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: John on July 29, 2013, 04:29:15 PM
-
A test of logic?
If one or more people were guilty of a serious crime which involved a missing child then why on earth would they launch a huge public campaign and have the eyes of the world on them 24/7 making it totally impossible to dispose of any incriminating evidence?
If they were so clever as to have committed this crime in the first place without leaving conclusive forensic evidence, don't you think they would have tried to avoid extensive publicity so that they could go about their business with impunity?
Is it a case of logic or is there something more sinister at play here?
PS. Thanks to Mo Stache for the original thought.
-
A test of logic?
If one or more people were guilty of a serious crime which involved a missing child then why on earth would they launch a huge public campaign and have the eyes of the world on them 24/7 making it totally impossible to dispose of any incriminating evidence?
If they were so clever as to have committed this crime in the first place without leaving conclusive forensic evidence, don't you think they would have tried to avoid extensive publicity so that they could go about their business with impunity?
Is it a case of logic or is there something more sinister at play here?
PS. Thanks to Mo Stache for the original thought.
It is only your occasional lucid comments that keep me reading here, John. But I suspect that my days are numbered.
I can no longer comment without being insulted and goaded, and then I am castigated and warned for retaliating, while the people who goad and insult me carry on regardless.
I won't make a point of retaliating, but the time will come. And I can only say that I have been banned from worse places than this.
-
A test of logic?
If one or more people were guilty of a serious crime which involved a missing child then why on earth would they launch a huge public campaign and have the eyes of the world on them 24/7 making it totally impossible to dispose of any incriminating evidence?
If they were so clever as to have committed this crime in the first place without leaving conclusive forensic evidence, don't you think they would have tried to avoid extensive publicity so that they could go about their business with impunity?
Is it a case of logic or is there something more sinister at play here?
PS. Thanks to Mo Stache for the original thought.
Did they have any other choice in the circumstances? A story like this cannot break and die away quickly. You cannot lose a child in mysterious circumstances and slink away out of the public eye. I know that doesnt answer the question though. Which is a very good one. Self preservation might go somewhat near to consider answers. Obviously in the hypothetical scenario that there was no abduction. And not sure why some people insist on talking of murder, or harm. Very very few people think this might be the case.
-
A test of logic?
If one or more people were guilty of a serious crime which involved a missing child then why on earth would they launch a huge public campaign and have the eyes of the world on them 24/7 making it totally impossible to dispose of any incriminating evidence?
If they were so clever as to have committed this crime in the first place without leaving conclusive forensic evidence, don't you think they would have tried to avoid extensive publicity so that they could go about their business with impunity?
Is it a case of logic or is there something more sinister at play here?
PS. Thanks to Mo Stache for the original thought.
I have heard it said that there is no better place to hide than out in the open.
But this would be taking that idea to the extremes and beyond those extremes.
I cannot see that there is any logic in what anti McCann posters suggest, that such a couple would be so audacious in their criminal mindset as to focus so much attention across the whole world upon them. And then to repeatedly demand that one of the best police agencies (and for all the screeching it remains so) in the world should review the case and re-open the case into a crime they had actually committed. Only the insane can see logic in those actions.
But the little matter of there being no logic in their arguments does not seem to worry certain people.
I could of course be wrong and await with interest any posts which prove that to be the case.
-
Did they have any other choice in the circumstances? A story like this cannot break and die away quickly. You cannot lose a child in mysterious circumstances and slink away out of the public eye. I know that doesnt answer the question though. Which is a very good one. Self preservation might go somewhat near to consider answers. Obviously in the hypothetical scenario that there was no abduction. And not sure why some people insist on talking of murder, or harm. Very very few people think this might be the case.
In the immediate aftermath, perhaps not.
In the ensuing years the idea that criminals would continue to bring this intense spotlight upon their actions, indeed that they would continually up the ante by demanding that a renowned police force re-open the case... Well I think that is quite insane and at no point have I ever seen evidence of insanity on the part of the McCanns.
Perhaps others can provide such evidence that would explain such illogical actions? I doubt it.
-
In the immediate aftermath, perhaps not.
In the ensuing years the idea that criminals would continue to bring this intense spotlight upon their actions, indeed that they would continually up the ante by demanding that a renowned police force re-open the case... Well I think that is quite insane and at no point have I ever seen evidence of insanity on the part of the McCanns.
Perhaps others can provide such evidence that would explain such illogical actions? I doubt it.
