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: G-Unit on October 07, 2015, 07:19:59 PM
-
As far as the McCanns are concerned there is only one possibility as to what happened to their daughter. They spent all their time on 3rd/4th May on the telephone telling everyone they could think of that Madeleine had been abducted. They told the Portuguese police the same thing. They have steadfastly repeated the story over and over and over again since. They have never explained why they're so sure; they just knew. They've never explained why woke and wandered was impossible; it just was. Not only are they sure she was abducted, they're sure she's still alive and able to be found. Why? because there's no evidence that she's dead. Well, who knows, perhaps other parents would be able to believe for years that all the above is true. Kerry Needham is in a very similar situation.
People who aren't involved are likely to be pessimistic. Statistically children are unlikely to survive but that's hard for parents to accept, and who can blame them for hanging onto hope? Not me. Let them carry on hoping, even if I can't share it. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the insistence that they are right and that only their opinion should be spread by the media and by social networks. Kerry Needham accepts that some people disagree with her and she accepts that they have the freedom to express their opinions. I have seen alternative possibilities being explored in relation to her son, and I expect she has too.
The problem with the McCanns is their absolute refusal to allow other opinions to be expressed. They want anyone online who doesn't agree with them to be punished. They sue anyone who says things which damage their reputation. When they do interviews all questions are screened. Their whole aim seems to be to protect their reputations. Why else employ PR companies? Their idea of searching seems to be to get others to do it.
89
-
As far as the McCanns are concerned there is only one possibility as to what happened to their daughter. They spent all their time on 3rd/4th May on the telephone telling everyone they could think of that Madeleine had been abducted. They told the Portuguese police the same thing. They have steadfastly repeated the story over and over and over again since. They have never explained why they're so sure; they just knew. They've never explained why woke and wandered was impossible; it just was. Not only are they sure she was abducted, they're sure she's still alive and able to be found. Why? because there's no evidence that she's dead. Well, who knows, perhaps other parents would be able to believe for years that all the above is true. Kerry Needham is in a very similar situation.
People who aren't involved are likely to be pessimistic. Statistically children are unlikely to survive but that's hard for parents to accept, and who can blame them for hanging onto hope? Not me. Let them carry on hoping, even if I can't share it. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the insistence that they are right and that only their opinion should be spread by the media and by social networks. Kerry Needham accepts that some people disagree with her and she accepts that they have the freedom to express their opinions. I have seen alternative possibilities being explored in relation to her son, and I expect she has too.
The problem with the McCanns is their absolute refusal to allow other opinions to be expressed. They want anyone online who doesn't agree with them to be punished. They sue anyone who says things which damage their reputation. When they do interviews all questions are screened. Their whole aim seems to be to protect their reputations. Why else employ PR companies? Their idea of searching seems to be to get others to do it.
Excellent post. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
As far as the McCanns are concerned there is only one possibility as to what happened to their daughter. They spent all their time on 3rd/4th May on the telephone telling everyone they could think of that Madeleine had been abducted. They told the Portuguese police the same thing. They have steadfastly repeated the story over and over and over again since. They have never explained why they're so sure; they just knew. They've never explained why woke and wandered was impossible; it just was. Not only are they sure she was abducted, they're sure she's still alive and able to be found. Why? because there's no evidence that she's dead. Well, who knows, perhaps other parents would be able to believe for years that all the above is true. Kerry Needham is in a very similar situation.
People who aren't involved are likely to be pessimistic. Statistically children are unlikely to survive but that's hard for parents to accept, and who can blame them for hanging onto hope? Not me. Let them carry on hoping, even if I can't share it. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the insistence that they are right and that only their opinion should be spread by the media and by social networks. Kerry Needham accepts that some people disagree with her and she accepts that they have the freedom to express their opinions. I have seen alternative possibilities being explored in relation to her son, and I expect she has too.
The problem with the McCanns is their absolute refusal to allow other opinions to be expressed. They want anyone online who doesn't agree with them to be punished. They sue anyone who says things which damage their reputation. When they do interviews all questions are screened. Their whole aim seems to be to protect their reputations. Why else employ PR companies? Their idea of searching seems to be to get others to do it.
8@??)(
-
As far as the McCanns are concerned there is only one possibility as to what happened to their daughter. They spent all their time on 3rd/4th May on the telephone telling everyone they could think of that Madeleine had been abducted. They told the Portuguese police the same thing. They have steadfastly repeated the story over and over and over again since. They have never explained why they're so sure; they just knew. They've never explained why woke and wandered was impossible; it just was. Not only are they sure she was abducted, they're sure she's still alive and able to be found. Why? because there's no evidence that she's dead. Well, who knows, perhaps other parents would be able to believe for years that all the above is true. Kerry Needham is in a very similar situation.
People who aren't involved are likely to be pessimistic. Statistically children are unlikely to survive but that's hard for parents to accept, and who can blame them for hanging onto hope? Not me. Let them carry on hoping, even if I can't share it. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the insistence that they are right and that only their opinion should be spread by the media and by social networks. Kerry Needham accepts that some people disagree with her and she accepts that they have the freedom to express their opinions. I have seen alternative possibilities being explored in relation to her son, and I expect she has too.
The problem with the McCanns is their absolute refusal to allow other opinions to be expressed. They want anyone online who doesn't agree with them to be punished. They sue anyone who says things which damage their reputation. When they do interviews all questions are screened. Their whole aim seems to be to protect their reputations. Why else employ PR companies? Their idea of searching seems to be to get others to do it.
I'm quite certain Kerry Needham would be outraged if anyone were to suggest that she or anyone with her the night Ben was abducted had anything to do with her son's disappearance.
-
I'm quite certain Kerry Needham would be outraged if anyone were to suggest that she or anyone with her the night Ben was abducted had anything to do with her son's disappearance.
The cases are not comparable.
and you know it.
-
As far as the McCanns are concerned there is only one possibility as to what happened to their daughter. They spent all their time on 3rd/4th May on the telephone telling everyone they could think of that Madeleine had been abducted. They told the Portuguese police the same thing. They have steadfastly repeated the story over and over and over again since. They have never explained why they're so sure; they just knew. They've never explained why woke and wandered was impossible; it just was. Not only are they sure she was abducted, they're sure she's still alive and able to be found. Why? because there's no evidence that she's dead. Well, who knows, perhaps other parents would be able to believe for years that all the above is true. Kerry Needham is in a very similar situation.
People who aren't involved are likely to be pessimistic. Statistically children are unlikely to survive but that's hard for parents to accept, and who can blame them for hanging onto hope? Not me. Let them carry on hoping, even if I can't share it. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the insistence that they are right and that only their opinion should be spread by the media and by social networks. Kerry Needham accepts that some people disagree with her and she accepts that they have the freedom to express their opinions. I have seen alternative possibilities being explored in relation to her son, and I expect she has too.
The problem with the McCanns is their absolute refusal to allow other opinions to be expressed. They want anyone online who doesn't agree with them to be punished. They sue anyone who says things which damage their reputation. When they do interviews all questions are screened. Their whole aim seems to be to protect their reputations. Why else employ PR companies? Their idea of searching seems to be to get others to do it.
Give me one good reason why the McCanns should put up with people going out of their way to damage their reputation and accuse them repeatedly of hiding their daughter's body? In fact, they DO put up with it, day in, day out - consider how many hundreds do this to them every day, and how many have ever actually been punished for doing so.
-
its just another pathetic attack on the McCanns. They have every right to protect their reputation..its quite a normal thing to do. If they didn't they would be accused of being guilty if they didn't sue.
-
The cases are not comparable.
and you know it.
Ben disappeared in a foreign country,
He is British.
He was unsupervised when he disappeared.
His family believe he was abducted by strangers, but we only have their word for it.
British police are satisfied that his family were not implicated in any criminal activity
Needham family members are not suspects.
Ben's family believe he may still be alive.
Ben's family also believe that Madeleine was abducted.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine disappeared in a foreign country.
She is British.
She was unsupervised when she disappeared.
Her family believe she was abducted by strangers but we only have their word for it.
British police are satisfied that her family were not implicated in any criminal activity.
McCann family members are not suspects.
Madeleine's family believe she may still be alive.
Madeleine's family also believe that Ben was abducted.
-
Ben disappeared in a foreign country,
He is British.
He was unsupervised when he disappeared.
His family believe he was abducted by strangers, but we only have their word for it.
British police are satisfied that his family were not implicated in any criminal activity
Needham family members are not suspects.
Ben's family believe he may still be alive.
Ben's family also believe that Madeleine was abducted.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine disappeared in a foreign country.
She is British.
She was unsupervised when she disappeared.
Her family believe she was abducted by strangers but we only have their word for it.
British police are satisfied that her family were not implicated in any criminal activity.
McCann family members are not suspects.
Madeleine's family believe she may still be alive.
Madeleine's family also believe that Ben was abducted.
Not good enough.
I will respond to your post in more detail later.
-
Give me one good reason why the McCanns should put up with people going out of their way to damage their reputation and accuse them repeatedly of hiding their daughter's body? In fact, they DO put up with it, day in, day out - consider how many hundreds do this to them every day, and how many have ever actually been punished for doing so.
I can only answer for myself. I don't accuse the McCanns of anything except less than adequate care of their kids. I question their abduction story because there's no evidence for it, and other scenarios are just as possible. I see no reason why I should accept their word for what happened.
-
I can only answer for myself. I don't accuse the McCanns of anything except less than adequate care of their kids. I question their abduction story because there's no evidence for it, and other scenarios are just as possible. I see no reason why I should accept their word for what happened.
so what other scenarios are possible...that's where your whole argument falls apart
-
As far as the McCanns are concerned there is only one possibility as to what happened to their daughter. They spent all their time on 3rd/4th May on the telephone telling everyone they could think of that Madeleine had been abducted. They told the Portuguese police the same thing. They have steadfastly repeated the story over and over and over again since. They have never explained why they're so sure; they just knew. They've never explained why woke and wandered was impossible; it just was. Not only are they sure she was abducted, they're sure she's still alive and able to be found. Why? because there's no evidence that she's dead. Well, who knows, perhaps other parents would be able to believe for years that all the above is true. Kerry Needham is in a very similar situation.
People who aren't involved are likely to be pessimistic. Statistically children are unlikely to survive but that's hard for parents to accept, and who can blame them for hanging onto hope? Not me. Let them carry on hoping, even if I can't share it. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the insistence that they are right and that only their opinion should be spread by the media and by social networks. Kerry Needham accepts that some people disagree with her and she accepts that they have the freedom to express their opinions. I have seen alternative possibilities being explored in relation to her son, and I expect she has too.
The problem with the McCanns is their absolute refusal to allow other opinions to be expressed. They want anyone online who doesn't agree with them to be punished. They sue anyone who says things which damage their reputation. When they do interviews all questions are screened. Their whole aim seems to be to protect their reputations. Why else employ PR companies? Their idea of searching seems to be to get others to do it.
8@??)(
-
I can only answer for myself. I don't accuse the McCanns of anything except less than adequate care of their kids. I question their abduction story because there's no evidence for it, and other scenarios are just as possible. I see no reason why I should accept their word for what happened.
Probably the principal reason is that Amaral's version is buttressed by discredited dog alerts and virtually nothing else.
-
I can only answer for myself. I don't accuse the McCanns of anything except less than adequate care of their kids. I question their abduction story because there's no evidence for it, and other scenarios are just as possible. I see no reason why I should accept their word for what happened.
so you can think of no good reason why the McCanns should graciously accept people accusing them of hiding their child's body or worse, but nevertheless think they're being oversensitive about such accusations? I see.
-
so you can think of no good reason why the McCanns should graciously accept people accusing them of hiding their child's body or worse, but nevertheless think they're being oversensitive about such accusations? I see.
dont you understand alfie the more fuss the mcanns make over stupid things the more people get sick of tyhem?/ they and the mcann supporters have the choice not to read others opinions so why make such a huge fuss?
-
Now benice, a little bit more.
'On the day of his disappearance Ben had been left in the care of his grandparents while his mother went to work at a local hotel. Ben had been coming in and out of the house that he was playing outside: a farmhouse the family were renovating when, at approximately 2.30pm, the adults realised he had disappeared'
That is more reminiscent off April Jones disappearance.
How does that equate with the mccanns leaving three children, for 5 nights, with infrequent checks (unverified by independent sources) for hours on end whilst they ate and drank, in an unlocked apartment they later claimed was a fire risk, that being the reason for it being 'unlocked' ?
Ben's family did not set up a fund , or engage the services of PR people to manage their image, and i don't recall them having any contact at the time with the then Prime Minister, their wives, or other government officials.
Neither did the Needhams blame all and sundry, and I doubt the Needhams were writing 'timelines' on scraps of paper after his disappearance. They searched for Ben, and did not the following morning have a stroll on the beach
, which was the extent of the mccanns physically searching for Madeleine.
No trace of either child has ever been found and that looks like remaining the case.
As to how they disappeared, that remains supposition.
-
Now benice, a little bit more.
'On the day of his disappearance Ben had been left in the care of his grandparents while his mother went to work at a local hotel. Ben had been coming in and out of the house that he was playing outside: a farmhouse the family were renovating when, at approximately 2.30pm, the adults realised he had disappeared'
That is more reminiscent off April Jones disappearance.
How does that equate with the mccanns leaving three children, for 5 nights, with infrequent checks (unverified by independent sources) for hours on end whilst they ate and drank ?
Ben's family did not set up a fund , or engage the services of PR people to manage their image, and i don't recall them having any contact at the time with the then Prime Minister, their wives, or other government officials.
Neither did the Needhams blame all and sundry, and I doubt the Needhams were writing 'timelines' on scraps of paper after his disappearance. They searched for Ben, and did not the following morning have a stroll on the beach
, which was the extent of the mccanns physically searching for Madeleine.
No trace of either child has ever been found and that looks like remaining the case.
As to how they disappeared, that remains supposition.
kerry has never drawn attention to herself in the media like th mcanns constantly do either stephen the media was satuated with gerry and kate and people got sick of it
-
kerry has never drawn attention to herself in the media like th mcanns constantly do either stephen the media was satuated with gerry and kate and people got sick of it
Precisely.
Kerry has come across as nothing but genuine.
The mccanns had/have Mitchell, the media manipulator.
-
so you can think of no good reason why the McCanns should graciously accept people accusing them of hiding their child's body or worse, but nevertheless think they're being oversensitive about such accusations? I see.
I didn't start this thread or create the title Alfred. My post was taken from another thread. I don't think it matters whether the McCanns accept what is said on the internet or not, it won't make any difference. As things stand they can't silence the internet as they silenced the media and as they have attempted to silence Amaral.
-
I didn't start this thread or create the title Alfred. My post was taken from another thread. I don't think it matters whether the McCanns accept what is said on the internet or not, it won't make any difference. As things stand they can't silence the internet as they silenced the media and as they have attempted to silence Amaral.
they would love too though G unit a pal of the mcanns said they were furious about all this stuff @)(++(*
-
Probably the principal reason is that Amaral's version is buttressed by discredited dog alerts and virtually nothing else.
I don't subscribe to Amaral's theory of what happened either, so I don't know why he is being brought into the discussion. It may be a revelation to you, but some people decide for themselves and don't need to follow anyone else's theories.
-
Now benice, a little bit more.
'On the day of his disappearance Ben had been left in the care of his grandparents while his mother went to work at a local hotel. Ben had been coming in and out of the house that he was playing outside: a farmhouse the family were renovating when, at approximately 2.30pm, the adults realised he had disappeared'
That is more reminiscent off April Jones disappearance.
How does that equate with the mccanns leaving three children, for 5 nights, with infrequent checks (unverified by independent sources) for hours on end whilst they ate and drank, in an unlocked apartment they later claimed was a fire risk, that being the reason for it being 'unlocked' ?
Ben's family did not set up a fund , or engage the services of PR people to manage their image, and i don't recall them having any contact at the time with the then Prime Minister, their wives, or other government officials.
Neither did the Needhams blame all and sundry, and I doubt the Needhams were writing 'timelines' on scraps of paper after his disappearance. They searched for Ben, and did not the following morning have a stroll on the beach
, which was the extent of the mccanns physically searching for Madeleine.
No trace of either child has ever been found and that looks like remaining the case.
As to how they disappeared, that remains supposition.
As to you believing these cases are similar, well we already know you will say anything to defend the mccanns.
