Can People Who Doubt the McCanns Safely Debate on This Forum ?

[Luz]

Many people here would have a lot to respond to if legality was to be imposed, starting by some moderators that are biased and offer unfounded opinions.

But we know that the UK is a paradise for predators of the soul when the victims are foreigners.

Nevertheless, if I were you I would just ignore those carter-ruckers and the likes, they only intervene when someone is going into their pockets, and the McCs are just not getting enough charity money to pay them. For them we are less then mosquitos.

And if they want to fight me because I say their clients are liars and are involved in their daughters disappearance, and there is no abduction, so be it.

As a free citizen I have a right to free thinking and speach.

Just a shame that you have no actual evidence for any of these disgusting claims you make isn't it?

When people like you descend to the lows of simply posting such claims without even attempting to back them up with any evidence at all it is clear for all readers to see that you have failed and are nothing but an abusive person.

You can think what you like. But everyone can see your failure to back up your thoughts with evidence. It shows you in an extremely bad light.  Congratulations on showing what at least one Portuguese person (you) is like and what your views on justice are like and the best thing is that you managed to do it without any help from anyone else.

That's for the Courts to evaluate.
Do you have evidence for the slander you have been spraying here...................... about the investigation?

Now report me to the moderators, but don't forget that I called you a ................. cat.

[gilet]

It is your opinion that the McCanns lied. It is not mine as there is no proof of that. You have no idea what they believed at the time and calling their comments lies is abusive unless you make it clear that is simply your opinion.

Do you doubt instead all those who said they received phone calls describing forced shutters and window, doors all locked, etc. ? The probability various people, some not communicating to one another, invented the same story is very dubious.
Anyhow, we know the shutters and window weren't forced, so why did Clarence Mitchell wait months (25 Octobre 2007) before admitting this on RTÉ (Prime Time) ?

Do you ever read what is posted on the forum before asking these inane questions which make you look foolish?

I have answered this in full previously but for your benefit as you clearly have not bothered to read that...

I do not doubt those people. If Gerry believed that, if Kate believed that at the time (in those initial few minutes of panic) then that is what I would expect them to be telling their friends. As each friend heard similar stories from Kate or Gerry directly then it is no surprise at all that they would be repeating similar stories. Your idiotic idea that they would need to communicate between one another is just that, idiotic. The people who reported the shutters etc to the press were all contacted directly by the parents.

Perhaps Mitchell hadn't been asked bluntly the question before that? Had you not thought of that? Why would he deny it if not asked? If it is what Gerry and Kate believed at the time then it needed no denying till a specific question was asked.

Now can you explain why you posted what you did about your past posting on Twitter and other sites? Or are you claiming that @aacg is not you?

[gilet]

@Luz

Unlike you who never posts evidence, I do and I post the sources too.

If you had the decency to read other people's posts instead of simply doing what you accuse others of then you might actually see the evidence posted.

But there is a saying "There's none so blind as them who will not see."

As for your personal abuse to me, why am I not surprised? Such unjustified nastiness has always been the trait of the anti-McCann poster.

[AnneGuedes]

That is a factual statement. When you post facts you cannot be accused of defamation.

Do you really believe he solved the case? No? Then it is factual to state that he did not solve the case. No defamation there then.

Do you deny that he wrote a book which was going to earn money? No? Then it is factual to state that he tried to earn money by writing that book. No defamation there then.

Your attempt to claim that what I posted in your quote is defamation is so crass and ridiculous that it makes Tom and Gerry cartoons look positively real.  If that is the best example you can find you really are showing desperation.

 

This is too short to be considered factual statement, Gilet, you know it very well.
I'm not pretending GA solved the case, of course. Would he have if he hadn't been put aside ? No one can answer for sure. The defamation here is to only state "he didn't solve" without adding at least we'll never know whether he would have, had he been maintained on this case.

Assuming GA "tried to earn money by writing a book" is defamatory because that's not what he said, but a negative opinion. He had been humiliated and his honour was at stake. You might find it strange, but here in Portugal where marialvism is still vivid, it's understandable. I'm not denying his book made money, but I think it was a side effect.