Firstly, they never demanded a reopening of the case, they pushed for a review. Secondly, your continued use of the word insane does you no favours, what next? We have vindictive, now insane....very telling.
Like I said, if they were guilty of hiding knowledge of Madeleines fate, they would have little choice in getting off the tiger that the case became.
-
It is only your occasional lucid comments that keep me reading here, John. But I suspect that my days are numbered.
I can no longer comment without being insulted and goaded, and then I am castigated and warned for retaliating, while the people who goad and insult me carry on regardless.
I won't make a point of retaliating, but the time will come. And I can only say that I have been banned from worse places than this.
I think you mean better Eleanor 8(0(*
-
Firstly, they never demanded a reopening of the case, they pushed for a review. Secondly, your continued use of the word insane does you no favours, what next? We have vindictive, now insane....very telling.
Like I said, if they were guilty of hiding knowledge of Madeleines fate, they would have little choice in getting off the tiger that the case became.
And like I say anyone who believes that supposed criminals would every push for review/re-opening etc. for so many years would have to be insane.
Whether you like that or not, I really don't care.
I am stating my opinion of the content of posts and the actions of imaginary criminals and their supporters. If you are finding that difficult to handle people would have to wonder why that might be.
-
A test of logic?
If one or more people were guilty of a serious crime which involved a missing child then why on earth would they launch a huge public campaign and have the eyes of the world on them 24/7 making it totally impossible to dispose of any incriminating evidence?
If they were so clever as to have committed this crime in the first place without leaving conclusive forensic evidence, don't you think they would have tried to avoid extensive publicity so that they could go about their business with impunity?
Is it a case of logic or is there something more sinister at play here?
PS. Thanks to Mo Stache for the original thought.
Not necessarily sinister, but political. Perhaps these clever criminals are surrounded by powerful people, whose support they have relied upon in times of crisis. Can they just walk away if they might possibly need that power again one day?
-
Not necessarily sinister, but political. Perhaps these clever criminals are surrounded by powerful people, whose support they have relied upon in times of crisis. Can they just walk away if they might possibly need that power again one day?
Ah the big conspiracy theory of which there is absolutely no proof!
I am sure the lunatics on the David Icke site have plenty to say about things like this.
-
And like I say anyone who believes that supposed criminals would every push for review/re-opening etc. for so many years would have to be insane.
Whether you like that or not, I really don't care.
I am stating my opinion of the content of posts and the actions of imaginary criminals and their supporters. If you are finding that difficult to handle people would have to wonder why that might be.
Tiresome and some....yawn, you may try being less negative sardonic accusatory and vehement in your posts, it might help your cause and lift the atmosphere on this board
8((()*/
-
You beat me to it gilet. Could it indeed be another case of the lizards at work?
-
Did I use the word conspiracy, gilet? First I was replying to John, and second we're speaking hypothetically, but there's no mystery about the powerful people , companies and organisations who have been involved in this case since 2007. That's not David Icke territory. Nearly all of them are mentioned in KM's book.
-
Read the book again and make a list 8)-)))
-
You beat me to it gilet. Could it indeed be another case of the lizards at work?
Thats it! The lizard believers overtook the PJ LP the media various other professionals and all internet readers.
There are alot of idiots around posting idiotic things, and some are insane notions, (yes Gilet, I agree with you there, LOL, they do exist) and have been for a very long time, but it is hardly a case of that on its own leaving us where we are today.
-
Did I use the word conspiracy, gilet? First I was replying to John, and second we're speaking hypothetically, but there's no mystery about the powerful people , companies and organisations who have been involved in this case since 2007. That's not David Icke territory. Nearly all of them are mentioned in KM's book.
What's funny about this post is your indignation that I replied as I did given the fact that John replied snap to my post.
What is sad is that you somehow think that the fact that people supported the parents of a missing child means that those parents are forever beholden to those people. A very sad way of looking at human nature.
-
Why do you imagine I should be friendly to people whose posts I disagree with vehemently?
What has friendliness of posters to do with the topic of this thread?
Why am I getting the impression of detraction again.
I am heartily glad you agree with me that there are many lunatic postings around on the McCann case though, but I suspect that we would often disagree which they might be.
Cant hurt to try
@)(++(*
-
What's funny about this post is your indignation that I replied as I did given the fact that John replied snap to my post.