Well said, there are many differences between the two. 8@??)(
-
As far as the McCanns are concerned there is only one possibility as to what happened to their daughter. They spent all their time on 3rd/4th May on the telephone telling everyone they could think of that Madeleine had been abducted. They told the Portuguese police the same thing. They have steadfastly repeated the story over and over and over again since. They have never explained why they're so sure; they just knew. They've never explained why woke and wandered was impossible; it just was. Not only are they sure she was abducted, they're sure she's still alive and able to be found. Why? because there's no evidence that she's dead. Well, who knows, perhaps other parents would be able to believe for years that all the above is true. Kerry Needham is in a very similar situation.
People who aren't involved are likely to be pessimistic. Statistically children are unlikely to survive but that's hard for parents to accept, and who can blame them for hanging onto hope? Not me. Let them carry on hoping, even if I can't share it. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the insistence that they are right and that only their opinion should be spread by the media and by social networks. Kerry Needham accepts that some people disagree with her and she accepts that they have the freedom to express their opinions. I have seen alternative possibilities being explored in relation to her son, and I expect she has too.
The problem with the McCanns is their absolute refusal to allow other opinions to be expressed. They want anyone online who doesn't agree with them to be punished. They sue anyone who says things which damage their reputation. When they do interviews all questions are screened. Their whole aim seems to be to protect their reputations. Why else employ PR companies? Their idea of searching seems to be to get others to do it.
IMO the McCann's don't have any objections to opinions being expressed. Their only objection is to downright LIES being told about them in public.
How can you say no other opinions are allowed - when hundreds of 'other opinions' are expressed in public every day of the week - some of them on here. Are any of our posters expecting to be sued for publicly voicing their different opinions? I doubt it.
I can only assume you have no empathy. Say for instance it was alleged in your local paper that you were an alcoholic shoplifter. Would you sit back and say 'Oh well that's a downright lie, but people are entitled to express their opinions so it's OK '? Or would you be making an urgent appointment with your solicitor?
Why would any normal person expect the McCanns to feel any differently to any other person who knew they were being publicly libelled?
-
IMO the McCann's don't have any objections to opinions being expressed. Their only objection is to downright LIES being told about them in public.
How can you say no other opinions are allowed - when hundreds of 'other opinions' are expressed in public every day of the week - some of them on here. Are any of our posters expecting to be sued for publicly voicing their different opinions? I doubt it.
I can only assume you have no empathy. Say for instance it was alleged in your local paper that you were an alcoholic shoplifter. Would you sit back and say 'Oh well that's a downright lie, but people are entitled to express their opinions so it's OK '? Or would you be making an urgent appointment with your solicitor?
Why would any normal person expect the McCanns to feel any differently to any other person who knew they were being publicly libelled?
Empathy for the mccanns ???
Where is Madeleine in your considerations ?
-
Empathy for the mccanns ???
Where is Madeleine in your considerations ?
sadly maddie is forgotten by mcann supporters its all about gerry and kate yet they say we are anti madeline which is the stupidest thing i have ever heard
-
sadly maddie is forgotten by mcann supporters its all about gerry and kate yet they say we are anti madeline which is the stupidest thing i have ever heard
It does appear to be the case.
-
Empathy for the mccanns ???
Where is Madeleine in your considerations ?
Read the thread title. This isn't about Madeleine it's about her parents.
However, people who want the search for her by SY to be stopped - cannot in the same breath claim to have any consideration for Madeleine imo.
What kind of person wants to punish a child because they intensely dislike their parents?
-
Ben disappeared in a foreign country,
He is British.
He was unsupervised when he disappeared.
His family believe he was abducted by strangers, but we only have their word for it.
British police are satisfied that his family were not implicated in any criminal activity
Needham family members are not suspects.
Ben's family believe he may still be alive.
Ben's family also believe that Madeleine was abducted.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine disappeared in a foreign country.
She is British.
She was unsupervised when she disappeared.
Her family believe she was abducted by strangers but we only have their word for it.
British police are satisfied that her family were not implicated in any criminal activity.
McCann family members are not suspects.
Madeleine's family believe she may still be alive.
Madeleine's family also believe that Ben was abducted.
Succinctly summed up in an excellent post.
-
Read the thread title. This isn't about Madeleine it's about her parents.
However, people who want the search for her by SY to be stopped - cannot in the same breath claim to have any consideration for Madeleine imo.
What kind of person wants to punish a child because they intensely dislike their parents?
Who is punishing Madeleine ?
I thought you were happy with the investigation.
-
Succinctly summed up in an excellent post.
HARDLY.
-
I didn't start this thread or create the title Alfred. My post was taken from another thread. I don't think it matters whether the McCanns accept what is said on the internet or not, it won't make any difference. As things stand they can't silence the internet as they silenced the media and as they have attempted to silence Amaral.
Every Johnny-come-lately can have his (or her) own pet theory and the poor people in the middle of it who stand accused just find their reputations torn to shreds all ways up.
Lovely ....
-
Who is punishing Madeleine ?
I thought you were happy with the investigation.
they always say WE are punishing maddie stephen because we dont believe her parents maddie is nothing to do with what we think of gerry and kate is she ?she was a innocent child
-
sadly maddie is forgotten by mcann supporters its all about gerry and kate yet they say we are anti madeline which is the stupidest thing i have ever heard
Madeleine McCann is not exempt from the opprobrium which allows filth including photo shopped images and comment of the most disgusting nature to be posted on-line.
An example of which was the Facebook page taken down only after it was highlighted on mainstream media.
So be under no illusion that Madeleine is not the direct target of some terribly misguided individuals indeed.
Offensive Madeleine McCann Facebook page taken down
December 11, 2014
A vile Facebook page mocking missing Madeleine McCann caused offence in the latest case of online abuse against her.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/offensive-madeleine-mccann-facebook-page-taken-down-1479094
-
Ben disappeared in a foreign country,
He is British.
He was unsupervised when he disappeared.
His family believe he was abducted by strangers, but we only have their word for it.
British police are satisfied that his family were not implicated in any criminal activity
Needham family members are not suspects.
Ben's family believe he may still be alive.
Ben's family also believe that Madeleine was abducted.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine disappeared in a foreign country.
She is British.
She was unsupervised when she disappeared.
Her family believe she was abducted by strangers but we only have their word for it.
British police are satisfied that her family were not implicated in any criminal activity.
McCann family members are not suspects.
Madeleine's family believe she may still be alive.
Madeleine's family also believe that Ben was abducted.
another similarity is that family members in both cases were suspected of involvement at one stage or another, in the case of Ben Needham his uncle suffered (and possibly still suffers to this day) from the taint of suspicion, his only slight good fortune is that when Ben went missing there was no internet around for him to be publicly vilified on a daily basis.
-
Madeleine McCann is not exempt from the opprobrium which allows filth including photo shopped images and comment of the most disgusting nature to be posted on-line.
An example of which was the Facebook page taken down only after it was highlighted on mainstream media.
So be under no illusion that Madeleine is not the direct target of some terribly misguided individuals indeed.
Offensive Madeleine McCann Facebook page taken down
December 11, 2014
A vile Facebook page mocking missing Madeleine McCann caused offence in the latest case of online abuse against her.
Sorry, an unattributed headline to a FB page with no idea of content, really?
-
Sorry, an unattributed headline to a FB page with no idea of content, really?
i will never understand why if the mcanns and their adoring fans hate people with other opinions why do they read it??
-
i will never understand why if the mcanns and their adoring fans hate people with other opinions why do they read it??
Its like a scab that they can't stop picking at.
-
It does appear to be the case.
no it doesn't....the present investigation by SY is designed to get justice for Maddie....why would people want that stopped
-
another similarity is that family members in both cases were suspected of involvement at one stage or another, in the case of Ben Needham his uncle suffered (and possibly still suffers to this day) from the taint of suspicion, his only slight good fortune is that when Ben went missing there was no internet around for him to be publicly vilified on a daily basis.
Look at my analysis of my reply to Benice.
How the children disappeared cannot be compared.
Two totally dissimilar situations.
-
they always say WE are punishing maddie stephen because we dont believe her parents maddie is nothing to do with what we think of gerry and kate is she ?she was a innocent child
So why do you and Stephen want the search for her by SY to be stopped?
How will that help Madeleine?
-
So why do you and Stephen want the search for her by SY to be stopped?
How will that help Madeleine?
They have less than six months left.
So far they have found no trace of Madeleine or how she disappeared.
The investigation is at a dead end.
Read Angelo's comments in regard to this, and answer his points.
-
**Snip
No trace of either child has ever been found and that looks like remaining the case.
As to how they disappeared, that remains supposition.
"No trace of either child has ever been found and that looks like remaining the case." ... yet you appear to have no objection to expenditure on the investigation for one child while constantly making complaints about the expenditure on the other.
The campaigns against any search for Madeleine McCann must rank as one of the more bizarre and distasteful emanations of the age of the internet which has enabled the crow of one village to become a murder of crows.
Might I respectfully suggest ... if you don't look you most certainly will not find ... and I fail to comprehend the objection to following active leads in a live investigation into a missing child.
Cui bono? only the perpetrators.
"As to how they disappeared, that remains supposition." ... yet in one case the hydra headed 'alternative point of view' has been up for discussion and reassessment and rearrangement as one ridiculous assertion becomes too bizarre for even the 'questioners' to keep propagating ... all of which totally ignores evidence and has substituted fiction for fact.
I am of the opinion that far from the Drs McCann being "too sensitive" they have been seriously let down by the forces of law and order who have allowed ... not 'alternative points of view' but libel and slander to prevail.
No-one should have to put up with the volume of hatred and negativity they have suffered over the years ... that it is generated by their insistence and campaigning on behalf of their missing child ... makes it all the more distasteful.
-
i will never understand why if the mcanns and their adoring fans hate people with other opinions why do they read it??
You don't do 'irony' do you Carly.
The vast majority of your posts are confined to criticising and/or slagging off the McCanns or their supporters. Many of them are so offensive and goading they are removed.
You appear to be the one with a major problem with anyone who has a different opinion to yours - as your response is never to offer any counter argument - you just attack the poster for not holding YOUR opinions.
-
"No trace of either child has ever been found and that looks like remaining the case." ... yet you appear to have no objection to expenditure on the investigation for one child while constantly making complaints about the expenditure on the other.
The campaigns against any search for Madeleine McCann must rank as one of the more bizarre and distasteful emanations of the age of the internet which has enabled the crow of one village to become a murder of crows.
Might I respectfully suggest ... if you don't look you most certainly will not find ... and I fail to comprehend the objection to following active leads in a live investigation into a missing child.
Cui bono? only the perpetrators.
"As to how they disappeared, that remains supposition." ... yet in one case the hydra headed 'alternative point of view' has been up for discussion and reassessment and rearrangement as one ridiculous assertion becomes too bizarre for even the 'questioners' to keep propagating ... all of which totally ignores evidence and has substituted fact for fiction.
I am of the opinion that far from the Drs McCann being "too sensitive" they have been seriously let down by the forces of law and order who have allowed ... not 'alternative points of view' but libel and slander to prevail.
No-one should have to put up with the volume of hatred and negativity they have suffered over the years ... that it is generated by their insistence and campaigning on behalf of their missing child ... makes it all the more distasteful.
How would you define an active lead?
-
Sorry, an unattributed headline to a FB page with no idea of content, really?
Thank you for noting my omission ... I have amended my post to suit ... that Madeleine McCann has been the subject of some highly inventive photoshopped escapades is well known, and the fact that there are those who think that is acceptable is suspect.
The fact that any parent would be less than 'sensitive' about it stretches credulity ... or is it fine because this missing child's surname is McCann?
** amended post
Madeleine McCann is not exempt from the opprobrium which allows filth including photo shopped images and comment of the most disgusting nature to be posted on-line.
An example of which was the Facebook page taken down only after it was highlighted on mainstream media.
So be under no illusion that Madeleine is not the direct target of some terribly misguided individuals indeed.
Offensive Madeleine McCann Facebook page taken down
December 11, 2014
A vile Facebook page mocking missing Madeleine McCann caused offence in the latest case of online abuse against her.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/offensive-madeleine-mccann-facebook-page-taken-down-1479094
-
"No trace of either child has ever been found and that looks like remaining the case." ... yet you appear to have no objection to expenditure on the investigation for one child while constantly making complaints about the expenditure on the other.
The campaigns against any search for Madeleine McCann must rank as one of the more bizarre and distasteful emanations of the age of the internet which has enabled the crow of one village to become a murder of crows.
Might I respectfully suggest ... if you don't look you most certainly will not find ... and I fail to comprehend the objection to following active leads in a live investigation into a missing child.
Cui bono? only the perpetrators.
"As to how they disappeared, that remains supposition." ... yet in one case the hydra headed 'alternative point of view' has been up for discussion and reassessment and rearrangement as one ridiculous assertion becomes too bizarre for even the 'questioners' to keep propagating ... all of which totally ignores evidence and has substituted fact for fiction.
I am of the opinion that far from the Drs McCann being "too sensitive" they have been seriously let down by the forces of law and order who have allowed ... not 'alternative points of view' but libel and slander to prevail.
No-one should have to put up with the volume of hatred and negativity they have suffered over the years ... that it is generated by their insistence and campaigning on behalf of their missing child ... makes it all the more distasteful.
They have both been looked for.
'Drs McCann being "too sensitive" they have been seriously let down by the forces of law and order who have allowed'
8)--))
It is the mccanns who let down their children, not the forces of law and order.
Both cases remain unsolved.
FACT.
P.S. Can you provide quantitative and logical reasons, with evidence to show abduction ?
-
They have both been looked for.
'Drs McCann being "too sensitive" they have been seriously let down by the forces of law and order who have allowed'
8)--))
It is the mccanns who let down their children, not the forces of law and order.
Both cases remain unsolved.
FACT.
P.S. Can you provide quantitative and logical reasons, with evidence to show abduction ?
exactly stephen the mcann supporters refuse to accept that though
-
As far as the McCanns are concerned there is only one possibility as to what happened to their daughter. They spent all their time on 3rd/4th May on the telephone telling everyone they could think of that Madeleine had been abducted. They told the Portuguese police the same thing. They have steadfastly repeated the story over and over and over again since. They have never explained why they're so sure; they just knew. They've never explained why woke and wandered was impossible; it just was. Not only are they sure she was abducted, they're sure she's still alive and able to be found. Why? because there's no evidence that she's dead. Well, who knows, perhaps other parents would be able to believe for years that all the above is true. Kerry Needham is in a very similar situation.
People who aren't involved are likely to be pessimistic. Statistically children are unlikely to survive but that's hard for parents to accept, and who can blame them for hanging onto hope? Not me. Let them carry on hoping, even if I can't share it. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the insistence that they are right and that only their opinion should be spread by the media and by social networks. Kerry Needham accepts that some people disagree with her and she accepts that they have the freedom to express their opinions. I have seen alternative possibilities being explored in relation to her son, and I expect she has too.
The problem with the McCanns is their absolute refusal to allow other opinions to be expressed. They want anyone online who doesn't agree with them to be punished. They sue anyone who says things which damage their reputation. When they do interviews all questions are screened. Their whole aim seems to be to protect their reputations. Why else employ PR companies? Their idea of searching seems to be to get others to do it.
I think the McCann's accept that people have a different opinion to their own G-Unit, it is obvious to them isn't it?
I think you are wrong to say that they want everyone who doesn't agree with to be punished, there are many on this forum who disagree with them, are they punished? What about the other anti McCann forums and facebook are they punished?
The only people who they want punished are those who persistently abuse them, those who libel them. The only ones I can see they have punished are those in a position to influence a huge majority of people, such as Amaral who was the Co-ordinator of the case, Bennett who delivered leaflets and sold books and newspapers that could reach millions. The only members of the public apart from those mentioned who have been punished are those who threaten and use abuse.
-
They have both been looked for.
'Drs McCann being "too sensitive" they have been seriously let down by the forces of law and order who have allowed'
8)--))
It is the mccanns who let down their children, not the forces of law and order.
Both cases remain unsolved.
FACT.
P.S. Can you provide quantitative and logical reasons, with evidence to show abduction ?
Are we back to the 'they left the children' Stephen?
-
exactly stephen the mcann supporters refuse to accept that though
Will you STOP saying that!!! I for one accept that the McCann's did wrong leaving the children and SO DO THEY!!