Finally, Gilet, you argue ad hominem... I can see you lost your serenity. Sad.

[AnneGuedes]

Why on earth should the McCanns publicly apologise for believing in the first instance that the apartment shutters had been forced? Who has been damaged by this supposed lie?  It really is nonsense to expect the McCanns to issue public retractions over things like this.

Assuming they "believed" is your belief, because they never said they had believed this and didn't pretend to the GNR nor to the PJ they had found forced shutters and window, whereas, meanwhile they were telling this to their UK circle. You could argue that the lie was "internal" and that they're not responsible if their family and friends spread it to the media. I would agree with that, had they corrected.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this was anything other than a misunderstanding?  Why would they lie about the shutters knowing full well that the police would be along shortly and verify the shutters had not been jemmied?  Which makes more sense - a genuine misunderstanding in the heat of the moment or a lie that would be found out almost instantly?

Martha, they lied ONLY to their family and friends about the "forced" shutters and window. Family and friends spread that rumour ignoring it was one. Up to there, ok. But they should have corrected for the sake of a police that was overcriticized to have searched for a wandering off little girl.
If the McCanns had suggested the polie (I don't know whether they did) entry was forced, the police would have dismissed it immediately, because those shutters, when forced, either break or stop rolling uniformly !

[ferryman]

The defamation here is to only state "he didn't solve" without adding at least we'll never know whether he would have, had he been maintained on this case.

I think we can make an informed judgement based on what he said in his book ...

Martha, they lied ONLY to their family and friends about the "forced" shutters and window.

We have (of all people) Pat Brown and policeman Pete-type to thank for revealing to the world that Gerry's statement that the shutters could be opened from the outside was true.

Why is the assumption from there that they had been "forced" unreasonable, even if wrong ...

[Puffin]

Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !

Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?

Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you?  And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?

So is it a pure coincidence?

Or did you lie about this?

Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?

We deserve the truth.

@AnneGuedes   As you mention lies on  page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post?  As it says, we deserve the truth.

[John]

Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?

I am only reading this now Faithlilly and to answer your question I can categorically state that this forum has no contacts, formal, casual or otherwise with clan McCann.  The forum finds its own path with the help of all the members as you will see in the fullness of time when the next poll is posted.

Tell me, are admin here experts on defamation law or are they just going to report things willy nilly on the off chance it may be libellous ?

The expertise within the forum is quite exceptional on most subjects including the Law.  Reports of abuse and unacceptable language go to the admins. The admins decide what further action if any to take.

[Luz]

Please tick the words I can't use:

castrated
liar
disgraced
miserable
neutered
sardine muncher
shameful



...I'll get back if I remember more, sorry my vernacular vocabulary is limited   

[gilet]

That is a factual statement. When you post facts you cannot be accused of defamation.

Do you really believe he solved the case? No? Then it is factual to state that he did not solve the case. No defamation there then.

Do you deny that he wrote a book which was going to earn money? No? Then it is factual to state that he tried to earn money by writing that book. No defamation there then.

Your attempt to claim that what I posted in your quote is defamation is so crass and ridiculous that it makes Tom and Gerry cartoons look positively real.  If that is the best example you can find you really are showing desperation.

 

This is too short to be considered factual statement, Gilet, you know it very well.
I'm not pretending GA solved the case, of course. Would he have if he hadn't been put aside ? No one can answer for sure. The defamation here is to only state "he didn't solve" without adding at least we'll never know whether he would have, had he been maintained on this case.

Assuming GA "tried to earn money by writing a book" is defamatory because that's not what he said, but a negative opinion. He had been humiliated and his honour was at stake. You might find it strange, but here in Portugal where marialvism is still vivid, it's understandable. I'm not denying his book made money, but I think it was a side effect.

Finally, Gilet, you argue ad hominem... I can see you lost your serenity. Sad.