What is sad is that you somehow think that the fact that people supported the parents of a missing child means that those parents are forever beholden to those people. A very sad way of looking at human nature.
Nah I don't blame anybody for thinking I may have meant Icke-like conspiracy - there are a lot of those who do claim vast hidden conspiracies like that are involved I know. Not me though.
But are we speaking hypothetically or not? If we're not then I can imagine that the 2008 AG 'exoneration' has proved insufficient and a similar one from NSY would do nicely - hence the request for a review.
Perhaps...
-
But are we speaking hypothetically or not? If we're not then I can imagine that the 2008 AG 'exoneration' has proved insufficient and a similar one from NSY would do nicely - hence the request for a review.
Perhaps...
Interesting and original.
8((()*/
-
Nah I don't blame anybody for thinking I may have meant Icke-like conspiracy - there are a lot of those who do claim vast hidden conspiracies like that are involved I know. Not me though.
But are we speaking hypothetically or not? If we're not then I can imagine that the 2008 AG 'exoneration' has proved insufficient and a similar one from NSY would do nicely - hence the request for a review.
Perhaps...
you say the 2008 exoneration has proved insufficient..insufficient to whom... a tiny group of loonies on the internet. These same loonies have already made it clear that exoneration by SY will be deemed a whitewash so I don't think your argument holds water.
-
I think you mean better Eleanor 8(0(*
No, I didn't mean "Better." Think about it. This Forum is still marginally better than some of the places that I have been banned from. But it is going down hill fast while the likes of you are allowed to insult and goad me on every post I make.
Are you stalking me? Are you watching out for everything I say? Do you get some sort of kick out of trying to wind me up? Keep up the good work because I don't care if I get banned. There is nothing more to say to people like you.
-
Cheers RB 8(>(( It's just a thought.
(Is gilet always so quick to assume everyone is a Ickean or Bennetite?)
-
Cheers RB 8(>(( It's just a thought.
(Is gilet always so quick to assume everyone is a Ickean or Bennetite?)
Many are. For some, people holding doubts on the official *story* must mean you have beenbrainwashed by Bennett Amaral Icke etc etc
@)(++(*
-
you say the 2008 exoneration has proved insufficient..insufficient to whom... a tiny group of loonies on the internet. These same loonies have already made it clear that exoneration by SY will be deemed a whitewash so I don't think your argument holds water.
It's a theory, davel. One that's impossible for us to confirm or dismiss because we're not living their lives. You have no way of knowing if people they meet in their daily lives have doubts about them or not, but those who do are definitely not restricted to us "loonies" I can assure you.
-
No, I didn't mean "Better." Think about it. This Forum is still marginally better than some of the places that I have been banned from. But it is going down hill fast while the likes of you are allowed to insult and goad me on every post I make.
Are you stalking me? Are you watching out for everything I say? Do you get some sort of kick out of trying to wind me up? Keep up the good work because I don't care if I get banned. There is nothing more to say to people like you.
Don't bite, Eleanor, its exactly what they want. 8(8-))
-
And like I say anyone who believes that supposed criminals would every push for review/re-opening etc. for so many years would have to be insane.
Whether you like that or not, I really don't care.
I am stating my opinion of the content of posts and the actions of imaginary criminals and their supporters. If you are finding that difficult to handle people would have to wonder why that might be.
IMO - The poster who commented that if they were guilty then ceaselessly pressing for the case to be re- examined by SY would be tantamount to ''Turkeys Voting for Christmas'' - was spot on.
The mental pressure alone of having to watch every single word they said, and to be forced to permanently live a life which was 100% a massive lie would make their lives an unbearable misery anyway. What sane person would voluntarily inflict that torture on themselves for the rest of their lives. 'Cos one thing is for sure - is that if they are guilty, then they above everyone else would know that's how long this torture is going to last. What sort of life would that be?
IMO Its also nonsense to suggest that they 'court' publicity for some reason other than to follow the experts' advice - which is that the best chance they can give Madeleine of being found is to keep her profile as high as possible in the public's mind for as long as possible And as that is all they do - then what's there to criticise? It's publicity for Madeleine they seek, not for themselves.
-
you say the 2008 exoneration has proved insufficient..insufficient to whom... a tiny group of loonies on the internet. These same loonies have already made it clear that exoneration by SY will be deemed a whitewash so I don't think your argument holds water.