-
They have both been looked for.
'Drs McCann being "too sensitive" they have been seriously let down by the forces of law and order who have allowed'
8)--))
It is the mccanns who let down their children, not the forces of law and order.
Both cases remain unsolved.
FACT.
Why don't you get down off your hobby horse of parental culpability and for once deal with the subject of the thread which wonders if the Drs McCann are being a tad sensitive to the lies, hatred and innuendo directed at them and their daughter.
They are maligned and abused not by one stalker ... which can be so bad that people have committed suicide as a result ... but by a coterie.
There is probably not a minute ... second of every day that dawns that somewhere in the world someone is not sitting at a grubby keyboard typing grubby lies about them.
Why do these people do that? It is beyond my comprehension that there are people who think that may not be damaging, particularly since that is the object of the exercise, and who think it odd that the target of the lies should be less than happy about it.
-
they always say WE are punishing maddie stephen because we dont believe her parents maddie is nothing to do with what we think of gerry and kate is she ?she was a innocent child
Who says you are punishing Madeleine? All I have ever said that people keep in a rut going on about they left the children, they did, they know, get past it.
The goal now is to find MADELEIEN not to keep repeating the same thing over and over, you only do it to hurt the McCann's.
-
IMO the McCann's don't have any objections to opinions being expressed. Their only objection is to downright LIES being told about them in public.
How can you say no other opinions are allowed - when hundreds of 'other opinions' are expressed in public every day of the week - some of them on here. Are any of our posters expecting to be sued for publicly voicing their different opinions? I doubt it.
I can only assume you have no empathy. Say for instance it was alleged in your local paper that you were an alcoholic shoplifter. Would you sit back and say 'Oh well that's a downright lie, but people are entitled to express their opinions so it's OK '? Or would you be making an urgent appointment with your solicitor?
Why would any normal person expect the McCanns to feel any differently to any other person who knew they were being publicly libelled?
As I have said before, I can only speak for myself. I wasn't convinced by their story but I don't tell lies about them. I put a lot of effort into supporting what I say by reference to the PJ files or to direct quotes. If what I quote suggests their story wasn't true that's because they contradicted themselves.
There are many opinions expressed, but only on the internet which cannot be silenced. An attempt was made with 'the dossier' debacle but it failed spectacularly.
Why should I feel empathy with people when I don't know what the truth is? I will leave that to those who believe without question everything this couple say.
-
Why don't you get down off your hobby horse of parental culpability and for once deal with the subject of the thread which wonders if the Drs McCann are being a tad sensitive to the lies, hatred and innuendo directed at them and their daughter.
They are maligned and abused not by one stalker ... which can be so bad that people have committed suicide as a result ... but by a coterie.
There is probably not a minute ... second of every day that dawns that somewhere in the world someone is sitting at a grubby keyboard typing lies about them.
Why do these people do that? It is beyond my comprehension that there are people who think that may not be damaging, particularly since that is the object of the exercise, and who think it odd that the target of the lies should be less than happy about it.
Perhaps you show also recall that the crime is unsolved, and the culpable party or parties remain undetermined.
As to 'lies', can you tell me how you know whether the mccanns have told the truth or not ?
-
Are we back to the 'they left the children' Stephen?
Well if mccann supporters want to keep repeating their mantra, I will remind them it works both ways. 8(0(*
-
Who says you are punishing Madeleine? All I have ever said that people keep in a rut going on about they left the children, they did, they know, get past it.
The goal now is to find MADELEIEN not to keep repeating the same thing over and over, you only do it to hurt the McCann's.
Punishing Madeleine ???
In what way exactly?
There is an ongoing 'investigation' which has a limited amount of time left to produce the goods.
-
They have both been looked for.
'Drs McCann being "too sensitive" they have been seriously let down by the forces of law and order who have allowed'
8)--))
It is the mccanns who let down their children, not the forces of law and order.
Both cases remain unsolved.
FACT.
P.S. Can you provide quantitative and logical reasons, with evidence to show abduction ?
What the forces of law and order did or failed to do for Madeleine and Ben is the subject of another thread as is the subject of abduction ... this one is dedicated to whether Madeleine McCann's parents should feel aggrieved when deliberate misinformation against them is promulgated.
It seems you are anxious to avoid discussing that like the plague.
-
What the forces of law and order did or failed to do for Madeleine and Ben is the subject of another thread as is the subject of abduction ... this one is dedicated to whether Madeleine McCann's parents should feel aggrieved when deliberate misinformation against them is promulgated.
It seems you are anxious to avoid discussing that like the plague.
How do you know what the 'mis-information' is, since it hasn't been determined in court as to whether they have told the truth.
and remember this, I can give examples, as I have done before of people who claimed they were telling the truth, and have then been found in retrials of committing perjury.
Don't you understand that people are getting sick of the 'mccanns poor me act'.
It's Madeleine who should be the focus of attention, not them.
-
Well if mccann supporters want to keep repeating their mantra, I will remind them it works both ways. 8(0(*
As both SY and the Portuguese police are investigating abduction Stephen it would be logical to use the word abduction, the fact that you can't get your head around the police believing the McCann's is your problem.
-
Punishing Madeleine ???
In what way exactly?
There is an ongoing 'investigation' which has a limited amount of time left to produce the goods.
Take the 'punishing' bit up with carly, she's the one who said it in her post.
-
They have both been looked for.
'Drs McCann being "too sensitive" they have been seriously let down by the forces of law and order who have allowed'
8)--))
It is the mccanns who let down their children, not the forces of law and order.
Both cases remain unsolved.
FACT.
P.S. Can you provide quantitative and logical reasons, with evidence to show abduction ?
Can any be provided in Ben's case?
We only have the families' word for how they came to find their children missing. The fact that you believe one and not the other is based purely on your animosity towards one family and not the other IMO.
For example - How do you know that this was the first and only time Ben had been allowed to play outside unsupervised for any length of time?
Why aren't you questioning the Needhams description of what happened and what they did? As you are so fond of saying - ''We only have their word for it''
I believe that Ben was adbucted by strangers and I believe Madeleine was also abducted by strangers. I believe both families have told the truth about what happened.
Kerry Needham, who you believe is a genuine person also believes Madeleine was abducted. Why aren't you slagging her off and insulting her?
In fact two of the people who I consider to be the most able to spot a fake when it comes to child abduction are Kerry Needham and Cora Jones. Both have met Kate McCann and both believe her daughter was abducted.
Why do you have no respect whatsoever for their opinions? They are without doubt the experts.
-
I consider the title of this thread to be an outright insult, frankly.
If anyone here (God forbid!) were to be falsely accused of causing the death of their daughter, covering up the (alleged) "fact" of that death and of launching a fraudulent "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name, I would expect them to be extremely sensitive to "alternative viewpoints".
-
How do you know what the 'mis-information' is, since it hasn't been determined in court as to whether they have told the truth.
and remember this, I can give examples, as I have done before of people who claimed they were telling the truth, and have then been found in retrials of committing perjury.
Don't you understand that people are getting sick of the 'mccanns poor me act'.
It's Madeleine who should be the focus of attention, not them.
Yes, I know someone who claimed to be telling the truth and have then been found to have committed perjury too Stephen.
What 'poor me act' all they have ever done is keep Madeleine in the spot light.
-
As both SY and the Portuguese police are investigating abduction Stephen it would be logical to use the word abduction, the fact that you can't get your head around the police believing the McCann's is your problem.
Yet where is the quantitative or qualitative evidence for abduction ?
Forensically there is zip.
-
I consider the title of this thread to be an outright insult, frankly.
If anyone here (God forbid!) were to be falsely accused of causing the death of their daughter, covering up the (alleged) "fact" of that death and of launching a fraudulent "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name, I would expect them to be extremely sensitive to "alternative viewpoints".
They were and took the person to court ferryman, though of course none of these people here who are against that would have done the same in their position, of course they wouldn't, would they? NOT!!
-
Can any be provided in Ben's case?
We only have the families' word for how they came to find their children missing. The fact that you believe one and not the other is based purely on your animosity towards one family and not the other IMO.
For example - How do you know that this was the first and only time Ben had been allowed to play outside unsupervised for any length of time?
Why aren't you questioning the Needhams description of what happened and what they did? As you are so fond of saying - ''We only have their word for it''
I believe that Ben was adbucted by strangers and I believe Madeleine was also abducted by strangers. I believe both families have told the truth about what happened.
Kerry Needham, who you believe is a genuine person also believes Madeleine was abducted. Why aren't you slagging her off and insulting her?
In fact two of the people who I consider to be the most able to spot a fake when it comes to child abduction are Kerry Needham and Cora Jones. Both have met Kate McCann and both believe her daughter was abducted.
Why do you have no respect whatsoever for their opinions? They are without doubt the experts.
8@??)(
-
Stephen, probably won't say 'people are sick about Kerry' stop the investigation into Ben Needham, waste of money on a cold case. No, he is only against the McCann's, strange that.
-
Can any be provided in Ben's case?
We only have the families' word for how they came to find their children missing. The fact that you believe one and not the other is based purely on your animosity towards one family and not the other IMO.
For example - How do you know that this was the first and only time Ben had been allowed to play outside unsupervised for any length of time?
Why aren't you questioning the Needhams description of what happened and what they did? As you are so fond of saying - ''We only have their word for it''
I believe that Ben was adbucted by strangers and I believe Madeleine was also abducted by strangers. I believe both families have told the truth about what happened.
Kerry Needham, who you believe is a genuine person also believes Madeleine was abducted. Why aren't you slagging her off and insulting her?
In fact two of the people who I consider to be the most able to spot a fake when it comes to child abduction are Kerry Needham and Cora Jones. Both have met Kate McCann and both believe her daughter was abducted.
Why do you have no respect whatsoever for their opinions? They are without doubt the experts.
I have dealt with many people over the years in my profession who have told lies, and even when presented with the evidence of their lies, still deny it.
I believe Kerry Needham, I don't believe the mccanns.
-
Yet where is the quantitative or qualitative evidence for abduction ?
Forensically there is zip.
SAY IT TO SY AND THE PORTUGUESE POLICE not me Stephen, you obviously know a lot more than they do.
-
Perhaps you show also recall that the crime is unsolved, and the culpable party or parties remain undetermined.
As to 'lies', can you tell me how you know whether the mccanns have told the truth or not ?
You are still skirting the subject of the thread, Stephen.
I would say that no sensible person objects to people having a different point of view. It would be a queer old world if we all thought as clones.
(Speaking of which ... there are a few extraordinarily inventive thoughts on that one ... which in other circumstances normal people would laugh their heads off thinking about).
Why is it thought necessary to torture Madeleine's parents with the same old - the same old - the same old repetitive and inaccurate dross day in day out.
Can that be considered normal behaviour (God help us if so)?
Can it be considered appropriate that the recipients should take on the chin abuse one similar iota of which has ruined other people's lives.
Go on have a try at responding on topic ... you nearly got there ... you can do it!
-
I have dealt with many people over the years in my profession who have told lies, and even when presented with the evidence of their lies, still deny it.
I believe Kerry Needham, I don't believe the mccanns.
That is such a ridiculous comment to make.
-
SAY IT TO SY AND THE PORTUGUESE POLICE not me Stephen, you obviously know a lot more than they do.
I judge by results, as I have said before.
-
That is such a ridiculous comment to make.
II find yours and others unquestioning belief in the mccanns RIDICULOUS.
-
You are still skirting the subject of the thread, Stephen.
I would say that no sensible person objects to people having a different point of view. It would be a queer old world if we all thought as clones.
(Speaking of which ... there are a few extraordinarily inventive thoughts on that one ... which in other circumstances normal people would laugh their heads off thinking about).
Why is it thought necessary to torture Madeleine's parents with the same old - the same old - the same old repetitive and inaccurate dross day in day out.
Can that be considered normal behaviour (God help us if so)?
Can it be considered appropriate that the recipients should take on the chin abuse one similar iota of which has ruined other people's lives.
Go on have a try at responding on topic ... you nearly got there ... you can do it!
All you come up with is cliches and the 'poor me' mccann act.
That wore thin a long time ago.
-
I consider the title of this thread to be an outright insult, frankly.
If anyone here (God forbid!) were to be falsely accused of causing the death of their daughter, covering up the (alleged) "fact" of that death and of launching a fraudulent "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name, I would expect them to be extremely sensitive to "alternative viewpoints".
I'm with you on that, Ferryman.
Personally speaking I would be suing the socks off one or two of the worst petty offenders pour encourager les autres.
But I think that is the point ... they are petty and irritating singly and not really worth the bother. Collectively that would be a different issue.
The Drs McCann have one focus and that is MADELEINE. Cruel and hurtful as the jibes may be they are nothing to the loss of their child and the present opportunity of finding her.
"Sensitive ???" I think they have every reason to be ... and the fact they are functioning as a happy cohesive family unit (despite the huge gap in their hearts) leading full and productive lives ... is the biggest slap in the face they can deliver to their detractors.
-
II find yours and others unquestioning belief in the mccanns RIDICULOUS.
Shall I tell you why your comment was ridiculous to me Stephen?
You said in your profession you have come across people who have in their eyes told the truth but have committed perjury.
Well, you believe what Amaral has said and he COMMITTED PERJURY !!
-
II find yours and others unquestioning belief in the mccanns RIDICULOUS.
Including the Portuguese prosecutors, who could find no evidence of wrong-doing by the McCanns, the Portuguese judge who presided over the libel trial completed in April and found in favour of the McCanns, Mark Harrison, who said that nothing of an incriminating nature could be inferred against anyone known in the wash-up to the shelved enquiry, even Martin Grime, who said that no incriminating inference could be made from the dogs' alerts.
None of them knows.
Only Stephen25000.
Odd, that ....
-
As I have said before, I can only speak for myself. I wasn't convinced by their story but I don't tell lies about them. I put a lot of effort into supporting what I say by reference to the PJ files or to direct quotes. If what I quote suggests their story wasn't true that's because they contradicted themselves.
There are many opinions expressed, but only on the internet which cannot be silenced. An attempt was made with 'the dossier' debacle but it failed spectacularly.
Why should I feel empathy with people when I don't know what the truth is? I will leave that to those who believe without question everything this couple say.
So am I right in thinking that if you were publically libelled on a regular basis you would do nothing about it? Really?
As I have said many times before I believe the McCanns and their friends told the truth. Taking into account the fallibility of memory however, it cannot be guaranteed that what they remember is always 100% accurate.
It certainly is not a case of blindly believing every word they say just because they are the McCanns. Far from it.
-
I judge by results, as I have said before.
What results? The investigation hasn't finished yet.
-
I'm with you on that, Ferryman.
Personally speaking I would be suing the socks off one or two of the worst petty offenders pour encourager les autres.
But I think that is the point ... they are petty and irritating singly and not really worth the bother. Collectively that would be a different issue.
The Drs McCann have one focus and that is MADELEINE. Cruel and hurtful as the jibes may be they are nothing to the loss of their child and the present opportunity of finding her.
"Sensitive ???" I think they have every reason to be ... and the fact they are functioning as a happy cohesive family unit (despite the huge gap in their hearts) leading full and productive lives ... is the biggest slap in the face they can deliver to their detractors.
Of course you both do.
You're unadulterated mccann SUPPORTERS TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL ELSE.
The loss of the child, which would not have happened but for their abject failure to look after their children.
-
What results? The investigation hasn't finished yet.
Have they found Madeleine, or how she disappeared ?
Answers on a post card.
-
Including the Portuguese prosecutors, who could find no evidence of wrong-doing by the McCanns, the Portuguese judge who presided over the libel trial completed in April and found in favour of the McCanns, Mark Harrison, who said that nothing of an incriminating nature could be inferred against anyone known in the wash-up to the shelved enquiry, even Martin Grime, who said that no incriminating inference could be made from the dogs' alerts.
None of them knows.
Only Stephen25000.
Odd, that ....
You could add to that - The Oporto team, SY, the coroner at BL's inquest, Newspaper's legal teams and Kerry Needham and Cora Jones.
According to Stephen he knows better than any of them and they are all wrong.
-
You could add to that - The Oporto team, SY, the coroner at BL's inquest, Newspaper's legal teams and Kerry Needham and Cora Jones.
According to Stephen he knows better than any of them and they are all wrong.
It's not just me.
How pathetic to say so in the first place.
Meanwhile what have the great investigative team found ?
