independently of eachother?
Maybe they were telling the truth, maybe they thought they had been jemmied. Without checking.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2019, 10:46:46 AM
Jemmied: To crack open with a big, old crow bar. To go equipped to break and enter. To lever open a locked shutter, window, roller shutter, car door.
I understand the term alright. But an unlocked shutter doesnae need nae jemmyin.
'Look, I can literally open it from the outside, look everyone, it merely pushes up'.
Hence the revisionism.

This does not always require a Jemmy.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2019, 10:48:52 AM
If the PJ had been eise they would have recorded the statements in English... It was pretty stupid of them not to

When visiting other coountries it's necessary to accept that they do things differently.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 05, 2019, 10:51:37 AM
This does not always require a Jemmy.
A large screwdriver? A wrecking bar? A 1t excavator? A lollipop stick? A twig? A Twiglet? A 0.4mm Feeler Gauge? A horse's femur? A scaffold pole? A carrot?
Are we agreed that the implement needs to be at least stronger than the material of the mechanism which it is forcing?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2019, 10:54:12 AM
When visiting other coountries it's necessary to accept that they do things differently.

doesnt make it right...a recent case in DUbai where the statement was written in arabic with no translation offered and the suspect forced to sign...by your argument you class taht as acceptable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 05, 2019, 10:59:40 AM
doesnt make it right...a recent case in DUbai where the statement was written in arabic with no translation offered and the suspect forced to sign...by your argument you class taht as acceptable
Dubai with their version of Shari'a law? That Dubai?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2019, 11:06:01 AM
A large screwdriver? A wrecking bar? A 1t excavator? A lollipop stick? A twig? A Twiglet? A 0.4mm Feeler Gauge? A horse's femur? A scaffold pole? A carrot?
Are we agreed that the implement needs to be at least stronger than the material of the mechanism which it is forcing?

Forcing what?  The Shutters were later found to be lifted by hand by a Sceptic.  But no one knew that at the time.

Jemmied for Breaking In has long been common parlance in Glasgow.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2019, 11:08:08 AM
doesnt make it right...a recent case in DUbai where the statement was written in arabic with no translation offered and the suspect forced to sign...by your argument you class taht as acceptable

Why should it be acceptable to British people? Who put us in charge of what's right or wrong? It's not as though our judiciary and police are perfect; they're not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: jassi on May 05, 2019, 11:23:17 AM
Why should it be acceptable to British people? Who put us in charge of what's right or wrong? It's not as though our judiciary and police are perfect; they're not.


It's not a matter  of right or wrong, it's a matter of what is legally required or accepted in the country involved.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2019, 11:43:00 AM
Why should it be acceptable to British people? Who put us in charge of what's right or wrong? It's not as though our judiciary and police are perfect; they're not.

Then you have no concept of justice and... Right and wrong

Portugal is a signatory to the Echr....I doubt the way statements were taken would be regarded as acceptable..
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 05, 2019, 03:24:26 PM
Then you have no concept of justice and... Right and wrong

Portugal is a signatory to the Echr....I doubt the way statements were taken would be regarded as acceptable..

In what way were they not acceptable iyo?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2019, 03:26:35 PM
In what way were they not acceptable iyo?

No Proof that they were accurate.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 05, 2019, 03:34:14 PM
No Proof that they were accurate.

The originals were all signed by the person giving the statement and I am yet to see a translation which was inaccurate so I find your suggestion puzzling.  It is common knowledge that Gerry McCann changed his statement, he even had to admit it so the suggestion that the PJ somehow were incompetent in taking statements is inaccurate imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2019, 03:35:47 PM
The originals were all signed by the person giving the statement and I am yet to see a translation which was inaccurate so I fi d your suggestion puzzling.

No Language perfectly translates.  There is always room for error or nuances.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 05, 2019, 03:41:05 PM
No Language perfectly translates.  There is always room for error or nuances.

I have found them to be of very high quality despite the language problems you highlight.  Gerry McCann's memory lapses cannot be explained away in such a way and that is the difficulty for many sceptics.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
I have found them to be of very high quality despite the language problems you highlight.

They could well be of high quality.  But in a Court of Law they have to be perfect.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on May 05, 2019, 05:59:57 PM
Big man, old ground again, but both Kate and Gerry told numerous friends and family, and in turn they told the media many, many times.
Unless the friends and family all lied, of course. Or Gerry and/or Kate lied, of course.

Gerry found that the shutter could be raised from outside,   was it supposed to do that?   If the shutter was onlly supposed to be raised by using the control in the bedroom then,  yes it was broken.   Gerry by the sound of it was very upset 'roaring like a bull'  it was said,  so maybe he did say it was broken or levered up.   How can anyone suggest that he was lying about it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 05, 2019, 06:00:53 PM
who supplied the list to the consulate...were they professional...you dont know....FACT
at least they were "approved" in order to appear on the list.
Are we now using Kate's book as "evidence".  Sometimes it is acceptable and other times as not.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 05, 2019, 06:05:33 PM
Also untouched by PJ hands, which in this case is the important point imo. I expect they could have hired their own interpreter had they had concerns. Strangely there's no mention of them seeking advice or support before these interviews. They didn't even seem to consult their lawyer.
A lawyer was allowed to be present.  (My understanding of the situation only.)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 05, 2019, 06:31:18 PM
It’s amazing that the police are looking at German paedos seeing as how it’s so blatantly obvious the window wasn’t jemmied, innit though... (^&&

The window wasn't jemmied?  oh...

'Gerry rings his sister, Trish Cameron, at 23:40 on 03 May 2007
Heart specialist Gerry McCann rang his sister Trish in Scotland after Maddy vanished from her cot placed between two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.

Trish revealed yesterday: "He was breaking his heart, saying 'Madeleine's been abducted, she's been abducted'."

Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters were jemmied open. Nothing had been touched and no valuables taken."

"Kate came screaming back to the group crying, 'They’ve taken her, they’ve taken her'. Gerry was crying and roaring like a bull."

"They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her."

Link to Daily Mirror article containing this quote'


Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.


Jon Corner, a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said Kate telephoned him in the middle of the night distraught.
He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'

Gerrys blog:http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id31.htm


As it turns out the window and shutters were not tampered with at all...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 05, 2019, 06:51:43 PM
If the window was shut and it is later found open it has been tampered with IMO.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 05, 2019, 06:55:40 PM
If the window was shut and it is later found open it has been tampered with IMO.

Not if it was Kate that opened it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 05, 2019, 07:01:39 PM
Not if it was Kate that opened it.

Indeed!
...  and there was NO evidence it was 'tampered 'with. who closed it?

Tampering implies neferious intent to use an implement to coerce an aparatus (window/shutter)which is not in a state which is preferred.(ie it is shut) One opens ones window- one does not tamper with ones window to open it...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on May 06, 2019, 08:16:01 AM
The window wasn't jemmied?  oh...

'Gerry rings his sister, Trish Cameron, at 23:40 on 03 May 2007
Heart specialist Gerry McCann rang his sister Trish in Scotland after Maddy vanished from her cot placed between two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.

Trish revealed yesterday: "He was breaking his heart, saying 'Madeleine's been abducted, she's been abducted'."

Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters were jemmied open. Nothing had been touched and no valuables taken."

"Kate came screaming back to the group crying, 'They’ve taken her, they’ve taken her'. Gerry was crying and roaring like a bull."

"They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her."

Link to Daily Mirror article containing this quote'


Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.


Jon Corner, a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said Kate telephoned him in the middle of the night distraught.
He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'

Gerrys blog:http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id31.htm


As it turns out the window and shutters were not tampered with at all...

Forced open,  jemmied open,  for goodness sake,  Gerry found they could be opened from the outside,  he thought they were broken and had been forced open. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 06, 2019, 08:32:27 AM
Forced open,  jemmied open,  for goodness sake,  Gerry found they could be opened from the outside,  he thought they were broken and had been forced open.


Why use the window at all - if there had been someone observing them as they say on previous nights.

They would have seen that the doors were left open.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 08:41:32 AM

Why use the window at all - if there had been someone observing them as they say on previous nights.

They would have seen that the doors were left open.
Why stage an abduction by opening a window and shutter claiming it was jemmied and then not actually jemmy it and then closing it? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 06, 2019, 08:47:12 AM

Why use the window at all - if there had been someone observing them as they say on previous nights.

They would have seen that the doors were left open.

Only the patio door was left open & no one went in or out of it without tidying up after themselves.
The front door was locked, the fairytale abductor required a key to enter it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 06, 2019, 08:53:16 AM
Why stage an abduction by opening a window and shutter claiming it was jemmied and then not actually jemmy it and then closing it?


Wasnt it the blowing curtains/slamming door - that alerted kmc to look in the bedroom.

Something had to attract her attention - or how else would she have known Maddie had gone.  8**8:/:
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 06, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Only the patio door was left open & no one went in or out of it without tidying up after themselves.
The front door was locked, the fairytale abductor required a key to enter it.



Or maybe the window would have been jemmied- but backfired in the time scale and obvious panic.

Maybe not - no fingerprints were found only kmcs
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 09:04:31 AM

Wasnt it the blowing curtains/slamming door - that alerted kmc to look in the bedroom.

Something had to attract her attention - or how else would she have known Maddie had gone.  8**8:/:
Ooh,now let’s see, she could have claimed one of the twins cried out in their sleep or she went in to make sure they were all covered up with blankets, don’t you think?  8**8:/:
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 06, 2019, 09:15:42 AM
Ooh,now let’s see, she could have claimed one of the twins cried out in their sleep or she went in to make sure they were all covered up with blankets, don’t you think?  8**8:/:

What - wouldn't she have had to wake one of them up if that was the case.

That wouldn't have been easy -  would it.

Make sure they where all covered up with blankets - no I don't think.  8**8:/:
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2019, 09:51:33 AM
Ooh,now let’s see, she could have claimed one of the twins cried out in their sleep or she went in to make sure they were all covered up with blankets, don’t you think?  8**8:/:

That wouldn't have allowed her to deduce abduction immediately.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 09:52:43 AM
That wouldn't have allowed her to deduce abduction immediately.
It would if she’d claimed she looked at Madeleine’s bed and there was no Madeleine.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 09:54:03 AM
What - wouldn't she have had to wake one of them up if that was the case.

That wouldn't have been easy -  would it.

Make sure they where all covered up with blankets - no I don't think.  8**8:/:
Zero logic in you post IMO.  Are you a parent?  Are you not familiar with the idea of making sure your young children are covered up at night?   &%%6
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on May 06, 2019, 09:56:25 AM

Why use the window at all - if there had been someone observing them as they say on previous nights.

They would have seen that the doors were left open.

They would also have seen many people up and down the patio area.   The front door was more secluded.    It could be the person got in through the window and handed Madeleine out to another person,  or came in through the window and went out through the door,  or just opened the window once inside to hand Madeleine out through it,  or to get suspicion away from the fact they had a key,  or just as a quick getaway if caught in the room.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 10:09:47 AM
They would also have seen many people up and down the patio area.   The front door was more secluded.    It could be the person got in through the window and handed Madeleine out to another person,  or came in through the window and went out through the door,  or just opened the window once inside to hand Madeleine out through it,  or to get suspicion away from the fact they had a key,  or just as a quick getaway if caught in the room.
The latter is the most plausible explanation in my view.  Makes total sense.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2019, 10:12:03 AM
It would if she’d claimed she looked at Madeleine’s bed and there was no Madeleine.

Would she have known immediately that Madeleome had been taken? Not accordinf to her. Har first thought was that Madeleine was in her parent's bed. It was the opin window and shutters that told her what had happened.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on May 06, 2019, 10:30:09 AM
Only the patio door was left open & no one went in or out of it without tidying up after themselves.
The front door was locked, the fairytale abductor required a key to enter it.

Can you explain how the person who entered apartments to get into bed with children actually entered the apartments?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2019, 10:44:37 AM
Gerry found that the shutter could be raised from outside,   was it supposed to do that?   If the shutter was onlly supposed to be raised by using the control in the bedroom then,  yes it was broken.   Gerry by the sound of it was very upset 'roaring like a bull'  it was said,  so maybe he did say it was broken or levered up.   How can anyone suggest that he was lying about it?

Who actually saw him raise the shutters? DP entered the apartment after the alarm and never saw it. Read his rog. And more importantly, why would Kate ask DW to try and raise them which she was unable to do if Gerry had already done so?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 10:48:44 AM
Would she have known immediately that Madeleome had been taken? Not accordinf to her. Har first thought was that Madeleine was in her parent's bed. It was the opin window and shutters that told her what had happened.
Why does thr “immediately “ factor matter in this scenario?  After checking the apartment she would have been able to conclude (remember in this scenario she s alleging an abduction) that Madeleine must have been taken.  It’s really tiresome to have to keep pointing out the obvious. 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 06, 2019, 10:56:08 AM
If the window was shut and it is later found open it has been tampered with IMO.

People forget that pushing up the shutter doesn't allow access to the bedroom if the window is closed and secured.  The only way an intruder could get into that bedroom via the window was if the window was open to begin with.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 06, 2019, 10:58:10 AM
Zero logic in you post IMO.  Are you a parent?  Are you not familiar with the idea of making sure your young children are covered up at night?   &%%6




Well being logic  @)(++(*

She wasn't going to to do that anyway was she - make sure her little ones were covered up

If the door hadn't of slammed -  she would have gone straight back out

But hey your right a caring parent would have done that - but she wasn't going to was she.