Quite. Some deluded people believe the McCanns care about the trolls. They do care about people who can damage the search for their daughter by their outright lies and libel as with Bennett and Amaral but they don't give a fig for nutters and trolls. If I recall, they laugh at the saddos and confine their outpourings to a carboard box labelled "nutters" or something similar. And if you were reading the papers today you would see that Clarence Mitchell, who contrary to all those silly anti rumours, remains firmly a spokesperson for the McCanns, dismissed them as totally insignificant. Now what was that phrase he used?
And, hypothetically of course, how would these people know that they would get an exoneration if there were no conspiracy of police involvement in a cover-up?
And all that reminds me of all those nasty rumours that [ censored word] have been coming out with in the last few years. Mitchell has deserted them. Quite the opposite. The McCann couple are divorcing. Quite the opposite. Just how many more such nasty and completely wrong rumours are there going to be from these Anti McCanns I wonder?
Why would anyone not only put their potential criminality in the limelight but also draw such horrendous lies down upon themselves if they were trying to hide a crime.
No, there is no possible logical reason. None.
-
Many are. For some, people holding doubts on the official *story* must mean you have beenbrainwashed by Bennett Amaral Icke etc etc
@)(++(*
My dear old Ma has never read anything by those three gents, or visited any of the websites, and I can't repeat what she said when she saw DCI Redwood's TV interview the other week @)(++(*
-
It's a theory, davel. One that's impossible for us to confirm or dismiss because we're not living their lives. You have no way of knowing if people they meet in their daily lives have doubts about them or not, but those who do are definitely not restricted to us "loonies" I can assure you.
A theory that cannot be confirmed or dismissed... a bit like the celestial teapot...you may believe in the teapot and can assure me of nothing.
-
It's a theory, davel. One that's impossible for us to confirm or dismiss because we're not living their lives. You have no way of knowing if people they meet in their daily lives have doubts about them or not, but those who do are definitely not restricted to us "loonies" I can assure you.
Only in the past few days have I seen a couple of the more vociferous anti McCann posters express the fact that their own families won't speak to them on the topic and actually consider that they are nutters.
And still they don't realise how out of touch they really are.
Could that be described as some kind of delusion I wonder?
-
Only in the past few days have I seen a couple of the more vociferous anti McCann posters express the fact that their own families won't speak to them on the topic and actually consider that they are nutters.
And still they don't realise how out of touch they really are.
Could that be described as some kind of delusion I wonder?
Theymust obviously all be insane
-
My dear old Ma has never read anything by those three gents, or visited any of the websites, and I can't repeat what she said when she saw DCI Redwood's TV interview the other week @)(++(*
Indeedy, the mantras and arguments hold little water, in essence they say no one has their own opinion or mind, rubbish of course
-
My dear old Ma has never read anything by those three gents, or visited any of the websites, and I can't repeat what she said when she saw DCI Redwood's TV interview the other week @)(++(*
I am always disappointed when I hear of old ladies swearing. Quite lowers the tone of things and not a pretty sight. Rather lets the side down and panders to baser instincts. But if you find that normal who am I to criticise your style of life or hers?
-
IMO - The poster who commented that if they were guilty then ceaselessly pressing for the case to be re- examined by SY would be tantamount to ''Turkeys Voting for Christmas'' - was spot on.
The mental pressure alone of having to watch every single word they said, and to be forced to permanently live a life which was 100% a massive lie would make their lives an unbearable misery anyway. What sane person would voluntarily inflict that torture on themselves for the rest of their lives. 'Cos one thing is for sure - is that if they are guilty, then they above everyone else would know that's how long this torture is going to last. What sort of life would that be?
IMO Its also nonsense to suggest that they 'court' publicity for some reason other than to follow the experts' advice - which is that the best chance they can give Madeleine of being found is to keep her profile as high as possible in the public's mind for as long as possible And as that is all they do - then what's there to criticise? It's publicity for Madeleine they seek, not for themselves.
It was me who used the turkey analogy. I can't for the life of me see why two guilty parties would push for the Yard to get involved, or keep in the public eye. You would slink away into obscurity, heaving a sigh of relief that you had got away with it, imo.
Guilty people certainly wouldn't want the Met poking around, imo. It just does't make sense to me.
-
I am always disappointed when I hear of old ladies swearing. Quite lowers the tone of things and not a pretty sight. Rather lets the side down and panders to baser instincts. But if you find that normal who am I to criticise your style of life or hers?
pathetic
@)(++(*
and you profess to be a balanced impartial impersonal logical poster, ha ha, does every post of yours HAVE to be a personal attack? Did you go to ninja school?