Mmmm.
-
All you come up with is cliches and the 'poor me' mccann act.
That wore thin a long time ago.
The thing which seems to annoy the people who assault Madeleine's campaign on a daily basis is the fact that the last thing in the world they equate with her parents is "the 'poor me' mMccann act"
It is the fact that the Drs McCann continue to function and contribute greatly to others despite circumstances which would have crushed most.
Their private innermost feelings must remain a matter for conjecture ... but I think it can be safely assumed their daily first waking thought and hope is for Madeleine and news of her.
The enormity of their situation possibly puts the petty jibes of nonentities with nothing better to do with their time into proper context.
-
The thing which seems to annoy the people who assault Madeleine's campaign on a daily basis is the fact that the last thing in the world they equate with her parents is "the 'poor me' mMccann act"
It is the fact that the Drs McCann continue to function and contribute greatly to others despite circumstances which would have crushed most.
Their private innermost feelings must remain a matter for conjecture ... but I think it can be safely assumed their daily first waking thought and hope is for Madeleine and news of her.
The enormity of their situation possibly puts the petty jibes of nonentities with nothing better to do with their time into proper context.
drsmccann made their choice over 8 years ago.
Madeleine suffered the consequences of that choice.
The mccanns and the mccanns alone, are responsible for their failings.
-
It's not just me.
How pathetic to say so in the first place.
Meanwhile what have the great investigative team found ?
Mmmm.
Nothing against the McCanns or their friends.
After that, we're guessing ....
-
Nothing against the McCanns or their friends.
After that, we're guessing ....
No one in the frame.
No Madeleine and no trace of how she disappeared.
-
So am I right in thinking that if you were publically libelled on a regular basis you would do nothing about it? Really?
As I have said many times before I believe the McCanns and their friends told the truth. Taking into account the fallibility of memory however, it cannot be guaranteed that what they remember is always 100% accurate.
It certainly is not a case of blindly believing every word they say just because they are the McCanns. Far from it.
Did i say I would do nothing if I was libelled? I don't remember saying that, are you making an assumption?
You believe the McCanns and their friends told the truth and that is your right, just as it is mine to disbelieve them. If you don't believe every word they say, perhaps you could give an example of something they have said which you don't believe?
-
drsmccann made their choice over 8 years ago.
Madeleine suffered the consequences of that choice.
The mccanns and the mccanns alone, are responsible for their failings.
... and in your opinion that is enough justification to allow people to make sometimes quite unbalanced referrals to them on a daily basis? with Madeleine the sacrificial lamb on the alter of prejudice against her parents.
-
As far as the McCanns are concerned there is only one possibility as to what happened to their daughter. They spent all their time on 3rd/4th May on the telephone telling everyone they could think of that Madeleine had been abducted. They told the Portuguese police the same thing. They have steadfastly repeated the story over and over and over again since. They have never explained why they're so sure; they just knew. They've never explained why woke and wandered was impossible; it just was. Not only are they sure she was abducted, they're sure she's still alive and able to be found. Why? because there's no evidence that she's dead. Well, who knows, perhaps other parents would be able to believe for years that all the above is true. Kerry Needham is in a very similar situation.
People who aren't involved are likely to be pessimistic. Statistically children are unlikely to survive but that's hard for parents to accept, and who can blame them for hanging onto hope? Not me. Let them carry on hoping, even if I can't share it. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the insistence that they are right and that only their opinion should be spread by the media and by social networks. Kerry Needham accepts that some people disagree with her and she accepts that they have the freedom to express their opinions. I have seen alternative possibilities being explored in relation to her son, and I expect she has too.
The problem with the McCanns is their absolute refusal to allow other opinions to be expressed. They want anyone online who doesn't agree with them to be punished. They sue anyone who says things which damage their reputation. When they do interviews all questions are screened. Their whole aim seems to be to protect their reputations. Why else employ PR companies? Their idea of searching seems to be to get others to do it.
I would nominate that post as the post of the day if we had one. The biggest difference between the Maddie case and Ben's case is that in the former the parents were made official suspects with one of them refusing to answer some pretty straight forward questions. The Needhams were never made formal suspects in the disappearance of their own child if I recall correctly?
-
I would nominate that post as the post of the day if we had one. The biggest difference between the Maddie case and Ben's case is that in the former the parents were made official suspects with one of them refusing to answer some pretty straight forward questions.
yet the likes of brietta ferryman davel to name a few adore the mccans and many of us wonder why dont we?
-
... and in your opinion that is enough justification to allow people to make sometimes quite unbalanced referrals to them on a daily basis? with Madeleine the sacrificial lamb on the alter of prejudice against her parents.
Give it a rest brietta.
This case is about Madeleine.
As to her parents, they let her down.
-
I would nominate that post as the post of the day if we had one. The biggest difference between the Maddie case and Ben's case is that in the former the parents were made official suspects with one of them refusing to answer some pretty straight forward questions. The Needhams were never made formal suspects in the disappearance of their own child if I recall correctly?
Seconded.
-
Succinctly summed up in an excellent post.
But ignoring the glaring differences!
-
I would nominate that post as the post of the day if we had one. The biggest difference between the Maddie case and Ben's case is that in the former the parents were made official suspects with one of them refusing to answer some pretty straight forward questions. The Needhams were never made formal suspects in the disappearance of their own child if I recall correctly?
Delete the first 5 words of the opening sentence and omit the rest of the post and you might be on to a winner (as might G-Unit).
But not otherwise ....
-
II find yours and others unquestioning belief in the mccanns RIDICULOUS.
My belief in the mccanns is not unquestioning...quite the opposite..I don't see any evidence to suspect them of not telling the truth and I see your viewpoint and those of others are based mainly on ignorance and an inability to assess the evidence
-
yet the likes of brietta ferryman davel to name a few adore the mccans and many of us wonder why dont we?
again you don't understand...not really worth saying anymore as I doubt you will ever understand
-
no it doesn't....the present investigation by SY is designed to get justice for Maddie....why would people want that stopped
McCann Supporters not SY.
-
Let's face it, the McCanns have attempted to understate their own culpability from the beginning. The hastily put together story about the child checking was just the beginning. They knew from those first hours that they were going to be criticised and by their own parents. The refusal to answer questions is a recurring theme with them, remember those interviews which Gerry walked out on?
-
Let's face it, the McCanns have attempted to understate their own culpability from the beginning. The hastily put together story about the child checking was just the beginning. They knew from those first hours that they were going to be criticised and by their own parents. The refusal to answer questions is a recurring theme with them, remember those interviews which Gerry walked out on?
have the needhams accepted culpability for not supervising Ben
-
Obviously you need brains to be a doctor even if common sense is somewhat lacking.
-
Obviously you need brains to be a doctor even if common sense is somewhat lacking.
well true but clearly they are not very smart as parents @)(++(*
-
Seconded.
thirded
-
to get back on topic...the McCanns are sensitive to being libelled...that's all...and I don't see anything wrong with that
-
My belief in the mccanns is not unquestioning...quite the opposite..I don't see any evidence to suspect them of not telling the truth and I see your viewpoint and those of others are based mainly on ignorance and an inability to assess the evidence
Wrong again.
You aren't fooling anyone.
-
to get back on topic...the McCanns are sensitive to being libelled...that's all...and I don't see anything wrong with that
Most of this thread seems to be supporters answering a question that wasn't asked. The thread is about alternative points of view not libel.
-
Thank you Angelo. I don't defend those who post nasty personal comments about anyone, it's indefensible whichever 'side' does it. Unfortunately it's a common occurence on the internet and anyone using the internet has to deal with it, no-one is exempt.
The McCanns, like Kerry Needham, had a choice; deal with posts disagreeing with their viewpoint and continue publicising their daughter's disappearance on Twitter or give up. They chose to give up. i didn't accuse them of being too sensitive, the words aren't mine as I didn't start this thread. I don't know why they chose to give up at this point in time.
-
Wrong again.
You aren't fooling anyone.
In your limited opinion...and we know how little that is worth
-
In your limited opinion...and we know how little that is worth
Infinitely more than yours.
-
Thank you Angelo. I don't defend those who post nasty personal comments about anyone, it's indefensible whichever 'side' does it. Unfortunately it's a common occurence on the internet and anyone using the internet has to deal with it, no-one is exempt.
The McCanns, like Kerry Needham, had a choice; deal with posts disagreeing with their viewpoint and continue publicising their daughter's disappearance on Twitter or give up. They chose to give up. i didn't accuse them of being too sensitive, the words aren't mine as I didn't start this thread. I don't know why they chose to give up at this point in time.
if you don't agrre with nasty personal comments...Angelo posted that the McCanns disgusted him...would you condone that or do you actually agree with nasty personal comments
-
Infinitely more than yours.
do you have any evidence to support that or are you showing how limited and poor your opinion is
-
do you have any evidence to support that or are you showing how limited and poor your opinion is
So predictable in your tactics.
Didn't you learn anything from yesterday ?
-
Most of this thread seems to be supporters answering a question that wasn't asked. The thread is about alternative points of view not libel.
Well said. Is every alternative viewpoint libelous? Perhaps the supporters would like to clarify that point.
-
Most of this thread seems to be supporters answering a question that wasn't asked. The thread is about alternative points of view not libel.
Ah, libel. The favourite word in their vocabulary ?{)(**
-
Well said. Is every alternative viewpoint libelous? Perhaps the supporters would like to clarify that point.
From a legal standpoint, you'd probably get away with accusing them of 'neglect' for leaving the kids.
There's no question they did leave the kids and I think the 'neglect' accusation would count as 'opinion based on fact' (not libel).
But accusing them of any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, covering up that alleged 'fact', and maintaining a fraudulent fund in their (dead) daughter's name: all assuredly libel ....
-
if you don't agrre with nasty personal comments...Angelo posted that the McCanns disgusted him...would you condone that or do you actually agree with nasty personal comments
I haven't seen that comment. I've seen some posted by you, though. I've had them directed at me, in fact. @)(++(*
-
Most of this thread seems to be supporters answering a question that wasn't asked. The thread is about alternative points of view not libel.
so what alternative points of view are you talking about...don't you realise that apart from one...woke and wandered...the rest are libellous
-
I haven't seen that comment. I've seen some posted by you, though. I've had them directed at me, in fact. @)(++(*
so on that basis I take it you disapprove of his comment...what about his comment that they were "shit parents"...do you condone taht
-
My belief in the mccanns is not unquestioning...quite the opposite..I don't see any evidence to suspect them of not telling the truth and I see your viewpoint and those of others are based mainly on ignorance and an inability to assess the evidence
Hypothetically what type of evidence would start to make you question the McCanns and put a stop to your personal crusade to defend them? I don't mean that rudely - I only say crusade because of your post count. For instance would positive DNA corrobation make you think twice if the tests were made again with today's more advanced forensic techniques? It would me. For now I think I'll choose to believe them and on the balance of all I've read I do but imo it's definitely not black and white. Ultimately of course the law will decide...
-
so on that basis I take it you disapprove of his comment...what about his comment that they were "shit parents"...do you condone taht
As is usual an assumption is being made. I said I haven't seen the comment. As you yourself often say, context is everything. If you direct me to the post you are referring to I will decide for myself.
As to the McCann's parenting skills, let me ask you a question. Supposing your daughter had been the same age as Madeleine and you had allowed her to go on holiday with them to keep Madeleine company. Let's suppose she was in the vacant bed in the apartment. If the McCanns had rung you and said 'Madeleine has been abducted from the apartment, but your daughter's OK' would you have said 'Oh, Ok, I'll see her on Saturday' or would you have been on the first available flight to PdL to fetch her home?. Would you have said 'It wasn't their fault, they did everything they could to make the children safe' or would you have said something quite different, knowing your daughter had been left alone in an unlocked apartment for 5 evenings?
-
Why don't you get down off your hobby horse of parental culpability and for once deal with the subject of the thread which wonders if the Drs McCann are being a tad sensitive to the lies, hatred and innuendo directed at them and their daughter.
They are maligned and abused not by one stalker ... which can be so bad that people have committed suicide as a result ... but by a coterie.
There is probably not a minute ... second of every day that dawns that somewhere in the world someone is not sitting at a grubby keyboard typing grubby lies about them.
Why do these people do that? It is beyond my comprehension that there are people who think that may not be damaging, particularly since that is the object of the exercise, and who think it odd that the target of the lies should be less than happy about it.
So you admit it isn't many then?
-
I would nominate that post as the post of the day if we had one. The biggest difference between the Maddie case and Ben's case is that in the former the parents were made official suspects with one of them refusing to answer some pretty straight forward questions. The Needhams were never made formal suspects in the disappearance of their own child if I recall correctly?
No Kerry wasn't made a formal suspect Angelo222.
Kerry's brother was a suspect though, this is from Kerry's book Ben, what the Greek police said to Stephen Kerry's brother -
'You see the baby, take the baby for a ride on your motorbike and the baby falls off. He dies. You panic and bury him.'
'The indicator on your motorbike is broken'. Bafounis had continued. 'My men noticed it this morning'.
'So?' It was all Stephen could do not to laugh, the accusations were so preposterous.
'It broke when you crashed with the baby.'
'No, it didn't. It's been broken for ages'.
Bafounis went on. 'You crashed, the bike smashed, the baby died. You buried him'.
Now, can you imagine if that had been one of the McCann's?
-
As I have said before, I can only speak for myself. I wasn't convinced by their story but I don't tell lies about them. I put a lot of effort into supporting what I say by reference to the PJ files or to direct quotes. If what I quote suggests their story wasn't true that's because they contradicted themselves.
There are many opinions expressed, but only on the internet which cannot be silenced. An attempt was made with 'the dossier' debacle but it failed spectacularly.
Why should I feel empathy with people when I don't know what the truth is? I will leave that to those who believe without question everything this couple say.
You don't have to but you could always keep your opinions to yourself or not air them publicly. Voicing them helps no one and potentially causes distress to innocent people.
-
Poster's should read Kerry's book Ben, there are so many similarities to the McCann case, they thought the Greek police weren't doing a good enough job too, I also came upon a part where Kerry said she was laughing her head off about a joke she had just been told and a passenger asked if she was Ben Needham's mother, she answered that she was and the passenger said, how could she laugh when he was still missing. Now imagine if that had been Kate, there would have been a photo on the internet with the caption 'Kate laughing when Madeline is still missing' implying that she doesn't care.
-
You don't have to but you could always keep your opinions to yourself or not air them publicly. Voicing them helps no one and potentially causes distress to innocent people.
As I have often said, I don't accuse or abuse. I try to use the PJ Files and direct quotes to support my conclusions. As you have said previously, neither of our opinions makes any difference in the scheme of things. If my posts distress any innocent people perhaps they are too sensitive to alternative points of view. Alternatively, they are free to join the forum and give their opinions too. It's a democracy here, everyone can have their say.
-
As I have often said, I don't accuse or abuse. I try to use the PJ Files and direct quotes to support my conclusions. As you have said previously, neither of our opinions makes any difference in the scheme of things. If my posts distress any innocent people perhaps they are too sensitive to alternative points of view. Alternatively, they are free to join the forum and give their opinions too. It's a democracy here, everyone can have their say.
This is the bit I struggle with, and it must be (IMO) because you lack the ability to empathise. You seem unable to see why posts which infer implicitly or explicitly that they are liars who know where their child's body is hidden should cause them any distress and prefer to blame them (the victims*) for being too sensitive. Well of course they bloody are, why wouldn't they be?!
*yes, I know you don't believe they are victims but you must also surely concede that as you don't know what happened they may actually be the parents of a child who was abducted.
-
Let's face it, the McCanns have attempted to understate their own culpability from the beginning. The hastily put together story about the child checking was just the beginning. They knew from those first hours that they were going to be criticised and by their own parents. The refusal to answer questions is a recurring theme with them, remember those interviews which Gerry walked out on?
STORY about child checking Angelo? waiters state they saw them getting up to check.
Gerry walked out as he was told he mustn't speak about the investigation, that is why they had a pact of silence they were told they would imprisoned if any of them spoke out about the investigation.
-
No Kerry wasn't made a formal suspect Angelo222.
Kerry's brother was a suspect though, this is from Kerry's book Ben, what the Greek police said to Stephen Kerry's brother -
'You see the baby, take the baby for a ride on your motorbike and the baby falls off. He dies. You panic and bury him.'