As for asking what I would do VS - I'm not the one who left the little ones alone am i
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 06, 2019, 10:59:43 AM
Can you explain how the person who entered apartments to get into bed with children actually entered the apartments?

Through an open window?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 06, 2019, 11:01:14 AM
They would also have seen many people up and down the patio area.   The front door was more secluded.    It could be the person got in through the window and handed Madeleine out to another person,  or came in through the window and went out through the door,  or just opened the window once inside to hand Madeleine out through it,  or to get suspicion away from the fact they had a key,  or just as a quick getaway if caught in the room.


Or it could be there was no abductor at all imo - same as nothing to prove there was.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 06, 2019, 11:05:02 AM
People forget that pushing up the shutter doesn't allow access to the bedroom if the window is closed and secured.  The only way an intruder could get into that bedroom via the window was if the window was open to begin with.
How many means of potential access and egress does one family want to leave open, then abandon their kids?
Or is that the point of the obfuscation? Look at how many ways an abductorburglar could gain access.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 11:05:21 AM



Well being logic  @)(++(*

She wasn't going to to do that anyway was she - make sure her little ones were covered up

If the door hadn't of slammed -  she would have gone straight back out

But hey your right a caring parent would have done that - but she wasn't going to was she.


As for asking what I would do VS - I'm not the one who left the little ones alone am i
Once again a complete absence of logic.  you are claiming the window had to have been opened to give Kate an excuse to go into the room. I am giving you other reasons she could have used as excuses for going into the room, which you are now using as ammunition to attack Kate McCann for being an uncaring parent claiming she wouldn’t have cared if her kids were covered up or not.  Can you not see how loopy this is?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 11:06:45 AM
People forget that pushing up the shutter doesn't allow access to the bedroom if the window is closed and secured.  The only way an intruder could get into that bedroom via the window was if the window was open to begin with.
Open or unlocked?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on May 06, 2019, 11:08:47 AM
Through an open window?

Well did the police check to see if there were any fingerprints on the window?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 06, 2019, 11:31:01 AM
Well did the police check to see if there were any fingerprints on the window?

I don’t know, and I’d hazard a guess neither do you, but it’s not important. What is important is that an open window is a possible means of entry.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 06, 2019, 11:36:38 AM
Once again a complete absence of logic.  you are claiming the window had to have been opened to give Kate an excuse to go into the room. I am giving you other reasons she could have used as excuses for going into the room, which you are now using as ammunition to attack Kate McCann for being an uncaring parent claiming she wouldn’t have cared if her kids were covered up or not.  Can you not see how loopy this is?


Ok then maybe she never thought of that - because it's something she wouldn't have done anyway
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2019, 12:04:11 PM
Open or unlocked?

If an intruder wishes to gain entry he or she will be perfectly capable of doing so ... as in the case of the many burglaries which took place in the Algarve at the time. https://youtu.be/oKx0ND1jBwA

Snip
The parents concluded that it had been the same man who, the previous day, had tampered with the mechanism of the glass sliding doors. Once that was done, getting into the villa had been easy.
Summers & Swan

Recounting in their book on Madeleine about an intruder who gained access to a villa and climbed into bed with a young girl.

A practice Kate wrote about in her book which was roundly derided by sceptics at the time but evidence of which had to be accepted when DCI Redwood highlighted it on Crimewatch.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 06, 2019, 12:19:00 PM
If an intruder wishes to gain entry he or she will be perfectly capable of doing so ... as in the case of the many burglaries which took place in the Algarve at the time. https://youtu.be/oKx0ND1jBwA

Snip
The parents concluded that it had been the same man who, the previous day, had tampered with the mechanism of the glass sliding doors. Once that was done, getting into the villa had been easy.
Summers & Swan

Recounting in their book on Madeleine about an intruder who gained access to a villa and climbed into bed with a young girl.

A practice Kate wrote about in her book which was roundly derided by sceptics at the time but evidence of which had to be accepted when DCI Redwood highlighted it on Crimewatch.

Which villa are S&S referring to?

Presumably not 5A as that was a fairly bijou apartment, plus K&G admit to leaving the patio doors unlocked for ease of entry.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2019, 12:30:40 PM
Which villa are S&S referring to?

Presumably not 5A as that was a fairly bijou apartment, plus K&G admit to leaving the patio doors unlocked for ease of entry.

A more detailed account can be read in the Summers & Swan book.

The point I was making in my post was that at the time of Madeleine's disappearance home invasions ... some of which involved assaults on children ... were rife in the Algarve region.
There was little publicity or recognition  https://youtu.be/oKx0ND1jBwA which raises the question of whether the tourist industry took precedence over public information and safety.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 06, 2019, 12:31:07 PM
Open or unlocked?
Unlocked would be enough.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2019, 12:38:21 PM
Why does thr “immediately “ factor matter in this scenario?  After checking the apartment she would have been able to conclude (remember in this scenario she s alleging an abduction) that Madeleine must have been taken.  It’s really tiresome to have to keep pointing out the obvious.

It seems to matter to KaIte McCann, not me. She likes to repeat it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 12:47:23 PM
It seems to matter to KaIte McCann, not me. She likes to repeat it.
So what has that got to do with faking an abduction or otherwise?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 06, 2019, 01:55:17 PM
Can you explain how the person who entered apartments to get into bed with children actually entered the apartments?

Sure. Can you show me the various case files, witness statements & news reports from each of these alleged incidents?
Then I can go from there.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Lace on May 06, 2019, 02:05:35 PM
Sure. Can you show me the various case files, witness statements & news reports from each of these alleged incidents?
Then I can go from there.



No forced entry -   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10707647/Madeleine-McCann-hunt-for-man-who-sexually-assaulted-five-British-girls-in-Algarve.html
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 06, 2019, 02:16:32 PM


No forced entry -   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10707647/Madeleine-McCann-hunt-for-man-who-sexually-assaulted-five-British-girls-in-Algarve.html

Is that it. It's all rather vague  That article describes them as break ins, then says, as with the McCann case, there was no sign of forced entry. Not much of a break in if nothing is broken?
No sorry. Vague media reports aren't enough for me to reach an adequate conclusion. I need to see something more in depth than that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 06, 2019, 02:23:05 PM


No forced entry -   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10707647/Madeleine-McCann-hunt-for-man-who-sexually-assaulted-five-British-girls-in-Algarve.html

There would be no forced entry if the window was already open.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2019, 02:37:12 PM
There would be no forced entry if the window was already open.

There would be no forced entry if teh shutter was easily raised and the window was not locked which seems highly possible....my thoughts are the mccanns thought they were security shutters and could only be opened by using force
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 06, 2019, 03:24:17 PM
A more detailed account can be read in the Summers & Swan book.

The point I was making in my post was that at the time of Madeleine's disappearance home invasions ... some of which involved assaults on children ... were rife in the Algarve region.
There was little publicity or recognition  https://youtu.be/oKx0ND1jBwA which raises the question of whether the tourist industry took precedence over public information and safety.

From the little I know about Paul Luckman, if he knew of such information, he would have been extremely interested in it.  He peddles news, not the tourist industry.  So one cannot accuse him of 'protecting' the tourist industry.  He makes not a bean from it.

Ditto Natasha Donn.

Do you have anything to support your allegation, not from OG, but from local articles of that time?

Why does no one mention that OC guests, whether MW, Thomson, or other, were given a simple piece of guidance to keep the properties and their valuables safe at all times.

It simply does not stack up, does it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2019, 03:48:36 PM
From the little I know about Paul Luckman, if he knew of such information, he would have been extremely interested in it.  He peddles news, not the tourist industry.  So one cannot accuse him of 'protecting' the tourist industry.  He makes not a bean from it.

Ditto Natasha Donn.

Do you have anything to support your allegation, not from OG, but from local articles of that time?

Why does no one mention that OC guests, whether MW, Thomson, or other, were given a simple piece of guidance to keep the properties and their valuables safe at all times.

It simply does not stack up, does it?

I cannot speak for Paul Luckman or his motives ... the interview video, the link to which I have posted says it all I think and confirms much of the state of denial prevalent regarding Madeleine's case from start to the present day.

Snip
Mr. Paul Luckman, 'The Portugal News' Editor - Well, I don't know. I checked out with the management in that villa, and there were no reports of any additional activity in that time surrounding, either in regard with this charity collection or with robberies. They do carry on...

Eamonn Holmes - [speaks on top and interrupts P.L.] They, they, they said on the reports last night there were six robberies. [silence] The reports last night said there were six robberies.

Mr. Paul Luckman - Yeah, I heard it. We - I've been checking. Yep. Couldn't find anything to back that one up.
Joana Morais

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2019, 03:54:37 PM
There would be no forced entry if teh shutter was easily raised and the window was not locked which seems highly possible....my thoughts are the mccanns thought they were security shutters and could only be opened by using force

At one time I thought shutters of that type on the continent were security shutters and when they were down acted as such.  I think many holidaymakers from more Northern climes thought as I did.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 06, 2019, 04:23:57 PM
I cannot speak for Paul Luckman or his motives ... the interview video, the link to which I have posted says it all I think and confirms much of the state of denial prevalent regarding Madeleine's case from start to the present day.

Snip
Mr. Paul Luckman, 'The Portugal News' Editor - Well, I don't know. I checked out with the management in that villa, and there were no reports of any additional activity in that time surrounding, either in regard with this charity collection or with robberies. They do carry on...

Eamonn Holmes - [speaks on top and interrupts P.L.] They, they, they said on the reports last night there were six robberies. [silence] The reports last night said there were six robberies.

Mr. Paul Luckman - Yeah, I heard it. We - I've been checking. Yep. Couldn't find anything to back that one up.
Joana Morais

That's hardly a cite that he knew about 6 robberies and was covering them up to protect the tourist industry, is it?

That's cite that he claims he wasn't aware of them.  Quite a different kettle of fish.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2019, 05:13:12 PM
So what has that got to do with faking an abduction or otherwise?

It got the abduction theory into the narrative straight away.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 05:22:52 PM
It got the abduction theory into the narrative straight away.
And what difference do you think a few minutes would have made to the narrative?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 06, 2019, 05:28:34 PM
There would be no forced entry if teh shutter was easily raised and the window was not locked which seems highly possible....my thoughts are the mccanns thought they were security shutters and could only be opened by using force

I wasn’t talking about 5a but the other alleged break ins. I think the premise from Lace, or Misty was that a key must have been used because there was no forced entry. Thank you for making my point for me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 06, 2019, 05:51:46 PM

I don't speak for all sceptics.
We are all individuals as far as I'm aware.
I know I am.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 06, 2019, 06:33:12 PM
I don't speak for all sceptics.
We are all individuals as far as I'm aware.
I know I am.
I’m just using you as an example of a sceptic with beliefs, hope that’s ok?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2019, 07:00:00 PM
That's hardly a cite that he knew about 6 robberies and was covering them up to protect the tourist industry, is it?

That's cite that he claims he wasn't aware of them.  Quite a different kettle of fish.

I said ...
"The point I was making in my post was that at the time of Madeleine's disappearance home invasions ... some of which involved assaults on children ... were rife in the Algarve region.
There was little publicity or recognition  https://youtu.be/oKx0ND1jBwA which raises the question of whether the tourist industry took precedence over public information and safety."
_______________________________________________________________

I did not claim Paul Luckman knew about six robberies

Paul Luckman at the time was a newspaper editor whose job it was to inform his readers.
He was probably interviewed in the expectation that if anyone had a finger on the pulse of events ... he would be the man.

Apparently he just didn't have a clue about current and recent events in the Algarve ... Aemonn Holmes as a frequent visitor and a robbery victim did ... no wonder he could not disguise his astonishment that a guy whose job was the dissemination of information was so ill equipped to perform the task.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 06, 2019, 07:17:30 PM
I said ...
"The point I was making in my post was that at the time of Madeleine's disappearance home invasions ... some of which involved assaults on children ... were rife in the Algarve region.
There was little publicity or recognition  https://youtu.be/oKx0ND1jBwA which raises the question of whether the tourist industry took precedence over public information and safety."
_______________________________________________________________

I did not claim Paul Luckman knew about six robberies

Paul Luckman at the time was a newspaper editor whose job it was to inform his readers.
He was probably interviewed in the expectation that if anyone had a finger on the pulse of events ... he would be the man.

Apparently he just didn't have a clue about current and recent events in the Algarve ... Aemonn Holmes as a frequent visitor and a robbery victim did ... no wonder he could not disguise his astonishment that a guy whose job was the dissemination of information was so ill equipped to perform the task.

AFAIK, Holmes had just had his house broken into, and was feeling a tad annoyed.

Luckman appeared to know very little about the alleged break-ins, as is evident from the link you have recently posted 3 times.

You have postulated it was an attempt to cover up burglaries in the Algarve to protect the tourism industry.

Do you really continue in the same vein?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2019, 08:07:38 PM
AFAIK, Holmes had just had his house broken into, and was feeling a tad annoyed.

