Madeleine McCann’s parents hit by ‘150 vile tweets a DAY from online trolls’

[Alfie]

I have seen examples of statements by the McCanns which aren't supported by their subsequent statements or by the statements of others. I have no idea why that is so, so I can't draw any firm conclusions. As far as I'm concerned the crime is unknown so until it's identified there can't be any suspects.

So you have no suspicions whatsoever about the McCanns, you don't suspect them of dishonesty, you don't suspect them of covering up Madeleiene's death?  The McCanns should not be under suspicion then, as far as you're concerned as we have no idea what if any crime was committed?  Is that your view?

[G-Unit]

I do understand the meaning of the words I use, do you understand the use of the conditional tense?

You said;

"You have constantly called into question the McCanns' honesty and anyone following your posts knows full well you    It would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim otherwise".

I do claim otherwise and I'm not lying. if you disagree please provide cites where I have said I 'suspect the McCanns guilty of crimnal behaviour'.

[Alfie]

You said;

"You have constantly called into question the McCanns' honesty and anyone following your posts knows full well you    It would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim otherwise".

I do claim otherwise and I'm not lying. if you disagree please provide cites where I have said I 'suspect the McCanns guilty of crimnal behaviour'.

Oh please don't insult my intelligence.  You don't have to say "I suspect the McCanns are guilty of criminal behaviour" without it being blatantly obvious that you do.  FGS. 

Do you suspect the McCanns are guilty of criminal behaviour?  Yes or no? 

[Alfie]

Here we go - one of your very first posts on this forum G-Unit.

"Sorry, still no answer to the points I raised. You can believe anything you wish, but it doesn't address the problems I pointed out. I hope the PJ & SY will justify your belief in them by explaining, when they find this abductor who has eluded them for almost 8 years, how he managed to enter and leave the apartment in the time available, find the child he wanted to abduct and open a window and some noisy shutters without waking said child or the other two children in the room. Oh - he may have tidied the bed too! What a cool and collected abductor he was.

9.05-9.15pm Gerry McCann & Jeremy Wilkins around.
9.10-9.15pm Jane Tanner around.
9.30-9.35pm Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield around (no open window noticed by Matthew so no      abduction unless McCanns lied about the window)
9.40-9.50pm Jane Tanner relieves Russell O'Brien.
9.50-10.00pm Kate McCann checks children - Madeleine gone.

No-one with any sense would have gone near G5A with all those people coming and going IMO. Perhaps he had a cloak of invisibility? Perhaps the McCanns and their friends lied about their comings and goings - but why would they do that when it was so important to help the police to get the facts correct?"

So very early on in your career on this forum you have planted the seed that the McCanns may have been lying, which suggests to me that you do indeed suspect them of lying and therefore also of criminal behaviour. 

ETA: you know of course that you have sent me on a fool's errand because any post that outright accuses the McCanns of criminal behaviour on this forum is removed as libellous so OF COURSE you are never going to be able to be quoted as saying so, but  only an idiot could fail to read between the lines or understand where you're coming from.

[G-Unit]

Here we go - one of your very first posts on this forum G-Unit.

"Sorry, still no answer to the points I raised. You can believe anything you wish, but it doesn't address the problems I pointed out. I hope the PJ & SY will justify your belief in them by explaining, when they find this abductor who has eluded them for almost 8 years, how he managed to enter and leave the apartment in the time available, find the child he wanted to abduct and open a window and some noisy shutters without waking said child or the other two children in the room. Oh - he may have tidied the bed too! What a cool and collected abductor he was.

9.05-9.15pm Gerry McCann & Jeremy Wilkins around.
9.10-9.15pm Jane Tanner around.
9.30-9.35pm Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield around (no open window noticed by Matthew so no      abduction unless McCanns lied about the window)
9.40-9.50pm Jane Tanner relieves Russell O'Brien.
9.50-10.00pm Kate McCann checks children - Madeleine gone.

No-one with any sense would have gone near G5A with all those people coming and going IMO. Perhaps he had a cloak of invisibility? Perhaps the McCanns and their friends lied about their comings and goings - but why would they do that when it was so important to help the police to get the facts correct?"

So very early on in your career on this forum you have planted the seed that the McCanns may have been lying, which suggests to me that you do indeed suspect them of lying and therefore also of criminal behaviour. 

ETA: you know of course that you have sent me on a fool's errand because any post that outright accuses the McCanns of criminal behaviour on this forum is removed as libellous so OF COURSE you are never going to be able to be quoted as saying so, but  only an idiot could fail to read between the lines or understand where you're coming from.

