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: stephen25000 on July 09, 2013, 07:15:00 AM
-
' By Dr Martin Roberts
08 July 2013
NO WAY OUT
With Scotland Yard in hot pursuit of thirty-eight 'persons of interest', all of whom were in Portugal on the night of May 3, 2007, apparently, one must assume that there is some plausible connection between one or more of these individuals and the sequestration of a minor from her bed in Praia da Luz that night. In point of fact there were rather more than thirty-eight people in Portugal at the time, any one of whom might have some, as yet unrecognised connection to, or knowledge of, dark deeds in the Algarve.
But all of this rather pre-supposes that a crime of abduction was committed in the first instance. Whilst there are 'experts' walking among us, who are only too happy to write books, give media interviews etc., covering subjects for which the supposedly known photographic evidence is demonstrably fake, i.e. a hoax (e.g., the nephilim giants), it cannot be difficult to appreciate that the interrogation of thirty-eight (give or take as many as you like) over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, can only serve a true purpose if the child was actually abducted in the first place.
Unless money is no object, the most cost-effective way for Metropolitan Police to narrow the scope of their review-turned-investigation into Madeleine's disappearance must be to consolidate their position as to the nature of any crime committed against her. That was the approach taken by the Portuguese (surprise, surprise) in their original investigation, encouraged not just by the indications of trained sniffer dogs, but by the earlier input of UK based expertise, in the form of the NPIA's National Search Adviser, Mark Harrison MBE. Surely his voice must count for something, even in the face of absolute refusal to entertain interpretation of the dogs' behaviour subsequently.
"There is no evidence Madeleine is dead".
But that, as both the McCanns and DCI Redwood should know, does not constitute evidence she is alive. Equally, there is no evidence that she was abducted, which, likewise, is insufficient to prove she was not. But what, therefore, should one make of evidence that abduction, under the circumstances understood and at the very specific time alluded to by the only possible witnesses in the vicinity, could not have occurred? Such evidence clearly does not exist in the PJ files under the discrete heading 'evidence against', but it can be adduced. What is more, an evidence based argument, however persuasive, carries only the weight of probability. A logical proof, on the other hand, confers absolute certainty.
Earlier essays (Crystal Clear, Another Story) examined the circumstances in question, arriving at the conclusion that the putative abductor's biggest challenge was not getting into apartment 5A, but getting out again. And if they failed to do so by the time they were 'spotted' in the street by Jane Tanner then that incident itself could not have occurred. Crucial to any such conclusion is not the status of the patio door to the apartment but that of the front door, which various statements (e.g., those of Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and, importantly, Gerry McCann) inform us was locked, in which case a key would have been required in order to enter or exit the apartment that way.
Ah, but Gerry changed his mind. From: 'The deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked', to: 'Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door'. Not exactly a categorical volte face you will notice. Nor is there a genuine causal relationship between synchronously unlocked doors.
'But this is all uncertainty, not evidence! Whe... Whe... Where is the evidence'?
It exists in the form of a book, and a statement therein which confirms that the front door to apartment 5A was locked on the night of May 3, 2007. That being the case, our hypothetical abductor of Madeleine McCann could not have exited the apartment without being seen by the two gentlemen conversing at the foot of the back stairs or, for that matter, in order to be seen by Jane Tanner. Basically he could not get out. And if he did not get out, then he did not get in either.
The book in question is 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann and the crucial statement is as follows:
"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."
The equation of possibilities here is perfectly clear. Any of three access points may have been utilised, including the front door, provided the intruder had a key. But why should he have needed a key to enter through an unlocked door? The implication is unmistakable. The front door was locked. But that would not have deterred anyone in possession of a key. Unfortunately for the McCanns' belief in abduction, it is not equally possible that he had a key to the front door.
As David Payne explains in his rogatory interview:
"...essentially you needed the key you know, to use, if I remember to gain access into the, err into the apartment, and you know generally it was difficult because there was, you know we'd ask about more than one key, there was the only one key to the apartment."
There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it.