Luckman appeared to know very little about the alleged break-ins, as is evident from the link you have recently posted 3 times.

You have postulated it was an attempt to cover up burglaries in the Algarve to protect the tourism industry.

Do you really continue in the same vein?

Is it your contention there were no burglaries etc in the Algarve?

Is it your contention there were no cases of hamesucken involving children?

Is it your contention there were no concerns about tourism in the wake of Madeleine's disappearance?

That seems to me to be the crux of your argument in relation to what I have posted.  Fine by me ... I think if so, you are definitely arguing your case on the correct thread.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 06, 2019, 08:20:16 PM
Is it your contention there were no burglaries etc in the Algarve?

Is it your contention there were no cases of hamesucken involving children?

Is it your contention there were no concerns about tourism in the wake of Madeleine's disappearance?

That seems to me to be the crux of your argument in relation to what I have posted.  Fine by me ... I think if so, you are definitely arguing your case on the correct thread.

What's hamesucken?

Your post might make sense then.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 06, 2019, 09:30:20 PM
Is it your contention there were no burglaries etc in the Algarve?

Is it your contention there were no cases of hamesucken involving children?

Is it your contention there were no concerns about tourism in the wake of Madeleine's disappearance?

That seems to me to be the crux of your argument in relation to what I have posted.  Fine by me ... I think if so, you are definitely arguing your case on the correct thread.

What is forgotten is that these things happen in every holiday resort.  Tourists are an easy target as most leave their brains and commonsense behind at passport control. 

Tourist resorts are a Mecca for burglars and thieves and just about every con trick you can think of.  The perps know that the police do not have the time to investigate every crime, choosing instead to give out a crime report so that the victims can claim on their insurance.  PdL was no different imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 07, 2019, 05:23:58 PM
Hey, Borg sceptic collective, explain this: if you were looking to create a narrative about your daughter being abducted from her bed, and you wanted everyone to think that the window had been used, wouldn't you open the window and shutters and remove any fingerprints (or if you were really clever, place 'innocuous' every day open / close fingerprints on the window)?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 07, 2019, 06:08:05 PM
Hey, Borg sceptic collective, explain this: if you were looking to create a narrative about your daughter being abducted from her bed, and you wanted everyone to think that the window had been used, wouldn't you open the window and shutters and remove any fingerprints (or if you were really clever, place 'innocuous' every day open / close fingerprints on the window)?
Dunno, but what I do know is that I’d force the shutters with a jemmy if I subsequently told anyone who’d listen that the shutter had been jemmied, and then I’d leave the staged scene exactly as I’d created, not then undo it all before the police got there.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2019, 06:19:48 PM
What is forgotten is that these things happen in every holiday resort.  Tourists are an easy target as most leave their brains and commonsense behind at passport control. 

Tourist resorts are a Mecca for burglars and thieves and just about every con trick you can think of.  The perps know that the police do not have the time to investigate every crime, choosing instead to give out a crime report so that the victims can claim on their insurance.  PdL was no different imo.

There's also the attitude of those holidaymakers who tend to see insurance claims as a way of recouping some of their costs. Not all insurance claims are truthful.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 07, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
What is forgotten is that these things happen in every holiday resort.  Tourists are an easy target as most leave their brains and commonsense behind at passport control. 

Tourist resorts are a Mecca for burglars and thieves and just about every con trick you can think of.  The perps know that the police do not have the time to investigate every crime, choosing instead to give out a crime report so that the victims can claim on their insurance.  PdL was no different imo.
Do kids get molested in their beds by strangers breaking in to their rooms in every holiday resort? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 07, 2019, 06:41:46 PM
There's also the attitude of those holidaymakers who tend to see insurance claims as a way of recouping some of their costs. Not all insurance claims are truthful.
there was no life insurance involved as far as we know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2019, 06:47:12 PM
there was no life insurance involved as far as we know.

Travel insurance; loads of claims for petty thefts.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 10, 2019, 02:44:27 PM
Travel insurance; loads of claims for petty thefts.

Discussion on another thread brings to mind a couple of widely held sceptic beliefs.  Namely that part of a child's skull had been found in Haute de la Garenne a former children's home in Jersey.  That sniffer dog Eddie had sniffed it out through many layers of concrete.

Just not so ... but defended still ~ and believed ~ despite having been thoroughly investigated and refuted.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

Eddie may have barked in Jersey ... much as he did in Praia da Luz if the videos of both are to be given any credence ... but absolutely no-one knows why he was barking.  JAR6 was not any part of a murder victim.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 10, 2019, 03:48:53 PM
Discussion on another thread brings to mind a couple of widely held sceptic beliefs.  Namely that part of a child's skull had been found in Haute de la Garenne a former children's home in Jersey.  That sniffer dog Eddie had sniffed it out through many layers of concrete.

Just not so ... but defended still ~ and believed ~ despite having been thoroughly investigated and refuted.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

Eddie may have barked in Jersey ... much as he did in Praia da Luz if the videos of both are to be given any credence ... but absolutely no-one knows why he was barking.  JAR6 was not any part of a murder victim.

Eddie barked incorrectly 11 times ? Is that what you would have us believe ?

Now here’s the thing. If Eddie had barked at only one item connected to the McCanns I can believe that that could have been a false alert but to alert 11 times and only to items belonging to the parents stretches even my credulity to breaking point. For that to have happened Eddie couldn’t simply have been wrong, in fact it would suggest that his owner was behaving in a dishonest manner. This however begs the question what he had to gain from such behaviour? He would know that no forensics would be found to legitimise the alerts and, as he himself says, the alerts are only of evidential value if they are verified by forensics.

So what did Grime have t gain ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2019, 04:07:09 PM
Eddie barked incorrectly 11 times ? Is that what you would have us believe ?

Quite possibly.... If the Barks themselves could be shown to be reliable they would be a firm of evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 10, 2019, 05:34:51 PM
Discussion on another thread brings to mind a couple of widely held sceptic beliefs.  Namely that part of a child's skull had been found in Haute de la Garenne a former children's home in Jersey.  That sniffer dog Eddie had sniffed it out through many layers of concrete.

Just not so ... but defended still ~ and believed ~ despite having been thoroughly investigated and refuted.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

Eddie may have barked in Jersey ... much as he did in Praia da Luz if the videos of both are to be given any credence ... but absolutely no-one knows why he was barking.  JAR6 was not any part of a murder victim.

I have no idea what this has to do with bogus or inflated insurance claims.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 10, 2019, 05:48:43 PM
The Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) in Jersey apparently laid great store in “similar fact evidence” which I refer to as The Moorov Doctrine the principals of which are ...
Series of offences connected closely in "time, character and circumstance and have underlying unity." Evidence of one witness in a series of two or more separate offences capable of providing corroboration for the evidence of a witness in another case or cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorov_v_HM_Advocate

On the basis of which the belief and the mystique which sceptics have woven around Eddie the dog tends to be blown out of the water when the results of the Jersey investigation are considered rationally in conjunction with what happened in Portugal.

I believe 160 individuals alleged being abused in Haute de la Garenne … I do not believe a single one of whom alleged anything about murder.
The actual informant was a psychotic woman and maybe? Eddie barking at concrete when her information was being evaluated.  Something profound certainly happened to change the SIO opinion.

Snip
As the emails to Coupland demonstrate, at first Harper (SIO) displayed a healthy scepticism. So what made him change his mind? According to a senior detective who worked on Harper's team, one factor was sniffer dog Eddie's handler, Martin Grime.
'Grime made a presentation, showing him [Harper] a video of the dog finding the "scent of death" in Kate and Gerry McCann's car,' the detective said.
'They were still formal suspects and the case had got worldwide publicity. It seemed to get Lenny very excited.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html

Exhibit JAR6 definitely wasn't any part of a human body ... expert opinion classed it as wood.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 10, 2019, 05:51:04 PM
I have no idea what this has to do with bogus or inflated insurance claims.

The thread topic is "Sceptics beliefs" ... was I replying to an off topic post ???
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 10, 2019, 06:02:00 PM
Eddie barked incorrectly 11 times ? Is that what you would have us believe ?

Now here’s the thing. If Eddie had barked at only one item connected to the McCanns I can believe that that could have been a false alert but to alert 11 times and only to items belonging to the parents stretches even my credulity to breaking point. For that to have happened Eddie couldn’t simply have been wrong, in fact it would suggest that his owner was behaving in a dishonest manner. This however begs the question what he had to gain from such behaviour? He would know that no forensics would be found to legitimise the alerts and, as he himself says, the alerts are only of evidential value if they are verified by forensics.

So what did Grime have t gain ?
1
One word: Zampo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2019, 06:15:56 PM
Eddie barked incorrectly 11 times ? Is that what you would have us believe ?

Now here’s the thing. If Eddie had barked at only one item connected to the McCanns I can believe that that could have been a false alert but to alert 11 times and only to items belonging to the parents stretches even my credulity to breaking point. For that to have happened Eddie couldn’t simply have been wrong, in fact it would suggest that his owner was behaving in a dishonest manner. This however begs the question what he had to gain from such behaviour? He would know that no forensics would be found to legitimise the alerts and, as he himself says, the alerts are only of evidential value if they are verified by forensics.

So what did Grime have t gain ?

I believe grime encouraged eddie to alert in place where evidence might be found...like cuddle cat...what did grime have to gain........he may have found important evidence
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 10, 2019, 06:54:44 PM
I believe grime encouraged eddie to alert in place where evidence might be found...like cuddle cat...what did grime have to gain........he may have found important evidence

What evidence?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 10, 2019, 06:55:30 PM
What evidence?
Exactly!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 11, 2019, 10:15:41 AM
The Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) in Jersey apparently laid great store in “similar fact evidence” which I refer to as The Moorov Doctrine the principals of which are ...
Series of offences connected closely in "time, character and circumstance and have underlying unity." Evidence of one witness in a series of two or more separate offences capable of providing corroboration for the evidence of a witness in another case or cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorov_v_HM_Advocate

On the basis of which the belief and the mystique which sceptics have woven around Eddie the dog tends to be blown out of the water when the results of the Jersey investigation are considered rationally in conjunction with what happened in Portugal.

I believe 160 individuals alleged being abused in Haute de la Garenne … I do not believe a single one of whom alleged anything about murder.
The actual informant was a psychotic woman and maybe? Eddie barking at concrete when her information was being evaluated.  Something profound certainly happened to change the SIO opinion.

Snip
As the emails to Coupland demonstrate, at first Harper (SIO) displayed a healthy scepticism. So what made him change his mind? According to a senior detective who worked on Harper's team, one factor was sniffer dog Eddie's handler, Martin Grime.
'Grime made a presentation, showing him [Harper] a video of the dog finding the "scent of death" in Kate and Gerry McCann's car,' the detective said.
'They were still formal suspects and the case had got worldwide publicity. It seemed to get Lenny very excited.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html

Exhibit JAR6 definitely wasn't any part of a human body ... expert opinion classed it as wood.

I find this defence hilarious. If they have nothing to hide why bother  attacking the dogs? The book burners are surley in tow with the criminals when they refuse to have every aspect of the case looked at in details  rather than here
 Maddie was gone whooosh!  she was stole whoooosh. It wasn't us   whooosh. Yawn!

The other defence is: kate was wearning trousers which she wore to work. (GP=Corpse cadaver contamination) Lace made this clain on another thread It wasn't deleted- this will be. Because the supporters like the parents are out to enure their reputation is kept in tack IMO... sadly this is futile, as more people are becoming aware of the  the parents bizzare behaviour.

The parents also refute the woke and wandered theory as they say she couldn't get out and how rediculous it was to suggest it- however, they left a door unlocked so that Maddie could get out to.... oh it's just pathetic the rubbish they spout.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 11, 2019, 10:22:15 AM
I believe grime encouraged eddie to alert in place where evidence might be found...like cuddle cat...what did grime have to gain........he may have found important evidence


What did grime have to gain - well he would have had a lot to lose if Maddie had been found safe and well.

Wouldnt he D
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 10:33:55 AM

What did grime have to gain - well he would have had a lot to lose if Maddie had been found safe and well.

Wouldnt he D

No he wouldnt... It's happened before... The handler simply says the alerts are due to Cross contamination ...grime never said the alerts were to Madeleine... In fact he said they could be due to other scenarios... Read his statement
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 10:40:48 AM
I find this defence hilarious. If they have nothing to hide why bother  attacking the dogs? The book burners are surley in tow with the criminals when they refuse to have every aspect of the case looked at in details  rather than here
 Maddie was gone whooosh!  she was stole whoooosh. It wasn't us   whooosh. Yawn!

The other defence is: kate was wearning trousers which she wore to work. (GP=Corpse cadaver contamination) Lace made this clain on another thread It wasn't deleted- this will be. Because the supporters like the parents are out to enure their reputation is kept in tack IMO... sadly this is futile, as more people are becoming aware of the  the parents bizzare behaviour.