'The indicator on your motorbike is broken'. Bafounis had continued. 'My men noticed it this morning'.
'So?' It was all Stephen could do not to laugh, the accusations were so preposterous.
'It broke when you crashed with the baby.'
'No, it didn't. It's been broken for ages'.
Bafounis went on. 'You crashed, the bike smashed, the baby died. You buried him'.
Now, can you imagine if that had been one of the McCann's?
I bet her brother called them f***ing t***ers. No, it was all he could do not to laugh.
-
This is the bit I struggle with, and it must be (IMO) because you lack the ability to empathise. You seem unable to see why posts which infer implicitly or explicitly that they are liars who know where their child's body is hidden should cause them any distress and prefer to blame them (the victims*) for being too sensitive. Well of course they bloody are, why wouldn't they be?!
*yes, I know you don't believe they are victims but you must also surely concede that as you don't know what happened they may actually be the parents of a child who was abducted.
More assumptions. You know nothing about my abilities or lack thereof. Having examined their statements I don't think they have told the whole truth, but I don't recall having accused them of knowing where their child's body is hidden. If others have then I suggest you ask them your questions. I'm not able to speculate on what justification those people can offer. I speak only for myself and my posts.
If the McCanns are the parents of a child who has been abducted I feel for them, but the only people to blame for the uncertainty are themselves, not others. The way they have spoken and behaved is what has caused me and a lot of people to disbelieve them, nothing else.
-
STORY about child checking Angelo? waiters state they saw them getting up to check.
Gerry walked out as he was told he mustn't speak about the investigation, that is why they had a pact of silence they were told they would imprisoned if any of them spoke out about the investigation.
I can't find the link at the moment, but I was reading about a Portuguese newspaper contacting Russell O'Brien for some reason and he said the pact was that only Gerald Mccann would speak to the media.
-
Hypothetically what type of evidence would start to make you question the McCanns and put a stop to your personal crusade to defend them? I don't mean that rudely - I only say crusade because of your post count. For instance would positive DNA corrobation make you think twice if the tests were made again with today's more advanced forensic techniques? It would me. For now I think I'll choose to believe them and on the balance of all I've read I do but imo it's definitely not black and white. Ultimately of course the law will decide...
I don't make it a practice to set myself up as judge and jury on anyone ... and I think it inherently dangerous that others utilize their right to free speech by abusing it.
The issue at the moment is that Scotland Yard and the Policia Judicairia have an active missing child case on their hands which a coterie of like minded people are doing their utmost to denigrate and derail quite simply because they do not like the child's parents.
It must be unprecedented for the investigation into a missing child to be deplored in the way the one for Madeleine McCann has been and will continue to be ... I challenge anyone to give another example.
If there are those who criticise Madeleine McCann's parents for perhaps being 'sensitive' to other points of view ...
why do they think anyone should be subjected to the tripe that is heaped on an innocent family day and daily is acceptable in any way whatsoever. Certainly one of life's great mysteries.
The weird practice of reiterating misinformation and assertions which have been proven to be wrong on a conveyor belt which goes in circles doesn't make it any more true on the twenty thousandth pass than it was on the first one.
How long was it before they were forced to accept that the shutters can be raised from outside? One of their own showed how it could be done
-
The weird practice of reiterating misinformation and assertions which have been proven to be wrong on a conveyor belt which goes in circles doesn't make it any more true on the twenty thousandth pass than it was on the first one.
TBH, that applies to both sides.
-
TBH, that applies to both sides.
im not so sure it does...we had a poster claiming the dogs were circumstantial evidence and that they had found human remains in PDL..... both claims were false....do you have examples of supporters making such claims
-
Hypothetically what type of evidence would start to make you question the McCanns and put a stop to your personal crusade to defend them? I don't mean that rudely - I only say crusade because of your post count. For instance would positive DNA corrobation make you think twice if the tests were made again with today's more advanced forensic techniques? It would me. For now I think I'll choose to believe them and on the balance of all I've read I do but imo it's definitely not black and white. Ultimately of course the law will decide...
personal crusade...no...other posters may post less here but also post on other forums...I only post here. My support isn't just for the McCanns its for thev principles involved...justice and internet abuse. As I have said I have been the target of abuse after a clip of a tv docu I was featured in was posted on you tube. Posters felt they had a perfect right to be abusive...libellous etc and as the channel was sited in the US there was nothing I could do.It has now fortunately been removed. I will answer the rest of your post later...working now
-
More assumptions. You know nothing about my abilities or lack thereof. Having examined their statements I don't think they have told the whole truth, but I don't recall having accused them of knowing where their child's body is hidden. If others have then I suggest you ask them your questions. I'm not able to speculate on what justification those people can offer. I speak only for myself and my posts.
If the McCanns are the parents of a child who has been abducted I feel for them, but the only people to blame for the uncertainty are themselves, not others. The way they have spoken and behaved is what has caused me and a lot of people to disbelieve them, nothing else.
I judge you to have a problem with empathy based on the opinions you voice here, in the same way you judge the McCanns by what you've read, without really knowing them at all. Most of the posts you make on the subject imply that you think them guilty of some wrong doing or other, and you seem to hold them responsible for your own actions. It's quite bizarre.
-
TBH, that applies to both sides.
I don't think so Slarti.
You only have to locate the images portraying the newspaper headlines of 2007\08 ... the majority of which are wrong ... the majority of which are still believed ... and the majority of which vie with the covers of magazines encountered in the hairdresser or the dentist waiting room which vie unashamedly to be the most lurid and ludicrous.
I think anyone who has sustained and promoted the misinformation leaked to the press from 2007 onwards by joining in an internet hounding to perpetuate them ... perhaps should be answering questions rather than asking them.
Madeleine McCann is missing.
What exactly constitutes the "alternative point of view" to that? As far as I am concerned that remains the issue.
-
STORY about child checking Angelo? waiters state they saw them getting up to check.
Gerry walked out as he was told he mustn't speak about the investigation, that is why they had a pact of silence they were told they would imprisoned if any of them spoke out about the investigation.
It does not mean they checked.
-
Did i say I would do nothing if I was libelled? I don't remember saying that, are you making an assumption?
You believe the McCanns and their friends told the truth and that is your right, just as it is mine to disbelieve them. If you don't believe every word they say, perhaps you could give an example of something they have said which you don't believe?
Well could you please clarify whether or not you would take action against anyone publicly libelling you in the way I mentioned?
I said I believed the McCanns told the truth, but because of the falllibility of memory that doesn't mean that what they remembered could be guaranteed to be accurate.
I believe Gerry was wrong about which side of the street he stood on talking to Jez. The reason I believe that is because two other people - JT and Jez both remember it being on the opposite side of the road.
I do not believe any of them lied.
-
I do not disbelieve anything that The McCanns have said. It all makes perfect sense to me.
-
I do not disbelieve anything that The McCanns have said. It all makes perfect sense to me.
They have made absolute perfect sense to me too
-
But ignoring the glaring differences!
The claim was made that there was no comparison between the two cases.
I listed various points which show there are comparisons between the two cases.
I did not claim they were identical cases.
-
I judge you to have a problem with empathy based on the opinions you voice here, in the same way you judge the McCanns by what you've read, without really knowing them at all. Most of the posts you make on the subject imply that you think them guilty of some wrong doing or other, and you seem to hold them responsible for your own actions. It's quite bizarre.
You judge me? As i value your judgement not at all, feel free. What's bizarre is a group of people setting themselves up as the experts on truth and morality and attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them.
-
They have made absolute perfect sense to me too
I think it's called Logic and Common Sense. And an ability to process information.
-
Well could you please clarify whether or not you would take action against anyone publicly libelling you in the way I mentioned?
I said I believed the McCanns told the truth, but because of the falllibility of memory that doesn't mean that what they remembered could be guaranteed to be accurate.
I believe Gerry was wrong about which side of the street he stood on talking to Jez. The reason I believe that is because two other people - JT and Jez both remember it being on the opposite side of the road.
I do not believe any of them lied.
Calling me an alcoholic shoplifter you mean? Why that in particular I wonder? Oh well. I would probably laugh because I haven't had an alcoholic drink for years, and I am completely honest. Everyone who knows me would laugh uproariously too. Then I might call up the newspaper and ask where on earth they got the story and give them the true facts.
I'm sure the 'fallibility of memory' idea is sufficient to satisfy you, but why do you think that? Two of the degrees which need a better than average memory are medicine and law. Six doctors and a lawyer seem to have memories like sieves in this case. I remember more about the night of 3rd May than they do. Kate McCann had a bath and a shower. David Payne forgot he saw Kate in a towel. Kate saw open curtains which became closed. Gerry thought he was at high tea to collect Madeleine but wasn't seen there. He had no idea who left the table to check on their children. He missed the fact that Russell's daughter was sick and Russell was missing for a while. He wasn't listening when the jokes about Jane 'relieving Russell' were going round the table. He didn't remember which door he used. He didn't remember which side of the road he was on. Matthew thought the McCann children's bedroom had two windows. He also thought he could see a child through the solid end of a travel cot. Kate forgot she told the other women she was worried about leaving the patio doors open, and has since said repeatedly that she never even thought about it. I could go on, but I'm sure you've got the picture now.
-
Calling me an alcoholic shoplifter you mean? Why that in particular I wonder? Oh well. I would probably laugh because I haven't had an alcoholic drink for years, and I am completely honest. Everyone who knows me would laugh uproariously too. Then I might call up the newspaper and ask where on earth they got the story and give them the true facts.
I'm sure the 'fallibility of memory' idea is sufficient to satisfy you, but why do you think that? Two of the degrees which need a better than average memory are medicine and law. Six doctors and a lawyer seem to have memories like sieves in this case. I remember more about the night of 3rd May than they do. Kate McCann had a bath and a shower. David Payne forgot he saw Kate in a towel. Kate saw open curtains which became closed. Gerry thought he was at high tea to collect Madeleine but wasn't seen there. He had no idea who left the table to check on their children. He missed the fact that Russell's daughter was sick and Russell was missing for a while. He wasn't listening when the jokes about Jane 'relieving Russell' were going round the table. He didn't remember which door he used. He didn't remember which side of the road he was on. Matthew thought the McCann children's bedroom had two windows. He also thought he could see a child through the solid end of a travel cot. Kate forgot she told the other women she was worried about leaving the patio doors open, and has since said repeatedly that she never even thought about it. I could go on, but I'm sure you've got the picture now.
Another excellent post G-Unit.
-
Let's face it, the McCanns have attempted to understate their own culpability from the beginning. The hastily put together story about the child checking was just the beginning. They knew from those first hours that they were going to be criticised and by their own parents. The refusal to answer questions is a recurring theme with them, remember those interviews which Gerry walked out on?
The only interview I know of that Gerry walked out of was the one where although it was made clear beforehand that they were not allowed to discuss the case as that would be breaking the secrecy laws - the first thing the interviewer did was ask questions about the case.
IIRC Gerry pointed that out as he wearily left the room.
As for the 48 questions - have you ever read them? IMO Amaral and co had already decided Kate was guilty and now they needed to come up with a motive - and that was the main aim of that interview.
Questions like the following are a clue to the direction they were going in IMO. Especially question No. 41.
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
-
Calling me an alcoholic shoplifter you mean? Why that in particular I wonder? Oh well. I would probably laugh because I haven't had an alcoholic drink for years, and I am completely honest. Everyone who knows me would laugh uproariously too. Then I might call up the newspaper and ask where on earth they got the story and give them the true facts.
I'm sure the 'fallibility of memory' idea is sufficient to satisfy you, but why do you think that? Two of the degrees which need a better than average memory are medicine and law. Six doctors and a lawyer seem to have memories like sieves in this case. I remember more about the night of 3rd May than they do. Kate McCann had a bath and a shower. David Payne forgot he saw Kate in a towel. Kate saw open curtains which became closed. Gerry thought he was at high tea to collect Madeleine but wasn't seen there. He had no idea who left the table to check on their children. He missed the fact that Russell's daughter was sick and Russell was missing for a while. He wasn't listening when the jokes about Jane 'relieving Russell' were going round the table. He didn't remember which door he used. He didn't remember which side of the road he was on. Matthew thought the McCann children's bedroom had two windows. He also thought he could see a child through the solid end of a travel cot. Kate forgot she told the other women she was worried about leaving the patio doors open, and has since said repeatedly that she never even thought about it. I could go on, but I'm sure you've got the picture now.
your reliance on statements that have been translated twice makes your argument very weak. I too do not believe the mccanns have told any lies. The fact that you question their honesty is highly insulting towards them
-
your reliance on statements that have been translated twice makes your argument very weak. I too do not believe the mccanns have told any lies. The fact that you question their honesty is highly insulting towards them
I think that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You question people's honesty and integrity all the time.
-
I think that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You question people's honesty and integrity all the time.
people on here question mine...I didn't say you have no right to....I said it was insulting and it is
-
I don't think so Slarti.
You only have to locate the images portraying the newspaper headlines of 2007\08 ... the majority of which are wrong ... the majority of which are still believed ... and the majority of which vie with the covers of magazines encountered in the hairdresser or the dentist waiting room which vie unashamedly to be the most lurid and ludicrous.
I think anyone who has sustained and promoted the misinformation leaked to the press from 2007 onwards by joining in an internet hounding to perpetuate them ... perhaps should be answering questions rather than asking them.
Madeleine McCann is missing.
What exactly constitutes the "alternative point of view" to that? As far as I am concerned that remains the issue.
It should have dawned on you by now that many people don't believe the mccanns story, and it has nothing to do with Amaral either.
-
I do not disbelieve anything that The McCanns have said. It all makes perfect sense to me.
Perhaps you can elucidate some examples of these 'truths' spoken by the mccanns.
-
Perhaps you can elucidate some examples of these 'truths' spoken by the mccanns.
rather a silly statement....
-
The only interview I know of that Gerry walked out of was the one where although it was made clear beforehand that they were not allowed to discuss the case as that would be breaking the secrecy laws - the first thing the interviewer did was ask questions about the case.
IIRC Gerry pointed that out as he wearily left the room.
As for the 48 questions - have you ever read them? IMO Amaral and co had already decided Kate was guilty and now they needed to come up with a motive - and that was the main aim of that interview.
Questions like the following are a clue to the direction they were going in IMO. Especially question No. 41.
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
And what would be wrong with answering the questions honestly ?
-
It does not mean they checked.
Of course Stephen when they claim they 'checked' it was implied this was a physical check; as it is understood in English. However, it was a listening at a door. ( couldn't be bothered to go in and look at their children) well apart from Gerry having anothe mills n boon moment thinking how beautiful his daughter looked last time he saw her?
So this leaves me to wonder who was the last independant peson to have physically seen her? and at what time Was it. The story about DP going to vist the little angels and Kate being a great mother just smacks of mills n boon! Perfect family in perfect family life.... Too stage managed, like the shutters and curtains.
G is correct it has always been about reputation damage limitation. PR,PR,PR.
-
do you not understand that it is often only belief that decides guilt
After the evidence has been entered and arguments have closed. It is based on the law and who the judge or jury believe more.
McCanns presenting their story to Portuguese court seemed to settle that one. Judge did not believe them!
-
After the evidence has been entered and arguments have closed. It is based on the law and who the judge or jury believe more.
McCanns presenting their story to Portuguese court seemed to settle that one. Judge did not believe them!
This is not true.
-
After the evidence has been entered and arguments have closed. It is based on the law and who the judge or jury believe more.
McCanns presenting their story to Portuguese court seemed to settle that one. Judge did not believe them!
so the judge did not BELIEVE them....so the judgement was based on belief...thank you for proving me right yet again
-
This is not true.
Absolutely true.
The mccanns failed to prove several points in court and you know that.
-
Absolutely true.
The mccanns failed to prove several points in court and you know that.
"The Judge did not believe them." This is incorrect .
-
"The Judge did not believe them." This is incorrect .
Themccanns failed to prove several points.
Meanwhile they have got nothing but more legal bills, which they so deserve.
-
so the judge did not BELIEVE them....so the judgement was based on belief...thank you for proving me right yet again
Well Davel, I think you are correct on this one. A lot of people, including the judge did not believe them. and on the 'abduction' theory, Based on their version of account I would wager a bet they would also not be believed by many people, and perhaps a judge.
I would like to point out that after 7 years a missing person can be declared dead. If this were to happen how would this affect peoples opinion on the family?