You really are being very silly. There is only fact in that statement from me. There is no defamation there whatsoever and your attempt to show otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

It is a fact that he did not solve the case.  NO defamation. 

And as you have brought into the debate his removal from the case that he hadn't solved its interesting isn't it that it was his own disgraceful behaviour that led to his dismissal. He tells us all about it in his book. Do you remember when he shot his mouth off to the journalist and immediately realised (so he wrote) that he had done wrong and would be in trouble for it? So no we won't know if he could ever have solved it because his own actions prevented him from being allowed to continue. But the fact remains he didn't solve it. What I posted was not defamatory at all as you ludicrously claim.

He made money from the book. Fact. No defamation.

Everyone can see that I have not defamed Amaral who incidentally is a convicted criminal and a disgrace to the police force for his actions in another missing child case (but of course you have completely ignored that proven aspect of the man's character haven't you?

What I have posted are simple facts.

Your claim that they are defamation is simply untrue and you know it as well as the readers of this thread know it. Such abject desperation to find fault in my posts is very revealing.

[Cudge]

Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !

Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?

Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you?  And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?

So is it a pure coincidence?

Or did you lie about this?

Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?

We deserve the truth.

@AnneGuedes   As you mention lies on  page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post?  As it says, we deserve the truth.

I suppose are you saying will the real Anne Guedes stand up
 
Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 21 Feb
The #McCanns must be the first 'former suspects' in History to successfully SILENCE anyone who believes them to be complicit in any crime.


anne guedes
‏@aacg
@spudgun01 Their success is due to the many personalities who supported blindly their absurd theory.

Joana Morais @ xklamation 22 Feb
Petition to pressure PT Authorities reopen the Maddie case to http://www. change.org / petitions / a-vo ice-for-madeleine ... # J4M

anne guedes @ AACG 22 Feb
@ xklamation They never will, Joana, Unless they'd find a corpse, not 'cause nothing Remained (imo). And remember Pontius Pilate!

anne guedes @ AACG 20 Feb
@ ProfilerPatB May be Between ground and sky as well, if I may say.

[gilet]

....sorry my vernacular vocabulary is limited   

Would that vocabulary include

fire
paint

or are they no longer part of your methodology?

[John]

Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !

Anne, this forum has been going for several years in different formats.  The McCann case up until last week was a very minor part of the debate.  It might be flavour of the month right now but this will undoubtedly change over time.

The forum will always endeavour to allow opposing views to be debated as long as they do so in a proper and reasonable manner and abide by the house rules.

The forum supports both victims and the wrongly accused/convicted where they occur and will leave no stone unturned in exposing falsehoods and myths.

[icabodcrane]

Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !

Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?

Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you?  And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?

So is it a pure coincidence?

Or did you lie about this?

Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?

We deserve the truth.

@AnneGuedes   As you mention lies on  page 4, any chance of yout admittance or rebuttal of the claims in this post?  As it says, we deserve the truth.

I suppose are you saying will the real Anne Guedes stand up
 
Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 21 Feb
The #McCanns must be the first 'former suspects' in History to successfully SILENCE anyone who believes them to be complicit in any crime.


anne guedes
‏@aacg
@spudgun01 Their success is due to the many personalities who supported blindly their absurd theory.

Joana Morais @ xklamation 22 Feb
Petition to pressure PT Authorities reopen the Maddie case to http://www. change.org / petitions / a-vo ice-for-madeleine ... # J4M

anne guedes @ AACG 22 Feb
@ xklamation They never will, Joana, Unless they'd find a corpse, not 'cause nothing Remained (imo). And remember Pontius Pilate!

anne guedes @ AACG 20 Feb
@ ProfilerPatB May be Between ground and sky as well, if I may say.

oh dear  ...  this post smacks of stalking !

Surely that is against forum rules ? 

(  I find it quite scarey  )

[John]

Please tick the words I can't use:

castrated
liar
disgraced
miserable
neutered
sardine muncher
shameful



...I'll get back if I remember more, sorry my vernacular vocabulary is limited   

You can use them by all means Luz.