The parents also refute the woke and wandered theory as they say she couldn't get out and how rediculous it was to suggest it- however, they left a door unlocked so that Maddie could get out to.... oh it's just pathetic the rubbish they spout.

no one is attacking the dogs...I for one just want to correct the lies told about the dogs so we can judge tehm objectively......
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 11, 2019, 11:28:49 AM
No he wouldnt... It's happened before... The handler simply says the alerts are due to Cross contamination ...grime never said the alerts were to Madeleine... In fact he said they could be due to other scenarios... Read his statement

That's IYO - what you think he would say.

IMO he would have lost his credibility - if Maddie had turned up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 11, 2019, 11:42:50 AM
no one is attacking the dogs...I for one just want to correct the lies told about the dogs so we can judge tehm objectively......

EXACTLY! no one knows whos cadaver  gave an alert- which is why it is bizarre that Gerry laughs and tells Sandra to ask the dogs. Making fun of a serious situation. Hello Gerry your daughter may have been killed in the apartment by paedophiles...

 Well maybe he knows that didn't happpen. Without a serious discussion on a serious matter  what ARE we to believe-he laughs at the thought of it....
 I would be frantic if it was my daughter...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 11:59:12 AM
EXACTLY! no one knows whos cadaver  gave an alert- which is why it is bizarre that Gerry laughs and tells Sandra to ask the dogs. Making fun of a serious situation. Hello Gerry your daughter may have been killed in the apartment by paedophiles...

 Well maybe he knows that didn't happpen. Without a serious discussion on a serious matter  what ARE we to believe-he laughs at the thought of it....
 I would be frantic if it was my daughter...

no one knows if it was a cadaver eddie alerted to...thats teh basics
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 11, 2019, 12:33:21 PM
I find this defence hilarious. If they have nothing to hide why bother  attacking the dogs? The book burners are surley in tow with the criminals when they refuse to have every aspect of the case looked at in details  rather than here
 Maddie was gone whooosh!  she was stole whoooosh. It wasn't us   whooosh. Yawn!

The other defence is: kate was wearning trousers which she wore to work. (GP=Corpse cadaver contamination) Lace made this clain on another thread It wasn't deleted- this will be. Because the supporters like the parents are out to enure their reputation is kept in tack IMO... sadly this is futile, as more people are becoming aware of the  the parents bizzare behaviour.

The parents also refute the woke and wandered theory as they say she couldn't get out and how rediculous it was to suggest it- however, they left a door unlocked so that Maddie could get out to.... oh it's just pathetic the rubbish they spout.

Are you expressing your belief that Kate's trousers smelled of cadaver?

How do you explain that when the dog inspected them in the rented villa there was no alert ... but later, when the dog inspected them once they had been moved to the gymnasium, the dog alerted?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 11, 2019, 12:59:40 PM
Are you expressing your belief that Kate's trousers smelled of cadaver?

How do you explain that when the dog inspected them in the rented villa there was no alert ... but later, when the dog inspected them once they had been moved to the gymnasium, the dog alerted?

Clothes have to be screened separately because the dog has to get close to the item to 100% positively identify it. A general human example - you spend an evening in a smokey bar and you can smell the odour on the clothes when you get home but the dog can detect minute levels of odour - that's part of their training.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 01:03:55 PM
Clothes have to be screened separately because the dog has to get close to the item to 100% positively identify it. A general human example - you spend an evening in a smokey bar and you can smell the odour on the clothes when you get home but the dog can detect minute levels of odour - that's part of their training.

if all the clothes are put in one box they will contaminate each other...thats why they store evidence in plastic bags...the pj didnt have a clue
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 11, 2019, 01:18:07 PM
no one is attacking the dogs...I for one just want to correct the lies told about the dogs so we can judge tehm objectively......

Don’t you think it’s a little far fetched to suppose that Eddie was wrong 11 times and only to items related to the parents ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 11, 2019, 04:44:26 PM
Clothes have to be screened separately because the dog has to get close to the item to 100% positively identify it. A general human example - you spend an evening in a smokey bar and you can smell the odour on the clothes when you get home but the dog can detect minute levels of odour - that's part of their training.

The clothes were inspected in the villa where no alerts were given.  They were transported to a gymnasium where an alert was given.
If the dogs are as infallible as sceptics believe ... the alert would have been given in the villa ... not after transportation elsewhere suggesting contamination after the clothing had left the McCann's possession.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 04:48:27 PM
Don’t you think it’s a little far fetched to suppose that Eddie was wrong 11 times and only to items related to the parents ?

No... And I've explained  it, all many times... It's a Portuguese investigation and they say no evidence against the mccanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 11, 2019, 04:49:16 PM
Don’t you think it’s a little far fetched to suppose that Eddie was wrong 11 times and only to items related to the parents ?

Not as far fetched as it is to believe that in the length and breadth of Luz ... not a single solitary drop of blood has ever been spilled.
In fact we know that is not true from statements recorded in the police files of at least two instances in apartment 5A which had nothing at all to do with Madeleine's case.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 04:52:30 PM
Del
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 11, 2019, 04:56:36 PM
I'm quoting the head if the PJ

I'm quoting Kate herself, she acknowledges the evidence exists & she should know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 04:57:38 PM
I'm quoting Kate herself, she acknowledges the evidence exists & she should know.

There lots of evidence but according to the PJ none against the mccanns
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 11, 2019, 04:58:26 PM
There lots of evidence but according to the PJ none against the mccanns

Not according to Kate.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 04:59:39 PM
Not according to Kate.

Whatever
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 05:13:59 PM
Not as far fetched as it is to believe that in the length and breadth of Luz ... not a single solitary drop of blood has ever been spilled.
In fact we know that is not true from statements recorded in the police files of at least two instances in apartment 5A which had nothing at all to do with Madeleine's case.

Blood was spilled in Luz around that time.  Near the hotel Belavista, a short distance north of 5A.

It was investigated and found to be human.

It was found to be from a male, and considered to be nothing to do with MBM.  Hence it was eliminated from enquiries.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 11, 2019, 05:30:18 PM
EXACTLY! no one knows whos cadaver  gave an alert- which is why it is bizarre that Gerry laughs and tells Sandra to ask the dogs. Making fun of a serious situation. Hello Gerry your daughter may have been killed in the apartment by paedophiles...

 Well maybe he knows that didn't happpen. Without a serious discussion on a serious matter  what ARE we to believe-he laughs at the thought of it....
 I would be frantic if it was my daughter...
Please get a grip.  Did he laugh?  Was it full of mirth?  What about his reaction when he was first told of the dog alerts, any idea what that was?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 11, 2019, 05:30:59 PM
Don’t you think it’s a little far fetched to suppose that Eddie was wrong 11 times and only to items related to the parents ?
not at all.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 06:46:13 PM
not at all.
Why not? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 11, 2019, 06:47:53 PM
Why not?
Ask Zampo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 11, 2019, 06:54:27 PM
Not as far fetched as it is to believe that in the length and breadth of Luz ... not a single solitary drop of blood has ever been spilled.
In fact we know that is not true from statements recorded in the police files of at least two instances in apartment 5A which had nothing at all to do with Madeleine's case.

Are you really saying that Eddie was wrong 11 TIMES......not only that but alerted wrongly to item connected to no one else but the parents ? Do you know how long the odds would be to that occurring ?

Of course you could be saying that Grime was being dishonest and was cuing his dog.....but I’m sure you’re too sensible for that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 06:55:17 PM
Ask Zampo.
Zampo who?  What was his last name?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 11, 2019, 06:56:31 PM
Are you really saying that Eddie was wrong 11 TIMES......not only that but alerted wrongly to item connected to no one else but the parents ? Do you know how long the odds would be to that occurring ?

Of course you could be saying that Grime was being dishonest and was cuing his dog.....but I’m sure you’re too sensible for that.
What are the odds of a dog alerting in a wood multiple times where no body had ever been, but to which the handler had been told bodies had been taken?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 06:56:58 PM
Are you really saying that Eddie was wrong 11 TIMES......not only that but alerted wrongly to item connected to no one else but the parents ? Do you know how long the odds would be to that occurring ?

Of course you could be saying that Grime was being dishonest and was cuing his dog.....but I’m sure you’re too sensible for that.

Is the comment "but I’m sure you’re too sensible for that" an ad hominem fallacy?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 06:57:23 PM
Zampo who?  What was his last name?

A dog.  No last name.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 11, 2019, 06:58:35 PM
Is the comment "but I’m sure you’re too sensible for that" an ad hominem fallacy?
Give her a warning, it’s more of an ad hom than clever sausage imo.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:00:47 PM
Are you really saying that Eddie was wrong 11 TIMES......not only that but alerted wrongly to item connected to no one else but the parents ? Do you know how long the odds would be to that occurring ?

Of course you could be saying that Grime was being dishonest and was cuing his dog.....but I’m sure you’re too sensible for that.

I don't think Grime wad being dishonest but I think he was cuing the dog..  .the dog ignored placed initially....yet eventually  alerted to places it had previously shown no response to... That doesn't sound very precise to me and IMO suggests cuing
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 07:02:52 PM
A dog.  No last name.

As in Gerry's comment "ask the dogs".   Ask Eddie and Keela, and make them testify in court.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 11, 2019, 07:03:16 PM
I don't think Grime wad being dishonest but I think he was cuing the dog..  .the dog ignored placed initially....yet eventually  alerted to places it had previously shown no response to... That doesn't sound very precise to me and IMO suggests cuing

Absolute sophistry.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 11, 2019, 07:08:02 PM
Absolute sophistry.
No.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:10:39 PM
Absolute sophistry.

In you opinion.. But Rob only seems to enforce that rule on my posts
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:11:34 PM
Absolute sophistry.

My post is fact... Yours is opinion
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 07:16:17 PM
I don't think Grime wad being dishonest but I think he was cuing the dog..  .the dog ignored placed initially....yet eventually  alerted to places it had previously shown no response to... That doesn't sound very precise to me and IMO suggests cuing

I've seen drug dogs, in New Zealand I think, go past a person arriving at Auckland airport without alerting.

Then go back for a second bite at the cherry.

They are not laser guided missiles.  They're dogs!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:19:39 PM
I've seen drug dogs, in New Zealand I think, go past a person arriving at Auckland airport without alerting.

Then go back for a second bite at the cherry.

They are not laser guided missiles.  They're dogs!

You are quoting your opinion... It has no weight..
The PJ couldn't understand  why the dogs totally ignored places... Before alerting... In the other apartments... And the other cars... The dogs were not given a second chance..... How is thst a fair search... It isnt
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 11, 2019, 07:25:10 PM
My post is fact... Yours is opinion

Your post is sophistry. You can see how keen Eddie is to search 5a, even before he enters... there is no cuing.

Of course you think he consciously cued his dogs....you simply have no reason to explain why without looking like a real conspiracy nut.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:28:59 PM
Your post is sophistry. You can see how keen Eddie is to search 5a, even before he enters... there is no cuing.

Of course you think he consciously cued his dogs....you simply have no reason to explain why without looking like a real conspiracy nut.

The apartment probably stank of luminol and other forensic chemicals... Alerting Eddie to a forensic scene.. That's why he eas, excited IMO.. I think the conspiracy  nuts, are those that think SY and the govt ate protecting the mccanns... Are you one of those... Your post us simplistic  and childlike
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 07:30:04 PM
You are quoting your opinion... It has no weight..
The PJ couldn't understand  why the dogs totally ignored places... Before alerting... In the other apartments... And the other cars... The dogs were not given a second chance..... How is thst a fair search... It isnt

I'm not giving you my opinion.

I'm giving you just a single instance out of many where a police dog did not home in the first time, but needed more than one pass before alerting.  It seems to be quite usual.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 11, 2019, 07:31:23 PM
I've seen drug dogs, in New Zealand I think, go past a person arriving at Auckland airport without alerting.

Then go back for a second bite at the cherry.

They are not laser guided missiles.  They're dogs!

On tv the other night a drug dog was searching parcels placed on the floor of a sorting office at an airport in Canada,the dogs were cued to smell each one.It picked one which contained cannabis.Of course they are cued,hunting dogs are cued,search and rescue dogs are cued,working dogs shepherding sheep are cued.Whats the issue with it?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:31:36 PM
I'm not giving you my opinion.

I'm giving you just a single instance out of many where a police dog did not home in the first time, but needed more than one pass before alerting.  It seems to be quite usual.

You are giving your personal experience which may or may not be accurate... Cannot be counted as fact... And therefore carries no weight
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 07:34:29 PM
Absolute sophistry.
sophistry

noun
the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
"trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry"
a fallacious argument.
plural noun: sophistries
synonyms:   specious reasoning, the use of fallacious arguments, sophism, casuistry, quibbling, equivocation, fallaciousness"

Basically accusing Davel of lying.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 07:36:14 PM
In you opinion.. But Rob only seems to enforce that rule on my posts
It is a claim of fact so you need to ask for a cite.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 11, 2019, 07:36:35 PM
The apartment probably stank of luminol and other forensic chemicals... Alerting Eddie to a forensic scene.. That's why he eas, excited IMO.. I think the conspiracy  nuts, are those that think SY and the govt ate protecting the mccanns... Are you one of those... Your post us simplistic  and childlike

I have heard it all now....Eddie knew it was a crime scene...which begs the question, why didn’t he alert to Murat’s gaff, forensics had been carried out there too ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:38:18 PM
It is a claim of fact so you need to ask for a cite.

the fact i use the word...seems...means i am not stating fact...please note
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:39:24 PM
I have heard it all now....Eddie knew it was a crime scene...which begs the question, why didn’t he alert to Murat’s gaff, forensics had been carried out there too ?

because he wasnt given time......in all things mccann ...the dog ignored sites but was given more chances to alert
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:41:04 PM
sophistry

noun
the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
"trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry"
a fallacious argument.
plural noun: sophistries
synonyms:   specious reasoning, the use of fallacious arguments, sophism, casuistry, quibbling, equivocation, fallaciousness"

Basically accusing Davel of lying.

so the post..absolute sophistry...is opinion as fact and accusing me of lying...what do you intend to do about taht
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 11, 2019, 07:44:01 PM
because he wasnt given time......in all things mccann ...the dog ignored sites but was given more chances to alert

He wasn’t given time ? You know this because....?