He could not, therefore did not, exit the apartment with a child in his arms in the two or three minutes between Gerry McCann's last 'check' on the children and Jane Tanner's 'sighting'. Nor did he leave the apartment afterwards, carrying Madeleine past the Smiths. The child they witnessed was wearing the wrong pyjamas. And since the intending abductor was not discovered inside the apartment subsequently then he was not there at all.
Without an abductor there can have been no abduction, but thirty-eight people, at least, were in Portugal that night.'
-
the nephilim giants What is this? And what "photographic evidence is demonstrably fake?"
-
Quote
There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it.
End quote
If there was only one key how did the cleaners get in?
-
the nephilim giants What is this? And what "photographic evidence is demonstrably fake?"
Nephilim giants are some story from the Bible.
-
Nephilim giants are some story from the Bible.
Fallen angels or offspring thereof.
-
What does he mean the known photographic evidence is fake?
Very good piece overall,as usual.
-
What does he mean the known photographic evidence is fake?
Very good piece overall,as usual.
Here's the link to the page.
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t23969-dr-martin-roberts-no-way-out-with-thanks-to-mccannfilescom
The point about the photographs needs explaining.
-
the nephilim giants What is this? And what "photographic evidence is demonstrably fake?"
Oh that is the photo of no-neck Madeleine.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PhdVk_CEkX4/TWB8EV9qvEI/AAAAAAAAAB4/XHOMlXdR9UU/s320/01-HI-RES-MADDY-POOL-SO-CALLED-3rdMAY-2007-with+G%2526A.jpg)
Gotta be that photo. The [ censored word] spent weeks / months mulling over that one. Photo was photoshopped, they said. What had happened to Madeleines neck?
Very important piece of evidence,that CG ! Didn'tcha know?
It proved that Madeleine was already dead before May3rd they said, cos that photo showed her with no-neck.
Then they put up photographs showing Gerry in the same place, but no Madeleine at his side. Now that was photoshopped and by very viscious [ censored word] spreading propaganda.
Idiots ... stupid lot ..... and bullying liars.
-
The bit about a single key needs even more explaining...
Previous occupant of 5A:
I remember that the key to the apartment was a bit unusual. It was round and with cut segments. We noticed that the cleaning personnel knocked on the door once and would then enter in the apartment. In this sequence, we left the door always closed with the key in the lock. The next morning, the cleaning woman knocked on the door and entered normally independent of the door being locked with the key in the interior of the lock.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JUNE-HUGHES.htm
-
The bit about a single key needs even more explaining...
Previous occupant of 5A:
I remember that the key to the apartment was a bit unusual. It was round and with cut segments. We noticed that the cleaning personnel knocked on the door once and would then enter in the apartment. In this sequence, we left the door always closed with the key in the lock. The next morning, the cleaning woman knocked on the door and entered normally independent of the door being locked with the key in the interior of the lock.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JUNE-HUGHES.htm
Quite so Carana. It's nonsense anyway to claim there was only one key. What happens if a family staying at an apartment lose their key and can't get back in. They go to reception and are given a duplicate one.
-
What a load of piffle Stephen. I am surprised at you reposting this blog as your posts are usually matter of fact and not speculation. Stating that there us no evidence was the clincher for me as we all know this is untrue. There is lots of evidence, the thing that is lacking is proof of a crime.
-
What does he mean the known photographic evidence is fake?
Very good piece overall,as usual.
If you seriously believe that Red then you are very deluded. The 'only one key' comment alone renders the article a load of bollocks!! @)(++(*
-
If you seriously believe that Red then you are very deluded. The 'only one key' comment alone renders the article a load of bollocks!! @)(++(*
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Quite so Carana. It's nonsense anyway to claim there was only one key. What happens if a family staying at an apartment lose their key and can't get back in. They go to reception and are given a duplicate one.
Quite.
David Payne's issue was probably wanting an extra key as they had Fiona's mother with them. If people want to come and go when they please, it's a pain not to have a second key.
The alternatives would be:
- to arrange to meet up at a specific time in order to get in (which can often be a pain if people have a change of plan or are late);
- to drop it off at the reception (would this have been the main one?). If so - a hassle;
- to leave it under a doormat or some other hiding place.