-
Well Davel, I think you are correct on this one. A lot of people, including the judge did not believe them. and on the 'abduction' theory, Based on their version of account I would wager a bet they would also not be believed by many people, and perhaps a judge.
I would like to point out that after 7 years a missing person can be declared dead. If this were to happen how would this affect peoples opinion on the family?
Madeleine is not going to be declared dead.
-
Well Davel, I think you are correct on this one. A lot of people, including the judge did not believe them. and on the 'abduction' theory, Based on their version of account I would wager a bet they would also not be believed by many people, and perhaps a judge.
I would like to point out that after 7 years a missing person can be declared dead. If this were to happen how would this affect peoples opinion on the family?
thank you for accepting I am correct...the rest of your post is sadly incorrect...as regards the seven year rule...a person cannot simply be declared dead..its a little more complex than that.....and the ruling doesn't mean they are dead
-
Madeleine is not going to be declared dead.
So you are saying she is alive ?
Don't count your chickens on that one.
-
So you are saying she is alive ?
Don't count your chickens on that one.
I don't count chickens when it comes to the life of a child. And yes, I do believe that there is a great possibility that Madeleine is still alive.
-
I don't count chickens when it comes to the life of a child. And yes, I do believe that there is a great possibility that Madeleine is still alive.
I don't believe in fairy stories of her return.
-
It should have dawned on you by now that many people don't believe the mccanns story, and it has nothing to do with Amaral either.
What "story"?
Dr Kate McCann discovered Madeleine missing from her bed and the window she thought secure open.
... and that is enough to set up an industry of vilification?
-
I accused them of having memories like sieves. I gave examples of inconsistences which are all documented.. Did I mention lying?
look at your post again...
-
I accused them of having memories like sieves. I gave examples of inconsistences which are all documented.. Did I mention lying?
in my view the inconsistencies are in the translations
-
The McCanns have shown themselves to be sensitive to alternative points of view when the opposition uses the shield of respectability from another person's campaign as they fire shots of abuse, or questions which they know cannot possibly be answered.
I believe if the McCanns hadn't closed their Twitter a/c, it would have been probable Kerry would have been forced to close hers.
-
The McCanns have shown themselves to be sensitive to alternative points of view when the opposition uses the shield of respectability from another person's campaign as they fire shots of abuse, or questions which they know cannot possibly be answered.
I believe if the McCanns hadn't closed their Twitter a/c, it would have been probable Kerry would have been forced to close hers.
Why would Kerry have been forced to close her Twitter account ?
-
Why would Kerry have been forced to close her Twitter account ?
I suspect her account would have continued to have been used as a weapon against the McCanns and attracted the attention of the spambots.
-
I suspect her account would have continued to have been used as a weapon against the McCanns and attracted the attention of the spambots.
That is your 'perception' for obvious reasons.
-
I suspect her account would have continued to have been used as a weapon against the McCanns and attracted the attention of the spambots.
Her account wasn't being used as a weapon against the McCanns. What in heaven's name are you talking about ?
-
You need to learn fact from fiction.
You said ... "It should have dawned on you by now that many people don't believe the mccanns story, and it has nothing to do with Amaral either."
I'm afraid your answer doesn't cut the mustard ~ much as your response to my original post bore absolutely relevance to that either. You pepper the threads with allegations then refuse to back them up when asked to.
I need to learn nothing ... what you need to do rather than throwing insulting and goading OT comments around like confetti ... is to learn how to debate the points you raise with valid answers rather than lift one from your collection of one-liners.
I'm not even sure I could accuse you of having a reprehensible attitude towards the on-line abuse heaped on the Drs McCann which apparently they should be quite happy to accept ... because I can't remember you making a single relevant post on the subject.
-
You said ... "It should have dawned on you by now that many people don't believe the mccanns story, and it has nothing to do with Amaral either."
I'm afraid your answer doesn't cut the mustard ~ much as your response to my original post bore absolutely relevance to that either. You pepper the threads with allegations then refuse to back them up when asked to.
I need to learn nothing ... what you need to do rather than throwing insulting and goading OT comments around like confetti ... is to learn how to debate the points you raise with valid answers rather than lift one from your collection of one-liners.
I'm not even sure I could accuse you of having a reprehensible attitude towards the on-line abuse heaped on the Drs McCann which apparently they should be quite happy to accept ... because I can't remember you making a single relevant post on the subject.
Irrelevant.
Your posts and views are completely biased by your support of the mccanns.
No one forces you to answer my posts.
That is your choice.
The mccanns version of events has yet to be tested in court.
Their accounts as are some of their associated, inconsistent.
No amount of exchanging views on here will change that.
-
I suspect her account would have continued to have been used as a weapon against the McCanns and attracted the attention of the spambots.
One wonders where these people who have suddenly attached themselves to Ben's cause were over the years when Kerry was holding car boot sales to raise money for it?
-
Irrelevant.
Your posts and views are completely biased by your support of the mccanns.
No one forces you to answer my posts.
That is your choice.
The mccanns version of events has yet to be tested in court.
Their accounts as are some of their associated, inconsistent.
No amount of exchanging views on here will change that.
the mccanns version of events have not been tested in court because they are accepted by SY and there is no evidence to take them to court
-
I suspect her account would have continued to have been used as a weapon against the McCanns and attracted the attention of the spambots.
there is no doubt that some very vocal supporters of Kerry libel the mccanns on twitter...this is what is causing the problem
-
Irrelevant.
Your posts and views are completely biased by your support of the mccanns.
No one forces you to answer my posts.
That is your choice.
The mccanns version of events has yet to be tested in court.
Their accounts as are some of their associated, inconsistent.
No amount of exchanging views on here will change that.
Might I respectfully point out ... it was you who instituted 'discussion' by responding to my posts yesterday. You also instituted 'discussion' today.
You make all encompassing statements which you then refuse to substantiate ... although I must admit the above misses out the usual accompanying ad homs. Although it is still OT ... you can't seem to help yourself on that.
There must be some reason you can give either why the Drs McCann should be happy with the internet campaign mounted against them and their search for Madeleine.
Or like the normal human beings they are, admit they have the inalienable right to be heartily offended by it.
-
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/596067347682713600/nugtc10L_400x400.jpg
just looked on Kerry's twitter page and this is the logo of one of the followers today...I don't blame Kerry but these people are using Ben's site
-
Might I respectfully point out ... it was you who instituted 'discussion' by responding to my posts yesterday. You also instituted 'discussion' today.
You make all encompassing statements which you then refuse to substantiate ... although I must admit the above misses out the usual accompanying ad homs. Although it is still OT ... you can't seem to help yourself on that.
There must be some reason you can give either why the Drs McCann should be happy with the internet campaign mounted against them and their search for Madeleine.
Or like the normal human beings they are, admit they have the inalienable right to be heartily offended by it.
You cannot substantiate the mccanns have told the truth.
FACT.
That is your opinion and nothing else.
-
You cannot substantiate the mccanns have told the truth.
FACT.
That is your opinion and nothing else.
we don't have to..it's up to the authorities and the y seem to believe the mccanns
-
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/596067347682713600/nugtc10L_400x400.jpg
just looked on Kerry's twitter page and this is the logo of one of the followers today...I don't blame Kerry but these people are using Ben's site
Yet still certain people have selective blindness......
-
we don't have to..it's up to the authorities and the y seem to believe the mccanns
The authorities have not found Madeleine or how she disappeared from the apartment.
FACT.
-
The authorities have not found Madeleine or how she disappeared from the apartment.
FACT.
the parents are not suspects...fact
-
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/596067347682713600/nugtc10L_400x400.jpg
just looked on Kerry's twitter page and this is the logo of one of the followers today...I don't blame Kerry but these people are using Ben's site
There are many ways to misuse the internet. In my opinion this latest wheeze takes some beating for sheer nastiness and the transparent attempt to pit the family of one missing person against the family of another certainly plumbs new depths
-
in my view the inconsistencies are in the translations
I know, you say it over and over again without anything to support your assertions. We did a whole thread looking for mistranslations. Result? Nothing of significance was found.
-
Yet still certain people have selective blindness......
Why should Kerry reject someone's support simply because they question the McCanns ?
-
I know, you say it over and over again without anything to support your assertions. We did a whole thread looking for mistranslations. Result? Nothing of significance was found.
you are wrong...without an audio tape of the mccanns actual statements we have absolutely no idea how accurate those statements are
-
Why should Kerry reject someone's support simply because they question the McCanns ?
question or accuse the mccanns of lying...either way it's Kerry's choice but these people are using ben for their own ends...disgraceful
-
There are many ways to misuse the internet. In my opinion this latest wheeze takes some beating for sheer nastiness and the transparent attempt to pit the family of one missing person against the family of another certainly plumbs new depths
Do give a chronological and detailed breakdown of events before you attempt to purport your interpretation is the truth
-
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/596067347682713600/nugtc10L_400x400.jpg
just looked on Kerry's twitter page and this is the logo of one of the followers today...I don't blame Kerry but these people are using Ben's site
as well as ... https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/651485915349708800/sSemmM-8_400x400.jpg
and ... https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/647578260075778048/2IRJWxkO_400x400.jpg
and ... https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/478454123889557504/YLt-gT10_400x400.jpeg
If I wanted to continue I would very likely come up with a lot more. I have read one or two of the comments. Really gives an indication of the types piggy backing on an account set up for a child they have no interest in to invade the account of one in which they have an all consuming deleterious passion.
-
I know, you say it over and over again without anything to support your assertions. We did a whole thread looking for mistranslations. Result? Nothing of significance was found.
Indeed, and what the poster asserts cannot be wholly true , if at all, anyway , because they fail to take into account both the rogatory interviews and the various Mccanns TV interviews (both not relevant to any arguments abut mistranslations)
-
Do give a chronological and detailed breakdown of events before you attempt to purport your interpretation is the truth
The majority attacking Madeleine McCann and her family on line have no interest in the truth ... it gets in the way of their obsession.
If there is anything in my posts with which you disagree you must surely be able to work up your own reply instead of obfuscation. Obviously for the simple reason you are unable to.
-
Indeed, and what the poster asserts cannot be wholly true , if at all, anyway , because they fail to take into account both the rogatory interviews and the various Mccanns TV interviews (both not relevant to any arguments abut mistranslations)
This thread is not about mistranslations ... it is about insults directed in the vernacular about the sensitivities of those on the receiving end of the abuse.
-
The majority attacking Madeleine McCann and her family on line have no interest in the truth ... it gets in the way of their obsession.
If there is anything in my posts with which you disagree you must surely be able to work up your own reply instead of obfuscation. Obviously for the simple reason you are unable to.
Nice moving of goalposts/deflection/obfuscation/whatever other word you can pull out of your handy thesaurus if you need it
8((()*/
I will take from that inability or refusal or both to answer my question as proof that your opinion is just that and you haven't got a clue at all
It would have been OK to just admit it.
This thread is not about mistranslations ... it is about insults directed in the vernacular about the sensitivities of those on the receiving end of the abuse.
Tell that to whoever brought the mistranslations up then, or are you filling in for mods now??
As for the subject of the thread, well done on putting your own spin on what it actually is about....I thnk most people can make ther own minds up...hey, they may even agree with you, maybe
-
Why should Kerry reject someone's support simply because they question the McCanns ?
Questioning the McCann cause on Kerry's site undermines her cause. There is no place for it on there. Can you not see that?
-
Questioning the McCann cause on Kerry's site undermines her cause. There is no place for it on there. Can you not see that?
Why does it undermine her cause ?
-
Indeed, and what the poster asserts cannot be wholly true , if at all, anyway , because they fail to take into account both the rogatory interviews and the various Mccanns TV interviews (both not relevant to any arguments abut mistranslations)
not really for obvious reasons
-
Why does it undermine her cause ?
because the site is about Ben...Kerry herself has asked for post re the mccanns not to be posted
-
Nice moving of goalposts/deflection/obfuscation/whatever other word you can pull it of y handy thesaurus if you need it
8((()*/
I will take from that inability or refusal or both to answer my question as proof that your opinion is just that and you haven't got a clue at all
It would have been OK to just admit it.
The purpose of the thread unlike the purpose of your post ... is not to discredit me or put words solely of your interpretation onto my keyboard.
Is there some concerted effort afoot to ignore totally what the threads on the forum are about? There seems to be too many posters totally ignoring thread titles for it to be accidental.
Another try ... somebody must be able to come up with a valid reason why the Drs McCann should be ecstatically happy about the toxic nonsense posted day and daily on the internet the by product, or even in some cases perhaps the intention being to interfere with Madeleine McCann's case.
-
The majority attacking Madeleine McCann and her family on line have no interest in the truth ... it gets in the way of their obsession.
If there is anything in my posts with which you disagree you must surely be able to work up your own reply instead of obfuscation. Obviously for the simple reason you are unable to.
Who is attacking Madeleine ?
-
Questioning the McCann cause on Kerry's site undermines her cause. There is no place for it on there. Can you not see that?
If these people had the slightest concern for Ben they would perhaps take the trouble to mention him occasionally ... their posts are full of malice and hatred towards Madeleine and her family and adulation of Mr Amaral ... and a quick glance at Kerry's account reveals they have all but taken over. Incredible!
-
The purpose of the thread unlike the purpose of your post ... is not to discredit me or put words solely of your interpretation onto my keyboard.
Is there some concerted effort afoot to ignore totally what the threads on the forum are about? There seems to be too many posters totally ignoring thread titles for it to be accidental.
Another try ... somebody must be able to come up with a valid reason why the Drs McCann should be ecstatically happy about the toxic nonsense posted day and daily on the internet the by product, or even in some cases perhaps the intention being to interfere with Madeleine McCann's case.
Your refusal to answer my original question which you quickly bypassed was followed by a predictable stance, namely trying to steer this and other threads to the place you always want everythng to end up, even the blind can see
No one is saying the Mccanns should be ecstatically happy with any abuse but not every comment is abuse.
Why the constant dramatics and the parroting of the FM webmaster's words? Such as toxicYou're not them are you?
As for your latest little project, namely, accusing people of attacking the missing but most likely dead child, if they dare question the parents, it has been tried before, it's puerile, it's irrational and has and always will fail
-
If these people had the slightest concern for Ben they would perhaps take the trouble to mention him occasionally ... their posts are full of malice and hatred towards Madeleine and her family and adulation of Mr Amaral ... and a quick glance at Kerry's account reveals they have all but taken over. Incredible!
I'd advise everyone to rush over to the OFB Twitter feed just to see what a great fat lie the above is. The sceptic avatars posted by Brietta earlier have tweeted nothing but support for Ben and Kerry. As far as I can see there is no mention of the McCanns from them or anyone else on the feed.
-
I'd advise everyone to rush over to the OFB Twitter feed just to see what a great fat lie the above is. The sceptic avatars posted by Brietta earlier have tweeted nothing but support for Ben and Kerry. As far as I can see there is no mention of the McCanns from them or anyone else on the feed.
look again..I have copied one here in an earlier post..https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/596067347682713600/nugtc10L_400x400.jpg
-
in my view the inconsistencies are in the translations
Subjective opinion or objective opinion based on your fluency in Portuguese?
-
Subjective opinion or objective opinion based on your fluency in Portuguese?
Why does it have to be either of those
-
there is no doubt that some very vocal supporters of Kerry libel the mccanns on twitter...this is what is causing the problem
Cite?
-
You said ... "It should have dawned on you by now that many people don't believe the mccanns story, and it has nothing to do with Amaral either."
I'm afraid your answer doesn't cut the mustard ~ much as your response to my original post bore absolutely relevance to that either. You pepper the threads with allegations then refuse to back them up when asked to.
I need to learn nothing ... what you need to do rather than throwing insulting and goading OT comments around like confetti ... is to learn how to debate the points you raise with valid answers rather than lift one from your collection of one-liners.
I'm not even sure I could accuse you of having a reprehensible attitude towards the on-line abuse heaped on the Drs McCann which apparently they should be quite happy to accept ... because I can't remember you making a single relevant post on the subject.
Gosh
-
Cite?
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/596067347682713600/nugtc10L_400x400.jpg
-
Gosh
Even Socrates the father of modern western philosophy said he knew he knew nothng
@)(++(*
-
Even Socrates the father of modern western philosophy said he knew he knew nothng
@)(++(*
he was speaking relatively
-
it is a statement...not an answer to a question...are you joining the group who simply want to make posts that add nothing to the discussion but simply try to goad me
You are the one making off topic posts. Some supporters continue to make statements claiming things that have been proved false.