If the above statement is true then you are not talking about unconscious cuing but very targeted cuing. To be clear, is that what you are accusing Grime of ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 07:44:25 PM
You are giving your personal experience which may or may not be accurate... Cannot be counted as fact... And therefore carries no weight

Don't worry about it.  I am simply informing guests, and they can think about it for themselves.

@Barrier.  One of my favourite drug doggies is a golden Labrador that alerts to incoming mail and packages on an airport carousel.  The way it alerts is simple.  It sits down next to the suspicious package.

I've wondered about whether that dog has ever disappeared into the interior of the carousel because the handler was distracted.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:46:28 PM
Don't worry about it.  I am simply informing guests, and they can think about it for themselves.

@Barrier.  One of my favourite drug doggies is a golden Labrador that alerts to incoming mail and packages on an airport carousel.  The way it alerts is simple.  It sits down next to the suspicious package.

I've wondered about whether that dog has ever disappeared into the interior of the carousel because the handler was distracted.

how many guests do you think read this forum...Im absolutely convinced its a few and the figure on here is false...Ive raised the issue before with no response...there are currently 4 guests reading this thraed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:48:54 PM
He wasn’t given time ? You know this because....?

If the above statement is true then you are not talking about unconscious cuing but very targeted cuing. To be clear, is that what you are accusing Grime of ?

ive posted teh same many times...grime didnt want to miss any evidence and the alerts are therefore affected by this...look at cuddle act
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 11, 2019, 07:48:59 PM
Don't worry about it.  I am simply informing guests, and they can think about it for themselves.

@Barrier.  One of my favourite drug doggies is a golden Labrador that alerts to incoming mail and packages on an airport carousel.  The way it alerts is simple.  It sits down next to the suspicious package.

I've wondered about whether that dog has ever disappeared into the interior of the carousel because the handler was distracted.

The dog in question was a Spaniel,it sat next to the parcel in question,the dog wasn't rewarded until the package had been opened and its contents confirmed.The offending package was put back on the floor along with known clear packages,when it alerted again to the drug one,it was then rewarded to reinforce what it was supposed to be alerting to.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 07:50:02 PM
how many guests do you think read this forum...Im absolutely convinced its a few and the figure on here is false...Ive raised the issue before with no response...there are currently 4 guests reading this thraed

They tend to crank up overnight.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:51:29 PM
They tend to crank up overnight.

there are 4 guests raeding this thraed....at night its often zero
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 07:52:26 PM
sophistry

noun
the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
"trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry"
a fallacious argument.
plural noun: sophistries
synonyms:   specious reasoning, the use of fallacious arguments, sophism, casuistry, quibbling, equivocation, fallaciousness"

Basically accusing Davel of lying.

so is taht acceptable
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 11, 2019, 07:55:42 PM
ive posted teh same many times...grime didnt want to miss any evidence and the alerts are therefore affected by this...look at cuddle act

Okay the questions you don’t want to answer. How do you know Eddie didn’t spend as much time in Murat’s villa as 5a ?
If Grime didn’t want to miss any evidence why did he not act in the same away at all locations searched?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 08:01:24 PM
Okay the questions you don’t want to answer. How do you know Eddie didn’t spend as much time in Murat’s villa as 5a ?
If Grime didn’t want to miss any evidence why did he not act in the same away at all locations searched?

its the PJ who raised this question not me .....we know eddie ignored the car...and was called back.....we know eddie ignored cuddlecat and was called back...we have an edited version of the dog video supplied by Levy...we dont know how much its been edited..

waht we do know is SY are prepared to dismiss teh cadaver alerts and state maddie may still be alive..can you expalin taht
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 08:02:19 PM
there are 4 guests raeding this thraed....at night its often zero

Yup.

I often go to bed with a smaller than usual number of views on my blog.  And wake up in the morning to find it has gone 'viral'.

Perhaps Wordpress is lying to me over the stats?

Or perhaps someone simply put something out on social media, and a bunch of insomniac guests decided to have a peek?

Try it for yourself.   A blog or forum.  Then you will find out for yourself.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 11, 2019, 08:03:47 PM
its the PJ who raised this question not me .....we know eddie ignored the car...and was called back.....we know eddie ignored cuddlecat and was called back...we have an edited version of the dog video supplied by Levy...we dont know how much its been edited..

waht we do know is SY are prepared to dismiss teh cadaver alerts and state maddie may still be alive..can you expalin taht

You stated Eddie didn’t spend as much time at Murat’s house as at 5a. Do you have a cite for that ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 08:04:33 PM
Yup.

I often go to bed with a smaller than usual number of views on my blog.  And wake up in the morning to find it has gone 'viral'.

Perhaps Wordpress is lying to me over the stats?

Or perhaps someone simply put something out on social media, and a bunch of insomniac guests decided to have a peek?

Try it for yourself.   A blog or forum.  Then you will find out for yourself.

again you are quoting personal experience which you cannot verify...what we do know as a fact is your blog has next to no comments...which would indicate next to no interest
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 11, 2019, 08:07:40 PM
again you are quoting personal experience which you cannot verify...what we do know as a fact is your blog has next to no comments...which would indicate next to no interest

If your post's were taken out of the equation,I'd venture this site as little interest.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 08:08:55 PM
again you are quoting personal experience which you cannot verify...what we do know as a fact is your blog has next to no comments...which would indicate next to no interest

May I respectfully ask you if understand the difference between a blog and a forum?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 08:09:32 PM
If your post's were taken out of the equation,I'd venture this site as little interest.

really...you think apart from me this site has little interest...I do keep debate going which expalins teh support to keep me here
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 08:12:30 PM
May I respectfully ask you if understand the difference between a blog and a forum?

No...because its an oxymoron
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 08:15:05 PM
so is taht acceptable
Ask for a cite.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 08:17:02 PM
Ask for a cite.

you have said faith is basically calling me a liar....ive asked you if thats acceptable.......
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 11, 2019, 08:18:25 PM
I have heard it all now....Eddie knew it was a crime scene...which begs the question, why didn’t he alert to Murat’s gaff, forensics had been carried out there too ?

The Murat villa was searched in the presence of Robert and Mrs Murat who accompanied the search teams.
Snip
The entire property was inspected by colleagues from Local Crime Section and Police Science Laboratory, with respective photographic reports made, with special focus on R.Murat's room and the vehicles.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

I cannot see any indication that the same intrusive forensic tests which were carried out in apartment 5A were conducted in the Murat villa.
Do you have a cite in support of your assertion?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 08:23:04 PM
No...because its an oxymoron

I can only assume you don't.

Basically, I broadcast on my blog.

Whilst I interact on this forum.

Simple.   &^^&*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 08:27:55 PM
you have said faith is basically calling me a liar....ive asked you if thats acceptable.......
She used the word sophistry which isn't an actual lie.  Get her to show you examples (cites) of your sophistry is my suggestion to you.  Is she correct or not?  That is not my role to determine that.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 08:29:30 PM
I can only assume you don't.

Basically, I broadcast on my blog.

Whilst I interact on this forum.

Simple.   &^^&*

well you assume wrong and it seems you dont understand...you interact on your forum....have you not noticed

have you seen taht comment box...where you interact...or is it someone else
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 08:30:41 PM
She used the word sophistry which isn't an actual lie.  Get her to show you examples (cites) of your sophistry is my suggestion to you.  Is she correct or not?  That is not my role to determine that.

her claim was opinion ..not fact...I dont really care just to point out your unfair moderation
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 08:33:15 PM
her claim was opinion ..not fact...I dont really care just to point out your unfair moderation
You claim it is opinion not fact.  It is not my role to sort that out.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 08:36:24 PM
You claim it is opinion not fact.  It is not my role to sort that out.

stating my post is sophistry...is her opinion...not fact
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 11, 2019, 08:41:13 PM
stating my post is sophistry...is her opinion...not fact
That is your opinion.   She called your posts "sophistry".  To call your posts sophistry is that a fact or not?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 08:45:48 PM
That is your opinion.   She called your posts "sophistry".  To call your posts sophistry is that a fact or not?

no its opinion
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 09:04:55 PM
well you assume wrong and it seems you dont understand...you interact on your forum....have you not noticed

have you seen taht comment box...where you interact...or is it someone else

That's why why I used the word basically.

Blogs are not highly interactive, while forums are quite the opposite.

Chalk and cheese.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 09:14:56 PM
all your opinion...my opinion...blogs invite comments...they have acomment button...hardly anyone comments on your blog which suggests a lack of interest

Nope, I get excellent viewing figures on my blog, which I have posted on my blog at least twice.

Please see my blog for details.    (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 09:17:30 PM
Nope, I get excellent viewing figures on my blog, which I have posted on my blog at least twice.

Please see my blog for details.    (&^&

excelent...in your opinion...no one seems interested enough to comment
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2019, 09:37:08 PM
I'm not quite sure yet why you don't have your own blog Davel. It seems such a waste, that the man with the greatest understanding of the evidence and grasp of the facts chooses to restrict his vast wealth of knowledge to the little known by many, (no offence intended) UK Justice Forum. You should get your finger out and spread your knowledge and understanding far and wide imo. One thing's for sure, Mark S couldn't have heard it yet, he believes Madeleine wasn't abducted and she died in apartment 5A.

I actually asked mark for a debate on an open forum ...i predicted his big interview would be with amaral...his response was to block me...Mark s is woefully misinformed
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 11, 2019, 09:48:14 PM
excelent...in your opinion...no one seems interested enough to comment

I have also got nearly as many comments as you have likes on here.

Mind you, I haven't made anything close to 30,700 entries on my blog.

Talk about flogging a dead horse.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 11, 2019, 10:32:53 PM
I have also got nearly as many comments as you have likes on here.

Mind you, I haven't made anything close to 30,700 entries on my blog.

Talk about flogging a dead horse.
Your blog has had over 5000 comments?  Prove it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 12:01:10 AM
Your blog has had over 5000 comments?  Prove it.

Read my blog from start to finish and you can count the exact number for yourself.    (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 12:14:44 AM
Read my blog from start to finish and you can count the exact number for yourself.    (&^&
5 blog posts this year and 16 comments some from yourself.  When did you start your blog?  1926?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 12, 2019, 12:35:37 AM
The Murat villa was searched in the presence of Robert and Mrs Murat who accompanied the search teams.
Snip
The entire property was inspected by colleagues from Local Crime Section and Police Science Laboratory, with respective photographic reports made, with special focus on R.Murat's room and the vehicles.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

I cannot see any indication that the same intrusive forensic tests which were carried out in apartment 5A were conducted in the Murat villa.
Do you have a cite in support of your assertion?

Why do you think the Police Science Laboratory was there if not to take forensics?

Davel claimed that Eddie may have reacted to the chemicals used during forensic examinations. He gave no cite. I am simply saying that forensic examinations were also carried out in Murat’s villa, however Eddie did not alert there. Whether those examinations were intrusive or not is beside the point or indeed who was present
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 12, 2019, 12:53:01 AM
Why do you think the Police Science Laboratory was there if not to take forensics?

Davel claimed that Eddie may have reacted to the chemicals used during forensic examinations. He gave no cite. I am simply saying that forensic examinations were also carried out in Murat’s villa, however Eddie did not alert there. Whether those examinations were intrusive or not is beside the point or indeed who was present

The link I provided states concisely that the Police Science Laboratory took photographs with special focus on Robert Murat's room and vehicles.  That is it.
If you are claiming the Murat villa was subject to the same forensic inspection that 5A was ... it will be necessary for you to provide a cite.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 12, 2019, 01:03:46 AM
The link I provided states concisely that the Police Science Laboratory took photographs with special focus on Robert Murat's room and vehicles.  That is it.
If you are claiming the Murat villa was subject to the same forensic inspection that 5A was ... it will be necessary for you to provide a cite.

Please quote where I said the same inspection ? I said AN inspection using, I would presume, the same chemicals as those used in 5a. If you have evidence that this wasn’t so I’ll gladly concede the point. Perhaps it would be a good idea though while looking for cites to ask Davel for one for his claim that the dogs were in Murat’s villa for a shorter time than 5a ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 01:33:34 AM
5 blog posts this year and 16 comments some from yourself.  When did you start your blog?  1926?