If a key is left under a doormat, it would hardly be difficult to get a duplicate made and put the original back where it was.
-
What a load of piffle Stephen. I am surprised at you reposting this blog as your posts are usually matter of fact and not speculation. Stating that there us no evidence was the clincher for me as we all know this is untrue. There is lots of evidence, the thing that is lacking is proof of a crime.
No problem Angelo.
I just wanted to see the reaction it produced.
-
No problem Angelo.
I just wanted to see the reaction it produced.
You had me worried for a moment there as I thought you had gone over to fantasy land.
-
What a load of piffle Stephen. SNIP Stating that there us no evidence was the clincher for me as we all know this is untrue. There is lots of evidence, the thing that is lacking is proof of a crime.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Perceptive and very well put, Angelo
Two triple accolades in one day ... 8((()*/
-
If this forum is going to accept for discussion the rantings of an internet poster who has no credentials and no credibility, then it may as well accept Hideho's videos. Both are equally fraudulent.
-
It is the first line of the op that strikes me
What is the 'connection' between the 38 persons of interest mentioned by Scotland Yard ?
Is this a people-trafficing 'gang' that they are talking about ?
If they are not, then we must assume that these 38 people 'of interest' are individuals .... and that if one of them 'alone' is the abductor, then 37 of them are, actually, of no interest whatsoever
Over two years of 'reviewing' the case ... and millions of pounds later ... that's where we are ?
-
BUMPED
If this forum is going to accept for discussion the rantings of an internet poster who has no credentials and no credibility, then it may as well accept Hideho's videos. Both are equally fraudulent.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( Another triple accolade
PS We are slowly getting Hidehos videos anyway. Red occasionally promotes one.
-
People in some quarters never questioned the financial aspect when Bennett was calling for a full public inquiry, nor when some were offering a stamp in the belief that that was all it would have taken to reopen the case.
Now that the situation has a real chance of moving forward, many of the same people find an investigation arrangement is a waste of money.
Odd that.
-
It appears to be ok on this forum to quote a sceptic.
Which begs the question why was snoop's excellent article removed?
Instead of objecting to the article being posted at all, how about addressing it's substance with rational argument ?
It might make a refreshing change
-
It appears to be ok on this forum to quote a sceptic.
Which begs the question why was snoop's excellent article removed?
Was it. I missed that.
Excellent call admin @)(++(*
-
It appears to be ok on this forum to quote a sceptic.
Which begs the question why was snoop's excellent article removed?
I never even saw snoops article.
Snoop is brilliant .... a genius at getting to the nub of things .... and expressing it clearly in a minimium of words. Plain English.
Why was that removed? When did it happen, Neeley
Can it be reposted please?
-
It is the first line of the op that strikes me
What is the 'connection' between the 38 persons of interest mentioned by Scotland Yard ?
Is this a people-trafficing 'gang' that they are talking about ?
If they are not, then we must assume that these 38 people 'of interest' are individuals .... and that if one of them 'alone' is the abductor, then 37 of them are, actually, of no interest whatsoever
Over two years of 'reviewing' the case ... and millions of pounds later ... that's where we are ?
- I seriously doubt that there were 38 people involved in any abduction. Many will be eliminated, but some may have useful information, whether they are withholding any or are genuinely unaware that they may know something significant. Until they are interviewed (or reinterviewed in more depth), what they may or may not know can't be ascertained.
- If there is an abductor / child predator out there, that person could strike again (and may have already done so). Whether or not Madeleine is ever found... surely any potentially (or known) dangerous person is worth tracking down if there are red flags?
- My personal belief is that the objectives of the review go beyond the search for one child. Sometimes the what is in the how: rebuilding mutual confidence, cooperation, best practice based on lessons learned and quite possibly an exchange of know-how... perhaps even a police media service.
-
8@??)(
More than 38 involved in trafficking tho? ...... and organised abuse?
Not saying that traffickers etc are the ones being looked at, but they might be.
-
- I seriously doubt that there were 38 people involved in any abduction. Many will be eliminated, but some may have useful information, whether they are withholding any or are genuinely unaware that they may know something significant. Until they are interviewed (or reinterviewed in more depth), what they may or may not know can't be ascertained.