-
It was me who used the turkey analogy. I can't for the life of me see why two guilty parties would push for the Yard to get involved, or keep in the public eye. You would slink away into obscurity, heaving a sigh of relief that you had got away with it, imo.
Guilty people certainly wouldn't want the Met poking around, imo. It just does't make sense to me.
When has sense been a pre-requisite for anti McCann behaviour. Having read the weird stuff on the Hideho page on Facebook earlier today, I can't see where sense comes into things at all for such people. Its hilarious to watch them argue over such issues as they find to argue over like the McCanns being in Portugal (while Gerry is doing a triathlon in London) and so on. Sense cannot be connected to such stuff at all.
-
pathetic
@)(++(*
and you profess to be a balanced impartial impersonal logical poster, ha ha
There is nothing pathetic about disliking the sight or sound of old ladies swearing. I was brought up to find it offensive. Clearly you were not.
And if you hadn't noticed I was replying to a post which was clearly a personal attack on DCI Redwood but I presume you think attacks of that nature are OK.
-
When has sense been a pre-requisite for anti McCann behaviour. Having read the weird stuff on the Hideho page on Facebook earlier today, I can't see where sense comes into things at all for such people. Its hilarious to watch them argue over such issues as they find to argue over like the McCanns being in Portugal (while Gerry is doing a triathlon in London) and so on. Sense cannot be connected to such stuff at all.
Yes, that's true! Although we do know that Gerry McCann is able to be in two places at once...
-
I am always disappointed when I hear of old ladies swearing. Quite lowers the tone of things and not a pretty sight. Rather lets the side down and panders to baser instincts. But if you find that normal who am I to criticise your style of life or hers?
She just needs to see evidence gilet, as we all do. Long gone are the days - after Iraq etc. - when people will trust what the man on the TV tells them, whoever he is.
Six years on and there's been an awful lot of talk, but still no evidence.
-
And that has to do with the posters here, how? Why are you fighting your fight against others HERE?
My fight against others? What planet did that comment come from?
I was responding directly to a comment about people lacking sense and I gave a very valid example of a complete lack of sense in a post connected to the McCann case (albeit elsewhere).
-
There is nothing pathetic about disliking the sight or sound of old ladies swearing. I was brought up to find it offensive. Clearly you were not.
And if you hadn't noticed I was replying to a post which was clearly a personal attack on DCI Redwood.
Oh dear
Some people need to get out more
@)(++(*
So, someones mum or gran did not believe Mr Redwood when he was speaking. Its not a crime you know to not believe someone.
Policemen are not paragons of all truth and virtue,no one attacked him personally as a person, just his words did not ring true
Mountains over molehills yet again
-
She just needs to see evidence gilet, as we all do. Long gone are the days - after Iraq etc. - when people will trust what the man on the TV tells them, whoever he is.
Six years on and there's been an awful lot of talk, but still no evidence.
Nonetheless I find it disappointing that you effectively glorify and old lady's swearing by promoting it here.
And I am also saddened by the apparent distrust she (and you it seems) have in our police.
Saddened but not completely shocked.
-
Nonetheless I find it disappointing that you effectively glorify and old lady's swearing by promoting it here.
And I am also saddened by the apparent distrust she (and you it seems) have in our police.
Saddened but not completely shocked.
the police have given people many reasons to distrust them over years in a number of cases, there is absolutely NOTHING shocking about that
Vast majority of the time they are trusted, but in many high profile cases they have lied and covered up,fact, btw if you reply I should inform you I will be away from my laptop for a while so not ignoring
@)(++(*
-
Nonetheless I find it disappointing that you effectively glorify and old lady's swearing by promoting it here.
And I am also saddened by the apparent distrust she (and you it seems) have in our police.
Saddened but not completely shocked.
Yes well she believed the PM no less about Iraq. And has seen the whitewash inquiries since that crime.
She believed the police about the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 and Barry George and Stefan Kiszko and numerous other cases.
She's no revolutionary, but just doesn't believe in authorities anymore. And she's not alone.
I was actually shocked at her reaction to Redwood's words, and only mentioned it because if people like my Ma are thinking that way - you should take note. It's not a few online "loonies". Never was.
-
Yes well she believed the PM no less about Iraq. And has seen the whitewash inquiries since that crime.