Crikey, only 5 blog posts this year?   Can you add up?   *&^^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 08:15:39 AM
Crikey, only 5 blog posts this year?   Can you add up?   *&^^&
Yes, only 5, unless you have another blog I am not aware of.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 12, 2019, 12:34:12 PM
Crikey, only 5 blog posts this year?   Can you add up?   *&^^&
How many did you think it was?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 12, 2019, 12:38:48 PM
Yes, only 5, unless you have another blog I am not aware of.

I've done more than that, and I rarely get any comments.  But people are reading.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 12:46:56 PM
How many did you think it was?

I have been deliberately not posting during May, to avoid a clash with the 12th anniversary and Madeleine's 16th birthday, when I anticipated a flurry of media coverage.

However, it normally takes around 10 days to do some proper research, so that's my average posting rate.

There's quite a few articles stacked up in the pipeline.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 12:54:24 PM
I have been deliberately not posting during May, to avoid a clash with the 12th anniversary and Madeleine's 16th birthday, when I anticipated a flurry of media coverage.

However, it normally takes around 10 days to do some proper research, so that's my average posting rate.

There's quite a few articles stacked up in the pipeline.
There's really no need to justify yourself to anyone.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 12, 2019, 12:55:58 PM
I have been deliberately not posting during May, to avoid a clash with the 12th anniversary and Madeleine's 16th birthday, when I anticipated a flurry of media coverage.

However, it normally takes around 10 days to do some proper research, so that's my average posting rate.

There's quite a few articles stacked up in the pipeline.
But how many are actually posted on the site for this year.
1. Madeleine – The McCann’s War by Paulo Reis
2.  Madeleine – Netflix site traffic
3.  Madeleine – cadaver dog senses
4.  Gonk on holiday – birthday bash
5.  Gonçalo – scrubs up nicely

So I can only see 5 for this year.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 01:06:28 PM
But how many are actually posted on the site for this year.
1. Madeleine – The McCann’s War by Paulo Reis
2.  Madeleine – Netflix site traffic
3.  Madeleine – cadaver dog senses
4.  Gonk on holiday – birthday bash
5.  Gonçalo – scrubs up nicely

So I can only see 5 for this year.

I see this as a sterile debate, and one which has nothing to do with the thread title.

But for what it's worth, it's been a quiet day on my blog so far.  Half way through the day and only 48 views so far.

Does anyone fancy popping over to nudge it up to 50?   *&(+(+
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 12, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
I see this as a sterile debate, and one which has nothing to do with the thread title.

But for what it's worth, it's been a quiet day on my blog so far.  Half way through the day and only 48 views so far.

Does anyone fancy popping over to nudge it up to 50?   *&(+(+
The fact is VS was correct there had only been 5 new blogs this year.  Some good ones I see.  Keep up the good work SIL.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 01:43:39 PM
But how many are actually posted on the site for this year.
1. Madeleine – The McCann’s War by Paulo Reis
2.  Madeleine – Netflix site traffic
3.  Madeleine – cadaver dog senses
4.  Gonk on holiday – birthday bash
5.  Gonçalo – scrubs up nicely

So I can only see 5 for this year.
Thank you for verifying that I can indeed count.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 02:10:22 PM
Thank you for verifying that I can indeed count.

Whereas I was not pedantic enough to check.

You might like to read the Netflix site traffic one - it was quite revealing.

By the way, I've got a free copy of Paulo Reis' book, thanks to a tip-off from a forum member.  It's in my backlog to-do list, because my better half is shortly to take our Kindle to the UK for a week.

Thanks for reminding me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 02:14:46 PM
Whereas I was not pedantic enough to check.

You might like to read the Netflix site traffic one - it was quite revealing.

By the way, I've got a free copy of Paulo Reis' book, thanks to a tip-off from a forum member.  It's in my backlog to-do list, because my better half is shortly to take our Kindle to the UK for a week.

Thanks for reminding me.

i saw the free offer but still didnt bother...he would have to pay me to read it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 02:21:19 PM
Whereas I was not pedantic enough to check.

You might like to read the Netflix site traffic one - it was quite revealing.

By the way, I've got a free copy of Paulo Reis' book, thanks to a tip-off from a forum member.  It's in my backlog to-do list, because my better half is shortly to take our Kindle to the UK for a week.

Thanks for reminding me.
You can read it on your PC or laptop on Kindle Cloud Reader.....
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 02:22:04 PM
You can read it on your PC or laptop on Kindle Cloud Reader.....
..or smartphone
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 03:42:50 PM
Whereas I was not pedantic enough to check.

You might like to read the Netflix site traffic one - it was quite revealing.

By the way, I've got a free copy of Paulo Reis' book, thanks to a tip-off from a forum member.  It's in my backlog to-do list, because my better half is shortly to take our Kindle to the UK for a week.

Thanks for reminding me.
So you took the opportunity to be rude to me (asking me if I could count and posting a sarky emoji) without bothering to check if I was right or wrong?  I see.  How did my post remind you to read Paulo Reis’ book btw? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 03:44:20 PM
You can read it on your PC or laptop on Kindle Cloud Reader.....
Was this book written as a freebie or to make money for Mr R? 
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 04:59:37 PM
You can read it on your PC or laptop on Kindle Cloud Reader.....

Thank you, but I've got stories to write in the week my beloved is away, plus I'm behind on Gonçalo's walkies, so I will be wearing his legs out.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 05:15:35 PM
Was this book written as a freebie or to make money for Mr R?
No idea.
Can't see it being much of a money spinner if it's been pre-released for free.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 05:16:20 PM
So you took the opportunity to be rude to me (asking me if I could count and posting a sarky emoji) without bothering to check if I was right or wrong?  I see.  How did my post remind you to read Paulo Reis’ book btw?

I posted an emoji to indicate 'my bad' as there isn't is a 'my bad' emoji.  I.e. if I have only posted 5, then I have been a bit sluggish.  I don't count the number of posts I have made this year.  What is the point?  Wordpress doesn't track that either, why would it?

Basically, you're trying to make something out of nothing.

When Robby listed the posts, I remembered that I had quite deliberately left The McCann's War as the most current post, in order to raise viewer awareness.


















Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 05:20:20 PM
Was this book written as a freebie or to make money for Mr R?

Does Amazon normally distribute freebies?  I thought they probably took a cut of the sales.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 05:20:42 PM
You can read it on your PC or laptop on Kindle Cloud Reader.....

it was originally meant to be a paper version but the publisher didnt want it...the amazon kindle at £5.99 or so...now its free...it certainly doesnt seem to be a money spinner but that may be what it was intended to be
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 05:23:33 PM
it was originally meant to be a paper version but the publisher didnt want it...the amazon kindle at £5.99 or so...now its free...it certainly doesnt seem to be a money spinner but that may be what it was intended to be
£5.99 saved. Back of the net!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 05:24:49 PM
Does Amazon normally distribute freebies?  I thought they probably took a cut of the sales.

its offerred free but you have to sign up to kindle unlimited which has a monthly recurring charge
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 05:33:49 PM
Crikey, only 5 blog posts this year?   Can you add up?   *&^^&
”My Bad?!”  In my world this emoji denotes “no” or the negative.  Therefore in context it is clear what your meaning was, and your explanation is a complete joke.

You claimed your blog had attracted more than 5000 comments.  I assume that was a joke too, or perhaps it’s you that can’t count?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 12, 2019, 06:02:37 PM
its offerred free but you have to sign up to kindle unlimited which has a monthly recurring charge

No you don’t.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 06:07:52 PM
No you don’t.
i think you do..perhaps you didnt understand it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 12, 2019, 06:15:31 PM
i think you do..perhaps you didnt understand it

I know you don’t.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 06:18:06 PM
”My Bad?!”  In my world this emoji denotes “no” or the negative.  Therefore in context it is clear what your meaning was, and your explanation is a complete joke.

You claimed your blog had attracted more than 5000 comments.  I assume that was a joke too, or perhaps it’s you that can’t count?

If you locate this alleged post, I'll be happy to respond.

Until then, this is like debating what size jeans I buy in Portugal.  As you are fond of saying, yawn.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 06:19:40 PM
I know you don’t.

you should know nothings free...they make their money on those who dont read the smallmprint or forget to cancel..

By clicking the button above, you agree to the Kindle Unlimited Terms of Use. You authorise us to charge your 1-Click credit card or another available credit card on file with us £7.99 per month until you cancel. You may cancel your subscription at any time by visiting www.amazon.co.uk/kucentral

I would say most people...like you...dont realise ...a fool and his money...as they say
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 06:29:42 PM
If you locate this alleged post, I'll be happy to respond.

Until then, this is like debating what size jeans I buy in Portugal.  As you are fond of saying, yawn.
You’ve already responded, the same way you respond to all my posts, belligerently , rudely and disingenuously.   &^&*%
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 12, 2019, 06:50:48 PM
its offerred free but you have to sign up to kindle unlimited which has a monthly recurring charge

No you don't. I've got it and I'm not on kindle unlimited. I've checked!

You can use Kindle Cloud Reader which you view in your browser.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 06:59:28 PM
No you don't. I've got it and I'm not on kindle unlimited. I've checked!

You can use Kindle Cloud Reader which you view in your browser.

no one is on kindle unlimited...its just kindle..have a look at your bank statement next month..if youve clicked on read for £000........youve joined kindle unlimited
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 07:00:54 PM
You’ve already responded, the same way you respond to all my posts, belligerently , rudely and disingenuously.   &^&*%

To be accurate, I respond to those of your posts which are belligerent, rude and disingenuous by exposing such fodder for what they are.

Perhaps you think all of your posts fit this category.

By the way, your response on this was an ad hom.  Should I report it?

Kindly consider the ignore function.  Ignorance is bliss.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 07:02:43 PM
To be accurate, I respond to those of your posts which are belligerent, rude and disingenuous by exposing such fodder for what they are.

Perhaps you think all of your posts fit this category.

By the way, your response on this was an ad hom.  Should I report it?

Kindly consider the ignore function.  Ignorance is bliss.

is your e book free...or have you clicked kindle unlimited
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 07:06:15 PM
To be accurate, I respond to those of your posts which are belligerent, rude and disingenuous by exposing such fodder for what they are.

Perhaps you think all of your posts fit this category.

By the way, your response on this was an ad hom.  Should I report it?

Kindly consider the ignore function.  Ignorance is bliss.
The only interesting thing I learned from your 5 blog posts this year (that attracted very few comments between them, around 10 from 3 or 4 individuals) is that you seem to believe that dogs have no better sense of smell than humans.   @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 07:17:04 PM
is your e book free...or have you clicked kindle unlimited

AFAIK it's free.  However, I didn't download it, and my beloved tends not to check the small print.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 07:21:22 PM
AFAIK it's free.  However, I didn't download it, and my beloved tends not to check the small print.

then Im doing you a favour...you may well have a stored card on amazon.....you need to cancel the free trial within  amonth otherwise you will be charged a monthly fee...its a bit underhand really
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 07:25:57 PM
The only interesting thing I learned from your 5 blog posts this year (that attracted very few comments between them, around 10 from 3 or 4 individuals) is that you seem to believe that dogs have no better sense of smell than humans.   @)(++(*

Purely from memory, the origin was an article on the BBC.

However, the research ignored 3 things.

That my dog's dominant sense is that of smell.

That my dog's nose is located near to the ground, while mine isn't.

And the Vanessa Mae effect.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 07:28:46 PM
Purely from memory, the origin was an article on the BBC.

However, the research ignored 3 things.

That my dog's dominant sense is that of smell.

That my dog's nose is located near to the ground, while mine isn't.

And the Vanessa Mae effect.

with respect you may have misunderstood teh article...whats vannessa mae...the famous skier...got to do with it
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 07:30:20 PM
Purely from memory, the origin was an article on the BBC.

However, the research ignored 3 things.

That my dog's dominant sense is that of smell.

That my dog's nose is located near to the ground, while mine isn't.

And the Vanessa Mae effect.
Can we add this to the list of sceptics beliefs?  An unusual one for a sceptic for sure.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 07:37:33 PM
then Im doing you a favour...you may well have a stored card on amazon.....you need to cancel the free trial within  amonth otherwise you will be charged a monthly fee...its a bit underhand really
Let it go Davel, it's free on your Cloud Reader. I've checked. There's not sign up required.
Maybe that's for people without Prime?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 07:40:18 PM
Let it go Davel, it's free on your Cloud Reader. I've checked. There's not sign up required.
Maybe that's for people without Prime?

prime and kindle unlimited are seperate...could you provide a link to where its free ...should be simple..

theres no sign up for Kindle Unlimited...just a click and your stored card is charged
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 07:47:49 PM
its interesting...four sceptics believe the kindle is free...one supporter says no,,.....so whos had the wool pulled over their eyes....and whos seen through the ...scam...

who has the most insight...sceptic or supporter
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 07:50:55 PM
with respect you may have misunderstood teh article...whats vannessa mae...the famous skier...got to do with it

Brain organisation.  Nothing to do with skiing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 07:52:16 PM
Brain organisation.  Nothing to do with skiing.

shes was an olympic skier...a little known fact
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 12, 2019, 07:55:41 PM
no one is on kindle unlimited...its just kindle..have a look at your bank statement next month..if youve clicked on read for £000........youve joined kindle unlimited

I have had a trial with kindle unlimited so this is not a free trial and I cancelled at the end of the free trial so I am not being charged. This book was free, gratis, for nothing and why you are insisting otherwise I have no idea.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 07:56:01 PM
its interesting...four sceptics believe the kindle is free...one supporter says no,,.....so whos had the wool pulled over their eyes....and whos seen through the ...scam...

who has the most insight...sceptic or supporter
I'll send you my credit card details too.
Mate, I know you need to prove a point, but I can't be arsed getting a link, it doesn't mean that much.