- If there is an abductor / child predator out there, that person could strike again (and may have already done so). Whether or not Madeleine is ever found... surely any potentially (or known) dangerous person is worth tracking down if there are red flags?
- My personal belief is that the objectives of the review go beyond the search for one child. Sometimes the what is in the how: rebuilding mutual confidence, cooperation, best practice based on lessons learned and quite possibly an exchange of know-how... perhaps even a police media service.
Carana, I have always admired that your posts are optimistic with regard to mutual respect and co-operation between all parties concerned in this case ( I share you optimism )
My point about the 38 people 'of interest' was that it is misleading ... unless they are connected, then the vast majority are, actually, of no interest at all ( innocent people, in fact, who have, inexplicably, been identified as relevent to the case without due cause .... if there was cause, afterall, then they should have been investigated/ eliminated already )
-
Carana, I have always admired that your posts are optimistic with regard to mutual respect and co-operation between all parties concerned in this case ( I share you optimism )
My point about the 38 people 'of interest' was that it is misleading ... unless they are connected, then the vast majority are, actually, of no interest at all ( innocent people, in fact, who have, inexplicably, been identified as relevent to the case without due cause .... if there was cause, afterall, then they should have been investigated/ eliminated already )
Thank you.
But what else does one call people who are not suspects, but who may have useful information if not "people of interest" ?
-
My point about the 38 people 'of interest' was that it is misleading ... unless they are connected, then the vast majority are, actually, of no interest at all
It's not obvious that Mr Redwood's communication intends to deliver information, though citing "exact" numbers produces always some illusion. His remarkable conclusion announces, I'm afraid, that the crucial point is to find an acceptable exit.
-
It's not obvious that Mr Redwood's communication intends to deliver information, though citing "exact" numbers produces always some illusion. His remarkable conclusion announces, I'm afraid, that the crucial point is to find an acceptable exit.
I fear you might be right
I am astounded that more than two years, and millions of pounds later, we are told that the objective is 'resolution' rather than solving the case !
What does that MEAN, exactly ?
Are we to be told that Scotland Yard have 'resolved' what happened to Madeleine, without any proof or perpetrator brought to justice ?
-
I fear you might be right
I am astounded that more than two years, and millions of pounds later, we are told that the objective is 'resolution' rather than solving the case !
What does that MEAN, exactly ?
Are we to be told that Scotland Yard have 'resolved' what happened to Madeleine, without any proof or perpetrator brought to justice ?
I guess we'll have to see what transpires.
Is there a semantic nuance?
Discovering what happened to her may not equate to bringing anyone to justice. Or vice versa.
-
What does that MEAN, exactly ?
I'm hopeful that when we pursue those lines of inquiry that we'll be able to bring some sort of resolution. Whether we'll be able to solve it is a different issue
Well it seems we can't spare an exegesis..
"Hope" (not ambition, not objective) of "some sort of resolution" as identifying the nature of the crime at least.
About "solving", no hope. As Dr Roberts says, "the interrogation of thirty-eight over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann can only serve a true purpose if the child was actually abducted in the first place."
After more than 2 years and millions of pounds spent ? Ah mais c'est la vie, as Angelo would say.
-
Bumped with photograph and additional words
Quote from: Chinagirl on Today at 07:37:16 AMthe nephilim giants What is this? And what "photographic evidence is demonstrably fake?".
Oh that is the photo of no-neck Madeleine(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PhdVk_CEkX4/TWB8EV9qvEI/AAAAAAAAAB4/XHOMlXdR9UU/s320/01-HI-RES-MADDY-POOL-SO-CALLED-3rdMAY-2007-with+G%2526A.jpg)
Gotta be that photo. The [ censored word] spent weeks / months mulling over that one. Photo was photoshopped, they said. What had happened to Madeleines neck?
Very important piece of evidence,that CG ! Didn'tcha know?
It proved that Madeleine was already dead before May3rd they said, cos that photo showed her with no-neck.
Then they put up photographs showing Gerry in the same place, but no Madeleine at his side. Now that was photoshopped ... and by very viscious [ censored word] spreading libel and propaganda.