-
Your refusal to answer my original question which you quickly bypassed was followed by a predictable stance, namely trying to steer this and other threads to the place you always want everythng to end up, even the blind can see
No one is saying the Mccanns should be ecstatically happy with any abuse but not every comment is abuse.
Why the constant dramatics and the parroting of the FM webmaster's words? Such as toxicYou're not them are you?
As for your latest little project, namely, accusing people of attacking the missing but most likely dead child, if they dare question the parents, it has been tried before, it's puerile, it's irrational and has and always will fail
I think toxic is exactly the word of the moment which describes both the posters and the posts which have been directed at Madeleine and her family.
It is not mine ... I have merely borrowed it because it is so apt. The words I would use to describe these people are as numerous as the grains of sand on Praia da Luz beach ... each and every one of them would not be allowed to be used on the forum.
So for the time being toxic it is.
How strange it's use should be so significant you felt pressed to mention it.
If you cannot appreciate the intentionally deletrious significance of starting polls on the amount of money being spent on searching for Madeleine or organising a letter writing campaign to MPs objecting to the same ... that is not my problem.
Strange you should mention that Madeleine is " ... most likely dead child" ... how does that make the actions of these people appropriate when she may equally be very much alive?
-
he was speaking relatively
yes
In Apology, Plato relates that Socrates accounts for his seeming wiser than any other person because he does not imagine that he knows what he does not know.
Apt for Brietta, ta
8((()*/
-
The majority attacking Madeleine McCann and her family on line have no interest in the truth ... it gets in the way of their obsession.
If there is anything in my posts with which you disagree you must surely be able to work up your own reply instead of obfuscation. Obviously for the simple reason you are unable to.
I disagree, the sceptics are interested in the truth no matter what.
-
You are the one making off topic posts. Some supporters continue to make statements claiming things that have been proved false.
such as......I think you will struggle
-
I think toxic is exactly the word of the moment which describes both the posters and the posts which have been directed at Madeleine and her family.
It is not mine ... I have merely borrowed it because it is so apt. The words I would use to describe these people are as numerous as the grains of sand on Praia da Luz beach ... each and every one of them would not be allowed to be used on the forum.
So for the time being toxic it is.
How strange it's use should be so significant you felt pressed to mention it.
If you cannot appreciate the intentionally deletrious significance of starting polls on the amount of money being spent on searching for Madeleine or organising a letter writing campaign to MPs objecting to the same ... that is not my problem.
Strange you should mention that Madeleine is " ... most likely dead child" ... how does that make the actions of these people appropriate when she may equally be very much alive?
Get some air conditioning ...might help all the hot air enveloping you and diffusing into your posts!!
-
such as......I think you will struggle
How about little girls in Morocco?
-
yes
In Apology, Plato relates that Socrates accounts for his seeming wiser than any other person because he does not imagine that he knows what he does not know.
Apt for Brietta, ta
8((()*/
I don't think you have to be very bright to realise you do not know...what you do not know
-
How about little girls in Morocco?
you said "SOME SUPPORTERS" then you quote one...I said you would struggle...want to try again
-
such as......I think you will struggle
Check out the did Eddie and keela work together before PDL, Ferrymans total intransigence is worthy of a gold medal itself, go on...
8((()*/
-
you said "SOME SUPPORTERS" then you quote one...I said you would struggle...want to try again
You said I would struggle and I gave you an example straight away?
-
Then there are Sex cleanup tissues, coconuts, back gardens.
-
Check out the did Eddie and keela work together before PDL, Ferrymans total intransigence is worthy of a gold medal itself, go on...
8((()*/
another one...you are struggling too...how many sceptics have claimed the mccanns called sky news before the police
-
Then there are Sex cleanup tissues, coconuts, back gardens.
Not forgetting the mushrooms
-
If you cannot appreciate the intentionally deletrious significance of starting polls on the amount of money being spent on searching for Madeleine or organising a letter writing campaign to MPs objecting to the same ... that is not my problem.
Polls like this one being pushed by the OFM webmaster :
"Please vote no. We cannot give-up on Madeleine. There is an abductor out there and they will strike again. It's vital we find Madeleine and who took her. Thank you for continuing to keep Madeleine in your heart. http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2015/09/have-your-say-should-we-continue-the-search-for-madeleine-mccann
Edited to add... The way this poll is worded, it's confusing. The headline says one thing, but the poll says another. The poll asks if the search should be called off. Choose, "No, let's keep searching."
-
I think toxic is exactly the word of the moment which describes both the posters and the posts which have been directed at Madeleine and her family.
It is not mine ... I have merely borrowed it because it is so apt. The words I would use to describe these people are as numerous as the grains of sand on Praia da Luz beach ... each and every one of them would not be allowed to be used on the forum.
So for the time being toxic it is.
How strange it's use should be so significant you felt pressed to mention it.
If you cannot appreciate the intentionally deletrious significance of starting polls on the amount of money being spent on searching for Madeleine or organising a letter writing campaign to MPs objecting to the same ... that is not my problem.
Strange you should mention that Madeleine is " ... most likely dead child" ... how does that make the actions of these people appropriate when she may equally be very much alive?
Wadda yer mean by "intentionally deleterious significance" Brie?
Maybe you should rephrase it in order that it makes sense.
I get the idea you are maybe playing to the guest gallery.
-
Then there are Sex cleanup tissues, coconuts, back gardens.
eddie did alert to a sex clean up tissue...eddie alerted to a coco nut....next,,,
as a moderator do you think you should be taking this thread so off topic
-
another one...you are struggling too...how many sceptics have claimed the mccanns called sky news before the police
You asked for another one so I gave you one, stop complaining when you receive what you asked for..you going to check it out or not? If not why not? It's an example of a supporter not accepting a truth when proved.... What's sky news to do with anythng, not moving the goalposts perchance?? Sigh
@)(++(*
-
The only interview I know of that Gerry walked out of was the one where although it was made clear beforehand that they were not allowed to discuss the case as that would be breaking the secrecy laws - the first thing the interviewer did was ask questions about the case.
IIRC Gerry pointed that out as he wearily left the room.
As for the 48 questions - have you ever read them? IMO Amaral and co had already decided Kate was guilty and now they needed to come up with a motive - and that was the main aim of that interview.
Questions like the following are a clue to the direction they were going in IMO. Especially question No. 41.
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
I would omit 3 letters from that post (repeated, so that's 6 letters): IMO.
Otherwise, bang-on right ....
-
Wadda yer mean by "intentionally deleterious significance" Brie?
Maybe you should rephrase it in order that it makes sense.
I get the idea you are maybe playing to the guest gallery.
Ooer....never thought of that! Sounds about right
-
I disagree, the sceptics are interested in the truth no matter what.
That is your opinion ... and indeed it reflects what they say.
I am basing my opinion on their actions.
-
You said I would struggle and I gave you an example straight away?
you did not give me an example of "some" supporters...you gave me an example of "one" supporter
-
You asked for another one so I gave you one, stop complaining when you receive what you asked for..you going to check it out or not? If not why not? It's an example of a supporter not accepting a truth when proved.... What's sky news to do with anythng, not moving the goalposts perchance?? Sigh
@)(++(*
Your Jack Russell irrational antics force me to put you on ignore yet again
I didn't ask for another one so your whole post is worthless
-
another one...you are struggling too...how many sceptics have claimed the mccanns called sky news before the police
Who knows? but we know Jon Corner released photos to the press on their [McCann's] behalf in the early hours of 4th May 2007.
-
That is your opinion ... and indeed it reflects what they say.
I am basing my opinion on their actions.
Not going to qualify and quantify then? If not, why not?
-
Who knows? but we know Jon Corner released photos to the press on their [McCann's] behalf in the early hours of 4th May 2007.
which proves b....r all as you no doubt realise
-
eddie did alert to a sex clean up tissue...eddie alerted to a coco nut....next,,,
as a moderator do you think you should be taking this thread so off topic
QED
-
Get some air conditioning ...might help all the hot air enveloping you and diffusing into your posts!!
Read back the posts you have made to and about me tonight and give them some consideration.
What a pity you are unable to debate anything in the abstract but must resort to below the belt ad hominem invective.
It brings absolutely nothing to the forum.
-
which proves b....r all as you no doubt realise
Of course it proves something.
-
QED
you think you do
-
Read back the posts you have made to and about me tonight and give them some consideration.
What a pity you are unable to debate anything in the abstract but must resort to below the belt ad hominem invective.
It brings absolutely nothing to the forum.
Dear B,
People in glass houses should never ever throw stones
Don't you agree?
Yours sincerely
M
Ps you do not accuse "in the abstract"
-
Of course it proves something.
you will be telling me next it proves something but you don't know what...it proves nothing
-
you think you do
V/T 9 Re-enforced concrete machine gun post and protective trench, personnel shelter attached. Earth and debris removed by hand and plant machinery to allow access.
The forensic strategy was implemented with the following results.
EVRD – positive indication.
SOCO visual – positive.
Blood dog - positive indication.
Visual – positive.
UV – negative (items removed prior to screening).
Quasar - negative.
Positive indications confirmed as being recently deposited tissues used to clean up after sex by unknown persons. Offences not suspected at this stage. Retained as exhibit should there be future reports of offences. There will be no forensic submission at this stage.
only three bone fragments (the largest 25 mm = 1 inch long) were identified as possibly human; two of them have been dated to a range from 1470 to 1650 and the other 1650 to 1950.
-
you will be telling me next it proves something but you don't know what...it proves nothing
Of course it proves something. Now you are the self professed genius in this manor so see if you can work it out and respond without:
Abusive comments.
Deflection.
-
Who knows? but we know Jon Corner released photos to the press on their [McCann's] behalf in the early hours of 4th May 2007.
I am as yet ignorant of this, Alice. But it would appear from later replies that it is true. Would you please enlighten me about this?
-
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/596067347682713600/nugtc10L_400x400.jpg
That's a picture, proving what?
-
That's a picture, proving what?
That someone has a rather quirky avatar ? As far as I can see the account owner has posted nothing detrimental to the McCanns on the OFB timeline.
-
I am as yet ignorant of this, Alice. But it would appear from later replies that it is true. Would you please enlighten me about this?
That's all I know.
You can download a pdf file of Gerry's witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry. It's in that.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerry-McCann.pdf
-
That's all I know.
You can download a pdf file of Gerry's witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry. It's in that.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerry-McCann.pdf
Many thanks!
-
That someone has a rather quirky avatar ? As far as I can see the account owner has posted nothing detrimental to the McCanns on the OFB timeline.
As I have said elsewhere - a picture paints a thousand words.
-
As I have said elsewhere - a picture paints a thousand words.
We have been told that sceptics who supported Kerry Needham had tweeted awful things about the McCanns on the OFB account's timeline and that's why the webmaster blocked the account. Are you now saying this is untrue and the reason was because she didn't like certain supporters of Kerry's avatars ?
-
We have been told that sceptics who supported Kerry Needham had tweeted awful things about the McCanns on the OFB account's timeline and that's why the webmaster blocked the account. Are you now saying this is untrue and the reason was because she didn't like certain supporters of Kerry's avatars ?
I hadn't seen any of those avatars posted earlier prior to tonight, so I've no idea whose accounts they are attached to or how long they've been supporting the search for Ben (if that is indeed their sole purpose for following the account). I HAVE seen offensive posts on OFB by known MM sceptic accounts. However, I don't spend my life on social media so I've probably missed a lot more.
-
I hadn't seen any of those avatars posted earlier prior to tonight, so I've no idea whose accounts they are attached to or how long they've been supporting the search for Ben (if that is indeed their sole purpose for following the account). I HAVE seen offensive posts on OFB by known MM sceptic accounts. However, I don't spend my life on social media so I've probably missed a lot more.
So you will be able to reproduce them here ?
-
So you will be able to reproduce them here ?
You know full well they've been deleted. But if you look at court reporter naked chest muscle man's F/B account you should be able to see an offensive & threatening picture which had been posted on there.
-
You know full well they've been deleted. But if you look at court reporter naked chest muscle man's F/B account you should be able to see an offensive & threatening picture which had been posted on there.
But surely they were screen capped by the faithful so the world ( and his brother ) could see the atrocious tweets that made the webmaster block the OFB account ? BL's account was deleted yet supporters still had copies of months of her tweets so why no copies of these horrendous specimens ?
-
But surely they were screen capped by the faithful so the world ( and his brother ) could see the atrocious tweets that made the webmaster block the OFB account ? BL's account was deleted yet supporters still had copies of months of her tweets so why no copies of these horrendous specimens ?
Again - you mistake me for someone who's in the loop. My picture folder is used mainly for family stuff, not screenshots of abuse directed at other folk. What's in yours?
-
Again - you mistake me for someone who's in the loop. My picture folder is used mainly for family stuff, not screenshots of abuse directed at other folk. What's in yours?
Oh I think you're being much to coy misty.
-
Oh I think you're being much to coy misty.
No, Faith - I'm just not that obsessed.
-
No, Faith - I'm just not that obsessed.
Priceless @)(++(* !!
Night, night misty.
-
Priceless @)(++(* !!
Night, night misty.
Night, Faith. (emoticons not functioning my end)
-
I have given quotes by the McCanns in the past which contradict each other. I have never said they lied, it's up to those reading my posts to draw their own conclusions. Usually people conclude they were confused, upset, mistaken or whatever other explanation they can think of.
-
Calling me an alcoholic shoplifter you mean? Why that in particular I wonder? Oh well. I would probably laugh because I haven't had an alcoholic drink for years, and I am completely honest. Everyone who knows me would laugh uproariously too. Then I might call up the newspaper and ask where on earth they got the story and give them the true facts.
I'm sure the 'fallibility of memory' idea is sufficient to satisfy you, but why do you think that? Two of the degrees which need a better than average memory are medicine and law. Six doctors and a lawyer seem to have memories like sieves in this case. I remember more about the night of 3rd May than they do. Kate McCann had a bath and a shower. David Payne forgot he saw Kate in a towel. Kate saw open curtains which became closed. Gerry thought he was at high tea to collect Madeleine but wasn't seen there. He had no idea who left the table to check on their children. He missed the fact that Russell's daughter was sick and Russell was missing for a while. He wasn't listening when the jokes about Jane 'relieving Russell' were going round the table. He didn't remember which door he used. He didn't remember which side of the road he was on. Matthew thought the McCann children's bedroom had two windows. He also thought he could see a child through the solid end of a travel cot. Kate forgot she told the other women she was worried about leaving the patio doors open, and has since said repeatedly that she never even thought about it. I could go on, but I'm sure you've got the picture now.
So you would find it funny to be publicly libelled as an alcoholic shoplifter in the local newspaper! I have to say that really surprises me G-Unit. I would be shocked and angry and demanding a retraction and an apology. I certainly wouldn't be laughing. And neither would my friends or family.
On the subject of 'memory'. Once again I feel you have no ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes i.e. no empathy. The McCanns and their friends had been suddenly plunged into a nightmare situation - the stress and trauma would be immense and long lasting IMO. I would not expect them to be able to calmly remember every mundane detail of that day - most of which was completely unimportant and they had no reason to carefully commit every minute of it to memory. It was only after Madeleine was taken it took on any importance.
Fortunately the police are well aware of the fallibility of memory and therefore do not find it all surprising that witnesses can give vastly different accounts of the same incident.
Quote (again)
In a crime situation memory is influenced by many factors such as stress, the presence of a weapon and even just the desire to help police solve the crime.
"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.
"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."
Take the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.
Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police. In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving.
End quote
ALSO
Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)
4078 “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.
It is also known that witnesses can later remember something which they had previously forgotten. That is why everyone knows what ''having your memory jogged'' means. It is also normal for policemen to ask witnesses to contact them straightaway if they later remember anything else.
Are you saying none of the above is applicable to the McCanns or their friends?
IMO the instances you quote would not be regarded as suspicious in any way by SY - especially as they would be able to speak to the witnesses themselves if needs be - and unlike us - did not have to rely only on their translated statements.
-
I have given quotes by the McCanns in the past which contradict each other. I have never said they lied, it's up to those reading my posts to draw their own conclusions. Usually people conclude they were confused, upset, mistaken or whatever other explanation they can think of.
good to see you don't think they are lying
-
And what would be wrong with answering the questions honestly ?