And it would appear that you do indeed have superior insight, to go with your control over your biological mechanics, your talents literally know no bounds.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 07:56:52 PM
Brain organisation.  Nothing to do with skiing.
She was always on the fiddle that girl.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 07:57:17 PM
I have had a trial with kindle unlimited so this is not a free trial and I cancelled at the end of the free trial so I am not being charged. This book was free, gratis, for nothing and why you are insisting otherwise I have no idea.

could you provide  alink to where the book is available free.....it isnt..only as  apart of kindle unlimited membership


Try 30 days FREE – pay later
By clicking the button above, you agree to the Kindle Unlimited Terms of Use. You authorise us to charge your 1-Click credit card or another available credit card on file with us £7.99 per month until you cancel. You may cancel your subscription at any time by visiting www.amazon.co.uk/kucentral.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 07:57:57 PM
She was always on the fiddle that girl.

she didnt get a medal..bit unfair...Id give her one
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 07:59:10 PM
I'll send you my credit card details too.
Mate, I know you need to prove a point, but I can't be arsed getting a link, it doesn't mean that much.

And it would appear that you do indeed have superior insight, to go with your control over your biological mechanics, your talents literally know no bounds.

Im just an ordinary guy
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 07:59:57 PM
Im just an ordinary guy
...with extraordinary powers.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:01:50 PM
...with extraordinary powers.
I use the force
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 08:02:23 PM
could you provide  alink to where the book is available free.....it isnt..


Try 30 days FREE – pay later
By clicking the button above, you agree to the Kindle Unlimited Terms of Use. You authorise us to charge your 1-Click credit card or another available credit card on file with us £7.99 per month until you cancel. You may cancel your subscription at any time by visiting www.amazon.co.uk/kucentral.

From memory, when I retrieved the link there were two options, one was to do the whole Kindle Unlimited thing, the other was to just add to the Cloud Reader, which I did.
I definitely wasn't charged as Amazon send an email immediately upon every purchase - Kindle, Amazon, Audible.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:05:32 PM
From memory, when I retrieved the link there were two options, one was to do the whole Kindle Unlimited thing, the other was to just add to the Cloud Reader, which I did.
I definitely wasn't charged as Amazon send an email immediately upon every purchase - Kindle, Amazon, Audible.

you might find they send an email when they take the money...the following doesnt appear on the button you click...its on a seperate page...a little dishonest in my kindle

Try 30 days FREE – pay later
By clicking the button above, you agree to the Kindle Unlimited Terms of Use. You authorise us to charge your 1-Click credit card or another available credit card on file with us £7.99 per month until you cancel. You may cancel your subscription at any time by visiting www.amazon.co.uk/kucentral.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 12, 2019, 08:10:23 PM
with respect you may have misunderstood teh article...whats vannessa mae...the famous skier...got to do with it
Violinist wasn't it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:11:31 PM
Violinist wasn't it.

and an olympic skier
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 12, 2019, 08:13:28 PM
From memory, when I retrieved the link there were two options, one was to do the whole Kindle Unlimited thing, the other was to just add to the Cloud Reader, which I did.
I definitely wasn't charged as Amazon send an email immediately upon every purchase - Kindle, Amazon, Audible.

There was no charge.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 12, 2019, 08:15:15 PM
and an olympic skier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgb0jK143MI  Violinist.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:15:56 PM
There was no charge.

the charge is in one months time......

perhaps you can give me a link to where i can download it free...that will settle things
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 08:16:06 PM
I’ve looked up this stupid book on Amazon and this is what it says

Kindle Edition
£0.00£0.00   
Free with Kindle Unlimited membership
Or £4.61 to buy

So, is Kindle Unlimited membership free then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:17:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgb0jK143MI  Violinist.

everyone knows shes  violinist.....not many know she was also an olympic skier...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 12, 2019, 08:17:45 PM
the charge is in one months time......

perhaps you can give me a link to where i can download it free...that will settle things

A little search will confirm when it was free for 24hrs,you don't know every thing.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:18:26 PM
I’ve looked up this stupid book on Amazon and this is what it says

Kindle Edition
£0.00£0.00   
Free with Kindle Unlimited membership
Or £4.61 to buy

So, is Kindle Unlimited membership free then?

thank you VS....looks like the sceptics have misunderstood the evidence provided
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:18:52 PM
A little search will confirm when it was free for 24hrs,you don't know every thing.

so provide a link
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 12, 2019, 08:20:15 PM
everyone knows shes  violinist.....not many know she was also an olympic skier...
Prove it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:29:14 PM
A little search will confirm when it was free for 24hrs,you don't know every thing.

looks like you cant provide the link...and its only a simple search
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 08:32:31 PM
looks like you cant provide the link...and its only a simple search
I think it was time bound, as the initial link now points to a different set of options.
But I can confirm that it was free at time of purchase on Wednesday last week.
I've checked Kindle / Amazon, there was no sign up required. I was charged £0.00.
Please, Davel, I'm imploring you, let it go man, LET IT GO!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:34:52 PM
I think it was time bound, as the initial link now points to a different set of options.
But I can confirm that it was free at time of purchase on Wednesday last week.
I've checked Kindle / Amazon, there was no sign up required. I was charged £0.00.
Please, Davel, I'm imploring you, let it go man, LET IT GO!

12 years ago ...Maddie disappeared........for twelve years her parents have been persecuted on sites such as this one...can you let it go
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 12, 2019, 08:36:43 PM
I think it was time bound, as the initial link now points to a different set of options.
But I can confirm that it was free at time of purchase on Wednesday last week.
I've checked Kindle / Amazon, there was no sign up required. I was charged £0.00.
Please, Davel, I'm imploring you, let it go man, LET IT GO!

Paulo Reis himself gave the link.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:37:09 PM
I think it was time bound, as the initial link now points to a different set of options.
But I can confirm that it was free at time of purchase on Wednesday last week.
I've checked Kindle / Amazon, there was no sign up required. I was charged £0.00.
Please, Davel, I'm imploring you, let it go man, LET IT GO!

there is no sign up...its one click to read...it doesnt expalin taht the one click commits you to a contract
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 08:38:50 PM
there is no sign up...its one click to read...it doesnt expalin taht the one click commits you to a contract
It was Paolo's link. It was for 24 hours. In the name of Brian Blessed, I beg you to believe me!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:39:45 PM
It was Paolo's link. It was for 24 hours. In the name of Brian Blessed, I beg you to believe me!

link to where...to the amazon page
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 12, 2019, 08:40:09 PM
It was Paolo's link. It was for 24 hours. In the name of Brian Blessed, I beg you to believe me!

He's turned sceptical.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:41:53 PM
It was Paolo's link. It was for 24 hours. In the name of Brian Blessed, I beg you to believe me!

the post should still be there where he gave the link...could you provide it...robs just given me a warning re no cite for vanessa mae...so I think I should be able to ask you for a cite
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 08:42:38 PM
12 years ago ...Maddie disappeared........for twelve years her parents have been persecuted on sites such as this one...can you let it go
Eh? Do what now?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 08:43:31 PM
Prove it.

you have given me a warning for not providing a cite for vanessa mae....I thought you were joking...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa-Mae...have a look
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 12, 2019, 08:46:52 PM
Eh? Do what now?
I like that question "Do what now?"
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 12, 2019, 08:47:52 PM
you have given me a warning for not providing a cite for vanessa mae....I thought you were joking...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa-Mae...have a look
@)(++(*.  *%87
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 12, 2019, 08:50:25 PM
there is no sign up...its one click to read...it doesnt expalin taht the one click commits you to a contract

I got stitched up by Amazon Prime last year, which I hadn't agreed to.  So I made a fuss and told them to put the money back in my bank account, which they did.

They tried it on again this year, but my bank wasn't wearing it this time.  They refused the payment request.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 12, 2019, 09:05:24 PM
shes was an olympic skier...a little known fact

A little known fact???

I remember the incident well, so perhaps you could select between fame as a skier or a little known fact.  Perhaps not.

It's on her Wiki page, along with her real claim to fame.  Think brain organisation.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 12, 2019, 09:07:02 PM
you have given me a warning for not providing a cite for vanessa mae....I thought you were joking...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa-Mae...have a look
You were right, but you didn't respond quick enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa-Mae
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 12, 2019, 09:10:18 PM
You were right, but you didn't respond quick enough.

That is pushing your luck, if you ask me.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 09:12:40 PM
I got stitched up by Amazon Prime last year, which I hadn't agreed to.  So I made a fuss and told them to put the money back in my bank account, which they did.

They tried it on again this year, but my bank wasn't wearing it this time.  They refused the payment request.

Thank you Eleanor..simply clicking a button ties you into an agreement....you have shown taht amazon do employ some pretty dodgy practices
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 09:15:00 PM
A little known fact???

I remember the incident well, so perhaps you could select between fame as a skier or a little known fact.  Perhaps not.

It's on her Wiki page, along with her real claim to fame.  Think brain organisation.

it seems for some it is a little known and very imporatnt fact....rob gave me  waarning for not providing a cite for it..

I dont see why she is singled out as for brain organisation......there are plenty of others
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 09:15:38 PM
Paulo Reis himself gave the link.

so wheres the link...cite
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 12, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
Thank you Eleanor..simply clicking a button ties you into an agreement....you have shown taht amazon do employ some pretty dodgy practices

Amazon does indeed employ dodgy practices.  This was Amazon France by the way.

Although I have to say that I was most impressed by my bank refusing to pay them when the previous episode happened a year ago.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 09:17:46 PM
That is pushing your luck, if you ask me.

I think it is  a particularly stupid warning....I dont want to trouble John but Robs behaviour is very odd
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 09:20:10 PM
It was Paolo's link. It was for 24 hours. In the name of Brian Blessed, I beg you to believe me!

The point is  Amazon wants you to forget to cancel.....it doesnt make it clear youve signed up...its hardly going to send you an email to warn you...see what happens at the end of the month
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 09:21:46 PM
so wheres the link...cite
It was a time bound link. It has reverted back to the book page link. I just tried.
How do they do that? I've no idea. But I got sent it, clicked on it, downloaded and read on Cloud Reader.
I wasn't charged. I didn't sign up to Kindle Unlimited - I checked and I'm exactly the type of knobhead who routinely falls for that type of clicky / subscribey deal.

The original link seems to have expired and reverted to the book link.

That's it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 12, 2019, 09:24:51 PM
I think it is  a particularly stupid warning....I dont want to trouble John but Robs behaviour is very odd
You wanted to prove to me you were capable of not being rattled in a polygraph.  But as soon as you had a post deleted your blood pressure went up.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 09:27:17 PM
Amazon does indeed employ dodgy practices.  This was Amazon France by the way.

Although I have to say that I was most impressed by my bank refusing to pay them when the previous episode happened a year ago.
We bought an Xbox for my son a few years ago. We signed up for XBOX live gold or whatever and forgot about it. He only goes and subscribes to XBOX Music inadvertently on Christmas Day. Couldn't cancel, forgot about it.
The following year, guess what....£79 renewal fee! The following Christmas.....yep, £79.
I finally managed to cancel the fricking thing about 2 years ago.
Never used it in all of that time either.
I'm that guy.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 12, 2019, 09:27:31 PM
You wanted to prove to me you were capable of not being rattled in a polygraph.  But as soon as you had a post deleted your blood pressure went up.

Only in your opinion, Rob.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 09:28:42 PM
You wanted to prove to me you were capable of not being rattled in a polygraph.  But as soon as you had a post deleted your blood pressure went up.

I think you are losing the plot Rob...how do you know what my BP is......I dont want to prove anything to you...i couldnt be bothered...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 09:29:21 PM
Only in your opinion, Rob.

thank you Eleanor
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Eleanor on May 12, 2019, 09:30:02 PM
We bought an Xbox for my son a few years ago. We signed up for XBOX live gold or whatever and forgot about it. He only goes and subscribes to XBOX Music inadvertently on Christmas Day. Couldn't cancel, forgot about it.
The following year, guess what....£79 renewal fee! The following Christmas.....yep, £79.
I finally managed to cancel the fricking thing about 2 years ago.
Never used it in all of that time either.
I'm that guy.

I used to be, but not any more.

They are all at it, you know.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 09:33:26 PM
We bought an Xbox for my son a few years ago. We signed up for XBOX live gold or whatever and forgot about it. He only goes and subscribes to XBOX Music inadvertently on Christmas Day. Couldn't cancel, forgot about it.
The following year, guess what....£79 renewal fee! The following Christmas.....yep, £79.
I finally managed to cancel the fricking thing about 2 years ago.
Never used it in all of that time either.
I'm that guy.