Idiots ... stupid lot ..... and bullying liars.[/img]
-
I'm hopeful that when we pursue those lines of inquiry that we'll be able to bring some sort of resolution. Whether we'll be able to solve it is a different issue
Well it seems we can't spare an exegesis..
"Hope" (not ambition, not objective) of "some sort of resolution" as identifying the nature of the crime at least.
About "solving", no hope. As Dr Roberts says, "the interrogation of thirty-eight over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann can only serve a true purpose if the child was actually abducted in the first place."
After more than 2 years and millions of pounds spent ? Ah mais c'est la vie, as Angelo would say.
Who exactly is Dr Martin Roberts?
-
Who exactly is Dr Martin Roberts?
Nobody, Carana. He's just off the McCann Files.
-
Quote
There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it.
End quote
If there was only one key how did the cleaners get in?
Through the window, perhaps? @)(++(*
-
Nobody, Carana. He's just off the McCann Files.
So why would any MD or PhD graduate regularly post "exclusively" on mccanfiles in their real name without any backup in terms of - at least - authenticity?
-
Through the window, perhaps? @)(++(*
"Through the window" may well be less related to how the child left the apartment than what happened to judicial secrecy...
-
"Through the window" may well be less related to how the child left the apartment than what happened to judicial secrecy...
Think DCI was referring to the cleaners getting in thru the windows, but I get you point.
Judicial secrecy seems to have leaked thru everywhere, every crack ./.. but only when it was something to discredit the Mccanns. had you noticed?
-
Think DCI was referring to the cleaners getting in thru the windows, but I get you point.
Judicial secrecy seems to have leaked thru everywhere, every crack ./.. but only when it was something to discredit the Mccanns. had you noticed?
It would be hard not to...
-
Think DCI was referring to the cleaners getting in thru the windows, but I get you point.
Judicial secrecy seems to have leaked thru everywhere, every crack ./.. but only when it was something to discredit the Mccanns. had you noticed?
Really?
It worked very well for the McCann to put their family and friends spilling all the dirt they could think of to the journos. On the 4th of May, while hundreds of portuguese civilians and hundreds of police, firemen, army, navy,..were searching for Madeleine, relatives were telling the media that poooor Kate and Gerry were desperate because there was nobody doing anything. Well, they were busy - after being questioned by the police they found time for tennis, but this didn't come out on the papers.
-
Really?
It worked very well for the McCann to put their family and friends spilling all the dirt they could think of to the journos. On the 4th of May, while hundreds of portuguese civilians and hundreds of police, firemen, army, navy,..were searching for Madeleine, relatives were telling the media that poooor Kate and Gerry were desperate because there was nobody doing anything. Well, they were busy - after being questioned by the police they found time for tennis, but this didn't come out on the papers.
If the fact that Kate and Gerry had jogged up the hill and that Gerry eventually played a game of tennis had never appeared in the press ... how come I knew about this?
I hope that you'll never find yourself in a situation in which you need temporary relief from stress due to the situation and constant press attention.
-
Really?
It worked very well for the McCann to put their family and friends spilling all the dirt they could think of to the journos. On the 4th of May, while hundreds of portuguese civilians and hundreds of police, firemen, army, navy,..were searching for Madeleine, relatives were telling the media that poooor Kate and Gerry were desperate because there was nobody doing anything. Well, they were busy - after being questioned by the police they found time for tennis, but this didn't come out on the papers.
Don't tell such blatant lies, Luz, you are known for it. You don't seem to remember being on 3A's, and what you posted, funny that!
-
Don't tell such blatant lies, Luz, you are known for it. You don't seem to remember being on 3A's, and what you posted, funny that!
Awww ... so Luz is telling lies here, then.
Hmm ...... will have to rethink my assessment of him/her on the PdL thread.
I hate liars.
NB. I think that it was in this post and in the one, by DCI above, that proof that Luz had been telling lies was shown using a post from Missing Madeleine IIRC. John has now removed that proof, but as others have seen it, I leave this post unaltered .