Saying 'perhaps' means I'm exploring a possibility not making an accusation. It doesn't logically follow that I also suspect them of criminal behaviour. I can think of a few reasons why the group may have tweaked the timeline, none of which are related to criminal activity. Whether the conclusions you reach by 'reading between the lines' are correct or not I will leave to others to decide.

[carlymichelle]

Oh please don't insult my intelligence.  You don't have to say "I suspect the McCanns are guilty of criminal behaviour" without it being blatantly obvious that you do.  FGS. 

Do you suspect the McCanns are guilty of criminal behaviour?  Yes or no?

why  do you care so much about what other people think of the mcanns??

[Brietta]

Saying 'perhaps' means I'm exploring a possibility not making an accusation. It doesn't logically follow that I also suspect them of criminal behaviour. I can think of a few reasons why the group may have tweaked the timeline, none of which are related to criminal activity. Whether the conclusions you reach by 'reading between the lines' are correct or not I will leave to others to decide.

Tweaking ... adjust ~ make adjustments to ~ modify ~ alter ~ make alterations to ~ change ~ adapt ...

Do you have examples of the group "tweaking" the timeline?

[G-Unit]

Tweaking ... adjust ~ make adjustments to ~ modify ~ alter ~ make alterations to ~ change ~ adapt ...

Do you have examples of the group "tweaking" the timeline?

Do I need examples of something which may have happened? I think not.

Do you have examples of me spewing bile at the McCanns? Or were you describing some unknown others?

[Alfie]

Saying 'perhaps' means I'm exploring a possibility not making an accusation. It doesn't logically follow that I also suspect them of criminal behaviour. I can think of a few reasons why the group may have tweaked the timeline, none of which are related to criminal activity. Whether the conclusions you reach by 'reading between the lines' are correct or not I will leave to others to decide.

So lying to the police and obstructing the course of justice is not criminal activity in your view?  I'm sure others are perfectly capable of reading between the lines and those who are will undoubtedly reach the same conclusion as me.

[G-Unit]

So lying to the police and obstructing the course of justice is not criminal activity in your view?  I'm sure others are perfectly capable of reading between the lines and those who are will undoubtedly reach the same conclusion as me.

It depends Alfie. Gerry, Jane and Jez disagreed about the spot where the two men chatted. Technically one or two of them are not telling the truth, but are they lying? Are they obstructing the course of justice?

Dianne Webster categorically denied crossing paths with Matthew Oldfield at 9pm on 3rd May. A year later she decided she did see him after all. Was she lying? Was she obstructing the course of justice?

The group may have lied, they may not. Hence 'perhaps'.

[stephen25000]

Do I need examples of something which may have happened? I think not.

Do you have examples of me spewing bile at the McCanns? Or were you describing some unknown others?

What has been observable on here for a few days, principally from the point where the McCann's attempt to have the Supreme Court Decision set aside was rejected , is increased aggressive posting against 'sceptics', along with an upturn of the 'poor me' McCann posts.

As a reminder there is no onus to support the Mccanns, whose actions brought on this case, and not a damn thing the supporters do on here will change that.

Additionally, most 'sceptics' did not need Amaral to doubt the abduction story, they looked at the situation for themselves and assessed the available evidence, what little there is of that.

[slartibartfast]

It depends Alfie. Gerry, Jane and Jez disagreed about the spot where the two men chatted. Technically one or two of them are not telling the truth, but are they lying? Are they obstructing the course of justice?

Dianne Webster categorically denied crossing paths with Matthew Oldfield at 9pm on 3rd May. A year later she decided she did see him after all. Was she lying? Was she obstructing the course of justice?

The group may have lied, they may not. Hence 'perhaps'.

Seems a perfectly valid viewpoint. The insistence of some posters that all of the witnesses stories are consistent and unvarying is unsupportable.

[Alfie]

Seems a perfectly valid viewpoint. The insistence of some posters that all of the witnesses stories are consistent and unvarying is unsupportable.

Perhaps you could point to any supporter who has ever made that claim? 

[Alfie]

It depends Alfie. Gerry, Jane and Jez disagreed about the spot where the two men chatted. Technically one or two of them are not telling the truth, but are they lying? Are they obstructing the course of justice?

Dianne Webster categorically denied crossing paths with Matthew Oldfield at 9pm on 3rd May. A year later she decided she did see him after all. Was she lying? Was she obstructing the course of justice?

The group may have lied, they may not. Hence 'perhaps'.

Clearly then you have suspicions that the McCanns and their friends were involved in criminal behaviour and activity.  I rest my case.

[carlymichelle]

Clearly then you have suspicions that the McCanns and their friends were involved in criminal behaviour and activity.  I rest my case.

why does it upset you   so   much  what g unit  thinks?? is everybody not allowed a opinion??