I got stung nby Norton anti virus...for about 5 years....I often change my debit card to avoid this sort of thing...but each time i changed they managed to get the new card details.......the bank did not want to know
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 09:37:55 PM
It was a time bound link. It has reverted back to the book page link. I just tried.
How do they do that? I've no idea. But I got sent it, clicked on it, downloaded and read on Cloud Reader.
I wasn't charged. I didn't sign up to Kindle Unlimited - I checked and I'm exactly the type of knobhead who routinely falls for that type of clicky / subscribey deal.

The original link seems to have expired and reverted to the book link.

That's it.

do you have the quote by Reiis where he says you can downlaod the book for free
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 12, 2019, 09:40:19 PM
do you have the quote by Reiis where he says you can downlaod the book for free
No, sorry.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 12, 2019, 10:01:01 PM
prime and kindle unlimited are seperate...could you provide a link to where its free ...should be simple..

theres no sign up for Kindle Unlimited...just a click and your stored card is charged

I paid nothing and I'm not on kindle unlimited. Maybe it was free to download in the first 24 hours.

(https://i.ibb.co/fptH2rM/kindle.jpg)
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 10:03:41 PM
I paid nothing and I'm not on kindle unlimited. Maybe it was free to download for the first 24 hours.

(https://i.ibb.co/fptH2rM/kindle.jpg)
del
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 12, 2019, 10:04:25 PM
My order says it. My screenshot has a link to join unlimited so I'm not in it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 10:05:03 PM
My order says it.

do you have prime
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 12, 2019, 10:05:56 PM
No.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 12, 2019, 10:13:34 PM
No.

from waht Ive seen authors acn only give books away free if the sign up to KDP....which is kindle unlimited or the lending library that comes with prime...ill do some more research
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 12, 2019, 10:59:10 PM
It may have been free for the first 24 hours.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 12, 2019, 11:20:58 PM
from waht Ive seen authors acn only give books away free if the sign up to KDP....which is kindle unlimited or the lending library that comes with prime...ill do some more research

You are, were and have always been wrong.....there, no research needed.

You’re welcome.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 12, 2019, 11:49:06 PM
Has Sandra Felgueiras been airbrushed out of history at some folk's blog of choice ?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 13, 2019, 06:52:50 AM
do you have the quote by Reiis where he says you can downlaod the book for free
CMOMM.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 13, 2019, 07:22:13 AM
I paid nothing and I'm not on kindle unlimited. Maybe it was free to download in the first 24 hours.

(https://i.ibb.co/fptH2rM/kindle.jpg)

I've not got a Kindle, just a reader which is free to download from Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/fd/kcp

I downloaded a free copy of the book too.

Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Erngath on May 13, 2019, 07:49:58 AM
Has Sandra Felgueiras been airbrushed out of history at some folk's blog of choice ?

It would seem so!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 13, 2019, 08:16:58 AM
I've not got a Kindle, just a reader which is free to download from Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/fd/kcp

I downloaded a free copy of the book too.
I’ve just done exactly what you did but only got a free sample.  What did you do that I didn’t do then?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: kizzy on May 13, 2019, 08:17:07 AM
12 years ago ...Maddie disappeared........for twelve years her parents have been persecuted on sites such as this one...can you let it go


About the ebook - how I got mine.

 Re: Paulo Reis Madeleine McCann e-book: Updates
Post by pjcvreis on Tue May 07, 2019 11:09 pm

Don't need to buy the book in Amazon,from today, lunch time, until tomorrow the same time, anyone can get a free copy, at Amazon. It's a special promotional program they have and I agree to use it on eBook, for 24 hours... So just go wwwamazon.com, type the tittle of the book and get a free copy!!!
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: G-Unit on May 13, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
I’ve just done exactly what you did but only got a free sample.  What did you do that I didn’t do then?

I don't know what you mean. The Reis book isn't free now, that offer is over.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 13, 2019, 08:53:44 AM
It was free. No strings. For 24 hours.


Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 13, 2019, 10:21:56 AM
It was free. No strings. For 24 hours.


Were we meant to share.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 13, 2019, 10:23:45 AM
Were we meant to share.
Can you share a downloaded book?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 13, 2019, 10:35:33 AM
It would seem so!

I wonder why the broadcaster who became famous in the lexicon of sceptic belief has fallen out of favour ... maybe something to do with throwing a spanner into it all by going internationally public with the accusation that Amaral lied to her about the dog evidence used to accuse the McCanns.

Now that really flies in the face of the sceptic belief that the perjurer, Amaral ...
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 13, 2019, 10:40:07 AM
Were we meant to share.
Don't think it's possible.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 13, 2019, 10:49:30 AM
I wonder why the broadcaster who became famous in the lexicon of sceptic belief has fallen out of favour ... maybe something to do with throwing a spanner into it all by going internationally public with the accusation that Amaral lied to her about the dog evidence used to accuse the McCanns.

Now that really flies in the face of the sceptic belief that the perjurer, Amaral ...
  • is an honourable man despite being caught out in a Portuguese court and in the court of public opinion telling life changing whoppers
  • that while "dogs don't lie" (they've not met mine) ... humans are capable of misinterpreting what they are saying and despite the caveats of the dog owner put their own particular spin on it.
    In this instance the lie forcefully complained of was used to incriminate innocents in a criminal act and to destroy their reputations.
    I don't think it comes much more serious than that.
I think you give her too much credit. She is just another bit part player in this ongoing saga, along with many other people. The fact that she has performed such a dramatic volte face says more about her as a person than it does the facts, you know, post the nice, little payout from Netflix....cherrr ching.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 13, 2019, 10:51:23 AM
Don't think it's possible.

I meant the link.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: barrier on May 13, 2019, 10:52:23 AM
Can you share a downloaded book?

I'm sure some knowledgeable chap would know how to do it.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Brietta on May 13, 2019, 11:06:43 AM
I think you give her too much credit. She is just another bit part player in this ongoing saga, along with many other people. The fact that she has performed such a dramatic volte face says more about her as a person than it does the facts, you know, post the nice, little payout from Netflix....cherrr ching.

Why was she a poster girl for sceptics for so long if 'she is just another bit player' ?  You can't have it both ways and I'm not too sure she did do a 'volte face' as I am sure I have seen her dismay at being lied to alleged on fora from quite some time back.

Might I remind you that Amaral benefited from the Netflix "cherr ching" along with everyone else ... if he thought that was a damage limitation exercise ... it failed miserably.  I think until he drops that body language thing of sliding out his words from the side of his mouth appearing on television is counter productive.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 13, 2019, 11:17:43 AM
Why was she a poster girl for sceptics for so long if 'she is just another bit player' ?  You can't have it both ways and I'm not too sure she did do a 'volte face' as I am sure I have seen her dismay at being lied to alleged on fora from quite some time back.

Might I remind you that Amaral benefited from the Netflix "cherr ching" along with everyone else ... if he thought that was a damage limitation exercise ... it failed miserably.  I think until he drops that body language thing of sliding out his words from the side of his mouth appearing on television is counter productive.
The sooner everyone comes to terms with the fact that this is an ephemeral cottage industry, the better. Of course they're all at it, all of the current talking heads - Sutton, Amaral, Sandra, the McKenzie, anyone else they care to roll out. It's a cracking little earner for all concerned. And what better way to stay in the game than to swap sides occasionally and supply some dirt?
As for 'damage limitation'...I doubt that very much. The man is picking through the rubble still. I doubt his ego is calling the shots - his bank manager will be though.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 13, 2019, 12:15:55 PM
The sooner everyone comes to terms with the fact that this is an ephemeral cottage industry, the better. Of course they're all at it, all of the current talking heads - Sutton, Amaral, Sandra, the McKenzie, anyone else they care to roll out. It's a cracking little earner for all concerned. And what better way to stay in the game than to swap sides occasionally and supply some dirt?
As for 'damage limitation'...I doubt that very much. The man is picking through the rubble still. I doubt his ego is calling the shots - his bank manager will be though.

That would make an excellent new thread, Maddie...a cottage industry?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: carlymichelle on May 13, 2019, 12:22:41 PM
That would make an excellent new thread, Maddie...a cottage industry?

yes it  would  poor maddie was used for money by many people including her parents  imo
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 13, 2019, 10:18:15 PM
Well I only read three paragraphs of the preface of this Reis book, came across this sentence and that to,d me all I need to know about it.  A load of hogwash, in short,

“Someone has already said that the truth of those parents has more force than the truth revealed by the "Messiahs" of monotheistic religions, Christians, Jews or Muslims”.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2019, 12:27:36 AM
Well I only read three paragraphs of the preface of this Reis book, came across this sentence and that to,d me all I need to know about it.  A load of hogwash, in short,

“Someone has already said that the truth of those parents has more force than the truth revealed by the "Messiahs" of monotheistic religions, Christians, Jews or Muslims”.
Why would that sentence put you off what Reis has to say.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Venturi Swirl on May 14, 2019, 07:15:02 AM
Why would that sentence put you off what Reis has to say.
Because it is complete hyperbolic nonsense.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 14, 2019, 08:17:56 AM
Well I only read three paragraphs of the preface of this Reis book, came across this sentence and that to,d me all I need to know about it.  A load of hogwash, in short,

“Someone has already said that the truth of those parents has more force than the truth revealed by the "Messiahs" of monotheistic religions, Christians, Jews or Muslims”.

The apotheosis of kate and gerry McCann
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: faithlilly on May 14, 2019, 08:24:02 AM
The apotheosis of kate and gerry McCann

Some may dispute that reading here.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2019, 08:35:09 AM
Because it is complete hyperbolic nonsense.
hyperbolic

adjective
1.
relating to a hyperbola.
2.
(of language) deliberately exaggerated.


I thought you supported Kate.  I think Kate was telling the truth through and through.  Because it is so current and we can see her lips moving I would agree with more "force than the truth revealed by the "Messiahs" of monotheistic religions, Christians, Jews or Muslims”
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2019, 08:38:11 AM
The apotheosis of kate and gerry McCann
apotheosis

noun
1.
the highest point in the development of something; a culmination or climax.
"his appearance as Hamlet was the apotheosis of his career"
synonyms:   culmination, climax, crowning moment, peak, pinnacle, summit, zenith, apex, acme, apogee, high point, highest point, height, high water mark
"his appearance as Hamlet was the apotheosis of his career"
2.
the elevation of someone to divine status.
"death spared Pompey the task of having to account for the apotheosis of Caesar"


I don't know if I would go that far, just yet.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 14, 2019, 08:44:47 AM
apotheosis

noun
1.
the highest point in the development of something; a culmination or climax.
"his appearance as Hamlet was the apotheosis of his career"
synonyms:   culmination, climax, crowning moment, peak, pinnacle, summit, zenith, apex, acme, apogee, high point, highest point, height, high water mark
"his appearance as Hamlet was the apotheosis of his career"
2.
the elevation of someone to divine status.
"death spared Pompey the task of having to account for the apotheosis of Caesar"


I don't know if I would go that far, just yet.

It's irony
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2019, 08:51:51 AM
It's irony
Is irony allowed under the rules of the forum?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 14, 2019, 08:52:33 AM
Is irony allowed under the rules of the forum?

You are the mod... The forum is full of irony or are you just trying to find some reason to remove my post
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2019, 09:05:54 AM
You are the mod... The forum is full of irony or are you just trying to find some reason to remove my post
That would be ironic.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 14, 2019, 10:38:53 AM
You are the mod... The forum is full of irony or are you just trying to find some reason to remove my post
Trust me pal, there appears very little reason required to do that. I currently hold the record and I'm relatively moderate in my opinions.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 14, 2019, 10:44:44 AM
Trust me pal, there appears very little reason required to do that. I currently hold the record and I'm relatively moderate in my opinions.

Crikey.  I'm an ex-mod and I have no idea how one checks on deleted posts?

What's your secret?

Quick, before this post gets deleted!   (&^&
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2019, 10:45:38 AM
Trust me pal, there appears very little reason required to do that. I currently hold the record and I'm relatively moderate in my opinions.
What is the record you are claiming?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 14, 2019, 10:49:11 AM
Crikey.  I'm an ex-mod and I have no idea how one checks on deleted posts?

What's your secret?

Quick, before this post gets deleted!   (&^&
I don't really know, or indeed hold the record, but my posts just evaporate, usually when Eleanor's on.
I'm not really concerned, more amused, so I make light of it and have claimed the notional forum record.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2019, 10:50:50 AM
I don't really know, or indeed hold the record, but my posts just evaporate, usually when Eleanor's on.
I'm not really concerned, more amused, so I make light of it and have claimed the notional forum record.
Is that why you post count is relatively low?
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: The General on May 14, 2019, 10:53:19 AM
Is that why you post count is relatively low?
Nah, I jest. It's a handful. Some notice or reason would be useful, but not essential.
Title: Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 14, 2019, 11:02:03 AM
Nah, I jest. It's a handful. Some notice or reason would be useful, but not essential.

Sometimes I discuss the reasons on the forum, like yesterday ad homs or today the issue of irony.   I hope you all learn from these discussions.  I certainly do.  Three years ago when I joined (July 09, 2016) I was always getting posts deleted and I had to learn how not to libel anyone.  It is not easy if you are opinionated.  I personally like your style as it is like my own, that's how I feel anyway.  So you might be having the same problem - libel.