By sheer good fortune, as I was closing down just, I found that I had it recorded in my computer
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t15017p45-british-former-inspector-calls-for-a-reconstruction#310031 Last post ...... and the post that has been whitewashed out for some reason ..... is by Luz himself! 8)-))) ?>)()<
Please John NEVER EVER AGAIN put me in the position that you have here.
Here stood a post that proved that Luz lied; then you removed that proof, without a clear acknowledgement. That is a dreadful unforgiveable thing to do to me.
-
I'm still confused.
Why would a certain "Dr Martin Roberts" present what may be assumed to be a professional analysis of certain aspects as "exclusives" on a blog* ... without any confirmation of identity, nor credentials as to this person's qualifications and experience?
Doesn't anyone else find that a bit odd?
* Someone else's blog... in theory.
-
That said, I'm not sure that I'd trust some people who do appear to be psychologists with even a mildly neurotic hamster.
-
Another execrable epic from Roberts, I see.
Roberts is yet another Walter Mitty trying to boost his own ego on the back of a family's pain.
It's telling that he doesn't post his "exclusives" on a site where comments are allowed.
-
Another execrable epic from Roberts, I see.
Roberts is yet another Walter Mitty trying to boost his own ego on the back of a family's pain.
It's telling that he doesn't post his "exclusives" on a site where comments are allowed.
It doesn't make much sense to me...
-
Sooooo.
Who is this person who posts as "Dr Martin Roberts" exclusively on mccannfiles?
-
It doesn't make much sense to me...
It's long-winded pomp, which falls down instantly with the following line: "There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it".
Only one key? Yeah right. Does Roberts not imagine that reception will have duplicates for maintenance, cleaning and in case someone loses their key?
He makes Stephen Birch look like Hercule Poirot.
-
It's long-winded pomp, which falls down instantly with the following line: "There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it".
Only one key? Yeah right. Does Roberts not imagine that reception will have duplicates for maintenance, cleaning and in case someone loses their key?
He makes Stephen Birch look like Hercule Poirot.
Ouch.
-
Isn't it strange the way Moore disappears for months on end and so does "Dr Martin Roberts".
Then Moore returns and so does "Dr Martin Roberts".
Does Moore pay Roberts anything for these articles, do we know?
-
Isn't it strange the way Moore disappears for months on end and so does "Dr Martin Roberts".
Then Moore returns and so does "Dr Martin Roberts".
Does Moore pay Roberts anything for these articles, do we know?
Yes, that had crossed my mind too, Ferryman.
If Moore is paying for these articles, then he has more money than sense.
-
Could be why Moore is always pleading poverty ...
-
Could be why Moore is always pleading poverty ...
Yes. Wasn't he claiming that he had to run the site from the public computers at the library?
Whoever Roberts is, he is a saddo feeding on the adulation he knows he will get from the tick-tockers whenever he releases one of his "exclusives".
-
Yes. Wasn't he claiming that he had to run the site from the public computers at the library?
Whoever Roberts is, he is a saddo feeding on the adulation he knows he will get from the tick-tockers whenever he releases one of his "exclusives".
As to 'saddos' they are very easy to spot.
They support a theory of abduction which has no proof at all.
-
Isn't it strange the way Moore disappears for months on end and so does "Dr Martin Roberts".
Then Moore returns and so does "Dr Martin Roberts".
Does Moore pay Roberts anything for these articles, do we know?
Most odd.
-
Could be why Moore is always pleading poverty ...
I confess that that possibility had never occurred to me...
Even though I find it somewhat unlikely.
-
Anyway, who is Dr Roberts?
-
So is.....
'Whoever Roberts is, he is a saddo feeding on the adulation he knows he will get from the tick-tockers whenever he releases one of his "exclusives". '
...adding to a debate, or merely a sign of your bias to the Mccanns ?
Tough question.
At least I change the record now and again.
If Tavares de Almeida and Amaral were so convinced that the McCanns were involved, why were they not arrested.
Tough question?
-
It's a forum Red. That means peeps can post whatever they wish .... so long as it isn't lies, abusive or libel.
They dont need anyone telling them what they can, or cannot, post. They can post it they wish. It sure adds more to the forum than many of the posts from certain peeps