She believed the police about the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 and Barry George and Stefan Kiszko and numerous other cases.
She's no revolutionary, but just doesn't believe in authorities anymore. And she's not alone.
I was actually shocked at her reaction to Redwood's words, and only mentioned it because if people like my Ma are thinking that way - you should take note. It's not a few online "loonies". Never was.
So do you trust Amaral?
-
Don't bite, Eleanor, its exactly what they want. 8(8-))
Yes, I know that, DCI. And thank you for commenting. But if I can't post without being insulted and goaded then I see no point.
I have been defending The McCanns for six years now, and I have been insulted and banned by everything that is the worst in human psyche. I have presented The Facts, which are still ignored. And now I have lost track of what it is all about, other than a Hate Fest.
I am not interested in semantics which have no place in a Court of Law. The McCanns are Innocent by Law, and I have still to see one single piece of evidence that says otherwise.
I do not believe that The McCanns ever neglected their children. And No, I do not any longer wish to discuss this.
But if this Forum should in future wish to protect my right to comment on The Facts without fear of someone insulting me, then I will continue. If this Forum does not wish to do this then I will continue to retaliate against those who first attack me.
-
So do you trust Amaral?
Nope, I don't trust any of the players in the case - they've all either told lies or seriously distorted the truth at various times in my opinion. Do I need to trust Amaral? I can think for myself.
-
Yes well she believed the PM no less about Iraq. And has seen the whitewash inquiries since that crime.
She believed the police about the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 and Barry George and Stefan Kiszko and numerous other cases.
She's no revolutionary, but just doesn't believe in authorities anymore. And she's not alone.
I was actually shocked at her reaction to Redwood's words, and only mentioned it because if people like my Ma are thinking that way - you should take note. It's not a few online "loonies". Never was.
The Guildford 4 etc are not examples of corrupt authorities but rogue elements within. That's why the decision to overturn the judgements were made by the authorities who therefore could be trusted. as for Tony Blair there were many dissenting voices within his own party but he had too much power. Would a politician get away with this again?
Those who feel they have broken free from the authorities , such as the Ickites have just swapped one master for another and are now being controlled by him...sheeple.
-
A test of logic?
If one or more people were guilty of a serious crime which involved a missing child then why on earth would they launch a huge public campaign and have the eyes of the world on them 24/7 making it totally impossible to dispose of any incriminating evidence?
If they were so clever as to have committed this crime in the first place without leaving conclusive forensic evidence, don't you think they would have tried to avoid extensive publicity so that they could go about their business with impunity?
Is it a case of logic or is there something more sinister at play here?
PS. Thanks to Mo Stache for the original thought.
The answer is in the question.
-
Did they have any other choice in the circumstances? A story like this cannot break and die away quickly. You cannot lose a child in mysterious circumstances and slink away out of the public eye.
Many children die daily because of domestic accidents. Every summer some fall in swimming pools and sometimes this is noted just 30 seconds too late. These dramas aren't described in tabloids because, however mediocre they are, tabloids have a certain respect for grief and their readers also.
If you pretend your child has been abducted (the McCanns aren't the only ones), this is an event. If you don't act as if your child was findable, you are an event.
The more you claim there's no evidence your child was harmed, the more people are intrigued and then observe you. If you vanish after a while, they'll start to suspect.
So you're bound to insist again and again. It is your only chance to make them have at least a tiny doubt about your culpability.
The McCanns wanted more, they wanted to be declared innocent. They'll have to satisfy themselves with the tiny doubt that the sceptics have (as sceptic, they can't reject the abduction thesis).
-
Many children die daily because of domestic accidents. Every summer some fall in swimming pools and sometimes this is noted just 30 seconds too late. These dramas aren't described in tabloids because, however mediocre they are, tabloids have a certain respect for grief and their readers also.
If you pretend your child has been abducted (the McCanns aren't the only ones), this is an event. If you don't act as if your child was findable, you are an event.
The more you claim there's no evidence your child was harmed, the more people are intrigued and then observe you. If you vanish after a while, they'll start to suspect.
So you're bound to insist again and again. It is your only chance to make them have at least a tiny doubt about your culpability.
The McCanns wanted more, they wanted to be declared innocent. They'll have to satisfy themselves with the tiny doubt that the sceptics have (as sceptic, they can't reject the abduction thesis).
8@??)(
very insightful theory as ever