I don't see ANY questions on that list that she would have difficulty in answering honestly - including the three I quoted.
However, IMO once she did answer - the PJ could put any interpretation they liked on her answers - or even just say they didn't believe her. Maybe it would even have ended in her arrest? Who knows.
Fortunately she took her Portuguese lawyer's advice and so removed that possibility.
-
I don't see ANY questions on that list that she would have difficulty in answering honestly - including the three I quoted.
However, IMO once she did answer - the PJ could put any interpretation they liked on her answers - or even just say they didn't believe her. Maybe it would even have ended in her arrest? Who knows.
Fortunately she took her Portuguese lawyer's advice and so removed that possibility.
if kate had answered those questions there would have been another 48...its a recognised police tactic...sahe was totally right to tell the police to put up or shut up
-
So you would find it funny to be publicly libelled as an alcoholic shoplifter in the local newspaper! I have to say that really surprises me G-Unit. I would be shocked and angry and demanding a retraction and an apology. I certainly wouldn't be laughing. And neither would my friends or family.
On the subject of 'memory'. Once again I feel you have no ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes i.e. no empathy. The McCanns and their friends had been suddenly plunged into a nightmare situation - the stress and trauma would be immense and long lasting IMO. I would not expect them to be able to calmly remember every mundane detail of that day - most of which was completely unimportant and they had no reason to carefully commit every minute of it to memory. It was only after Madeleine was taken it took on any importance.
Fortunately the police are well aware of the fallibility of memory and therefore do not find it all surprising that witnesses can give vastly different accounts of the same incident.
Quote (again)
In a crime situation memory is influenced by many factors such as stress, the presence of a weapon and even just the desire to help police solve the crime.
"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.
"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."
Take the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.
Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police. In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving.
End quote
ALSO
Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)
4078 “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.
It is also known that witnesses can later remember something which they had previously forgotten. That is why everyone knows what ''having your memory jogged'' means. It is also normal for policemen to ask witnesses to contact them straightaway if they later remember anything else.
Are you saying none of the above is applicable to the McCanns or their friends?
IMO the instances you quote would not be regarded as suspicious in any way by SY - especially as they would be able to speak to the witnesses themselves if needs be - and unlike us - did not have to rely only on their translated statements.
I'm not surprised you'd be upset, sense of humour failure? I'm so glad the police accept so many discrepancies in statements. Makes one wonder why they take them. Perhaps Kate McCann just 'thought' she'd seen an open window and shutters? You know, like those people who saw someone vaulting a ticket barrier? Perhaps the person seen by Jane Tanner was actually going from right to left, which would fit with the creche dad idea? Some people do confuse left and right. Perhaps they guessed at the checking times, after all, they weren't doing it by the clock. They may even have mistaken the time of the alarm, having no interest in time? Perhaps we should disregard everything they ever said.
-
I don't see ANY questions on that list that she would have difficulty in answering honestly - including the three I quoted.
However, IMO once she did answer - the PJ could put any interpretation they liked on her answers - or even just say they didn't believe her. Maybe it would even have ended in her arrest? Who knows.
Fortunately she took her Portuguese lawyer's advice and so removed that possibility.
An honest person answers questions honestly. It really is as simple as that.
-
An honest person answers questions honestly. It really is as simple as that.
And it would be a very stupid person who thinks they know better than their lawyer and ignores his advice in such serious circumstances.
-
I'm not surprised you'd be upset, sense of humour failure? I'm so glad the police accept so many discrepancies in statements. Makes one wonder why they take them. Perhaps Kate McCann just 'thought' she'd seen an open window and shutters? You know, like those people who saw someone vaulting a ticket barrier? Perhaps the person seen by Jane Tanner was actually going from right to left, which would fit with the creche dad idea? Some people do confuse left and right. Perhaps they guessed at the checking times, after all, they weren't doing it by the clock. They may even have mistaken the time of the alarm, having no interest in time? Perhaps we should disregard everything they ever said.
Nothing wrong with my sense of humour. I'm still smiling at the idea that anyone opening a newspaper and seeing their reputation trashed for all to see - would think it was hilarious and have a good laugh about it.
-
And it would be a very stupid person who thinks they know better than their lawyer and ignores his advice in such serious circumstances.
So that would be Gerry then ?
-
So that would be Gerry then ?
IMO The PJ weren't after Gerry - it was Kate's questions they needed replies to - so that they could come up with a motive to pin on her. I'm sure her Portuguese lawyer was aware of that - especially if he was au fait with the Cipriano case.
(must go out now )
-
Nothing wrong with my sense of humour. I'm still smiling at the idea that anyone opening a newspaper and seeing their reputation trashed for all to see - would think it was hilarious and have a good laugh about it.
The truly innocent can afford to laugh at (to use a popular word) 'ludicrous' smears.
No comment on the other possible 'memory failures'? After all, if their memories were as faulty as the supporters suggest we can't believe anything they said. How can they complain about alternative points of view? They can't remember what happened apparently.
-
I'm not surprised you'd be upset, sense of humour failure? I'm so glad the police accept so many discrepancies in statements. Makes one wonder why they take them. Perhaps Kate McCann just 'thought' she'd seen an open window and shutters? You know, like those people who saw someone vaulting a ticket barrier? Perhaps the person seen by Jane Tanner was actually going from right to left, which would fit with the creche dad idea? Some people do confuse left and right. Perhaps they guessed at the checking times, after all, they weren't doing it by the clock. They may even have mistaken the time of the alarm, having no interest in time? Perhaps we should disregard everything they ever said.
the police understand why they take statements and understand the limitations of the statements..as I do....that's why important statements are audiotaped....
-
the police understand why they take statements and understand the limitations of the statements..as I do....that's why important statements are audiotaped....
So we don't have to believe the window and shutters were open; it could have been a faulty memory due to shock and terror. Glad we cleared that up.
-
So we don't have to believe the window and shutters were open; it could have been a faulty memory due to shock and terror. Glad we cleared that up.
. I didn't say any of that
All statements were available to SY when it was stated the McCanns were not suspects
That would indicate they had no concerns with them
-
And it would be a very stupid person who thinks they know better than their lawyer and ignores his advice in such serious circumstances.
Why do you keep saying that her lawyer told her not to answer the questions? You don't know what he said to her. I believe that Kate and Gerry decided that only one of them would answer questions so that the police would not be able to note any discrepancies in their replies.
-
So we don't have to believe the window and shutters were open; it could have been a faulty memory due to shock and terror. Glad we cleared that up.
You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe, G, but, do you think that Amy’s memory was faulty and affected by shock as well?……..
I am sure that you have already seen this, unless of course your memory has failed you too?
Excerpt of Amy T statement:-
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine’s shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post27240.html#p27240
-
Why do you keep saying that her lawyer told her not to answer the questions? You don't know what he said to her. I believe that Kate and Gerry decided that only one of them would answer questions so that the police would not be able to note any discrepancies in their replies.
You know this.......How?
-
You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe, G, but, do you think that Amy’s memory was faulty and affected by shock as well?……..
I am sure that you have already seen this, unless of course your memory has failed you too?
Excerpt of Amy T statement:-
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine’s shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post27240.html#p27240
Amazing how the police didn't but Amy did. How could she see the shutters raised when Dianne couldn't raise them straight after the alarm? They raised a little, twisted and got jammed so Amy's testimony of seeing them raised is not credible.
-
You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe, G, but, do you think that Amy’s memory was faulty and affected by shock as well?……..
I am sure that you have already seen this, unless of course your memory has failed you too?
Excerpt of Amy T statement:-
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine’s shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post27240.html#p27240
Was this before or after Gerry and Diana had been fiddling with them?
-
It does not mean they checked.
Well one of them said 'that I now understand they were checking the children'.
-
An honest person answers questions honestly. It really is as simple as that.
They would probably look for the slightest inconsistency in what she said, and twist it into 'your lying'.
Did you read that when faced with the 100% DNA instead of confessing as Amaral hoped she would, Kate asked if Madeleine was dead, that wasn't the answer they wanted was it.
-
Was this before or after Gerry and Diana had been fiddling with them?
It's a load of BS unless Gerry raised them again when he returned to the apartment. Dianne was first there and Kate was alone and she couldn't raise them so how Amy saw them raised later means somebody else started messing with them. But they were in the position where Dianne got them stuck in the crime scene pics so that shows me that witnesses are mistaken about the shutters and their imaginations are running wild.
-
So that would be Gerry then ?
I think it was Kate they were trying to get to confess as she was the one who found Madeleine missing.
-
. I didn't say any of that
All statements were available to SY when it was stated the McCanns were not suspects
That would indicate they had no concerns with them
Then I suggest that people stop asserting that those statements which they don't like, can't explain are due to faulty memory/shock. The statements should all be either accepted or rejected, not cherry-picked.
-
It's a load of BS unless Gerry raised them again when he returned to the apartment. Dianne was first there and Kate was alone and she couldn't raise them so how Amy saw them raised later means somebody else started messing with them. But they were in the position where Dianne got them stuck in the crime scene pics so that shows me that witnesses are mistaken about the shutters and their imaginations are running wild.
Perhaps Dianne wasn't tall enough to raise them, or strong enough maybe.
-
Was this before or after Gerry and Diana had been fiddling with them?
She was there very early, probably just after diane got there. Anyway she was another person who witnessed an open window.
-
It's a load of BS unless Gerry raised them again when he returned to the apartment. Dianne was first there and Kate was alone and she couldn't raise them so how Amy saw them raised later means somebody else started messing with them. But they were in the position where Dianne got them stuck in the crime scene pics so that shows me that witnesses are mistaken about the shutters and their imaginations are running wild.
I agree that some people's imagination are running wild. Pathfinder.
-
Then I suggest that people stop asserting that those statements which they don't like, can't explain are due to faulty memory/shock. The statements should all be either accepted or rejected, not cherry-picked.
it's not cherry picking it's picking out the important bits....taken with caution due the expected translation errors
-
Perhaps Dianne wasn't tall enough to raise them, or strong enough maybe.
So they must have been in the down position when she got to them. Who lowered them to the position she found them in?
-
Not forgetting the mushrooms
No, DON'T forget the mushrooms or decaying vegetation, or coconut shell come to that.
-
Perhaps Dianne wasn't tall enough to raise them, or strong enough maybe.
The fact is the police saw them in the same position Dianne raised them to when they jammed so that means to me they stayed in that position and didn't magically raise just for Amy to see.
-
You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe, G, but, do you think that Amy’s memory was faulty and affected by shock as well?……..
I am sure that you have already seen this, unless of course your memory has failed you too?
Excerpt of Amy T statement:-
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine’s shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post27240.html#p27240
I have no idea what went through this witnesses head, but she claims to have seen an open window and open shutters. she also claims to have seen Gerald and Kate McCann and a female friend. the only females belonging to the group who entered the apartment were Fiona Payne and her mother. neither of them saw the open window and raised shutters.
In reply to the question asked, she said that the back door (porta das traseiras) that leads to the parking area was closed, but she doesn't know whether the front door (porta da frente) was locked as when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there and that is why the door was open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
-
I have no idea what went through this witnesses head, but she claims to have seen an open window and open shutters. she also claims to have seen Gerald and Kate McCann and a female friend. the only females belonging to the group who entered the apartment were Fiona Payne and her mother. neither of them saw the open window and raised shutters.
In reply to the question asked, she said that the back door (porta das traseiras) that leads to the parking area was closed, but she doesn't know whether the front door (porta da frente) was locked as when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there and that is why the door was open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
That would be Fiona. Fiona didn't get to the apartment until around 10:10 after Dianne had already tried lifting the shutters so Amy didn't arrive there until later. Emma Knights came at 10:20 and only Kate and Fiona were present.
-
it's not cherry picking it's picking out the important bits....taken with caution due the expected translation errors
The translation errors which no one could document on the thread about translation errors? Who decides which are the important bits anyway? I think the inconsistent bits are the important bits. It was partly those bits which lead to the McCanns being suspected.
-
Well one of them said 'that I now understand they were checking the children'.
and that proves........................?
-
The translation errors which no one could document on the thread about translation errors? Who decides which are the important bits anyway? I think the inconsistent bits are the important bits. It was partly those bits which lead to the McCanns being suspected.
the police decide which are the important bits...it's impossible to know the errors without having the actual words spoken by the mccanns..which were not recorded....but we know errors in translations are to be expected...hence the term lost in translation
-
the police decide which are the important bits...it's impossible to know the errors without having the actual words spoken by the mccanns..which were not recorded....but we know errors in translations are to be expected...hence the term lost in translation
I think this has been done to death on other threads and is off topic, so I will not be posting about it again.
This thread is about alternative points of view. That's what the internet allows, it's no place for those who demand to go unchallenged.
-
I think this has been done to death on other threads and is off topic, so I will not be posting about it again.
This thread is about alternative points of view. That's what the internet allows, it's no place for those who demand to go unchallenged.
So true. Its not really for those of a sensitive and easily offended nature either.
-
So true. Its not really for those of a sensitive and easily offended nature either.
It's a playground for bullies who know the teachers will never be around to punish them. Time to call in the US Marines.
-
It's a playground for bullies who know the teachers will never be around to punish them. Time to call in the US Marines.
Or the Air Cavalry ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPT3RFTpSUw
-
and that proves........................?
Well unless they all wanted the loo at regular intervals of every half an hour, they were checking the children.
If you don't believe it Stephen then you don't believe the McCann's friends or Dianne Webster, I can't think of any reason why they would lie.
-
It's a playground for bullies who know the teachers will never be around to punish them. Time to call in the US Marines.
Bullies are usually cowards who back down when challenged.
-
Bullies are usually cowards who back down when challenged.
in real life yes...as Brenda did....but on the internet the weakest most cowardly person can be a bully...I think that's a major attraction to them
-
That would be Fiona. Fiona didn't get to the apartment until around 10:10 after Dianne had already tried lifting the shutters so Amy didn't arrive there until later. Emma Knights came at 10:20 and only Kate and Fiona were present.
Emma met Amy and Lyndsay at the Tapas at 10.17 and they began the missing person process. Emma went to get a description of the girl and her clothes which Fiona gave, Kate being too upset. I wonder how Fiona described the pyjamas as she hadn't seen them? Interesting bit here; Emma seems to have missed the GNR completely.
I remember that the police arrived between 00.00 and 00.30, entered by the main door and went to the kitchen with Gerry.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA-LOUISE.htm
Amy Tierney said Gerry called the police. Not sure what she's saying here. Did Gerry go to call the police 20 minutes before Amy got to the apartment? Was she there at 10.25-10.30 then? That's 30-35 minutes before the GNR arrived. Gerry was out and about at 10.05-10.10 then?
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 – 35 minutes to arrive.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
-
This where a reconstruction a day ortwo later would have been so useful in sorting out the details and time sequence more precisely
-
in real life yes...as Brenda did....but on the internet the weakest most cowardly person can be a bully...I think that's a major attraction to them
Bullies are weak cowardly people. That's why they bully, to hide it and try to look brave and strong. I can't imagine the Mccanns being easily bullied, they don't come across as shrinking violets to me.
-
Bullies are weak cowardly people. That's why they bully, to hide it and try to look brave and strong. I can't imagine the Mccanns being easily bullied, they don't come across as shrinking violets to me.
it is very easy to be bullied online by anonymous people who know all your details yet they can remain anonymous....it must be very hard for the mccanns
-
it is very easy to be bullied online by anonymous people who know all your details yet they can remain anonymous....it must be very hard for the mccanns
I imagine it's difficult to bully someone who isn't online though, and the Mccanns have told everyone they don't use social media. Others took it upon themselves to create an online presence on their behalf.
-
Well unless they all wanted the loo at regular intervals of every half an hour, they were checking the children.
If you don't believe it Stephen then you don't believe the McCann's friends or Dianne Webster, I can't think of any reason why they would lie.
Yet they thought writing their time lines on scraps of paper more important than looking for Madeleine.
Likewise, no independent verification they checked when they said they did.
-
I imagine it's difficult to bully someone who isn't online though, and the Mccanns have told everyone they don't use social media. Others took it upon themselves to create an online presence on their behalf.
The fact that the online abuse is there is bad enough.......there are plenty of truly libellous posts online but it is impossible to police the internet fully
-
Yet they thought writing their time lines on scraps of paper more important than looking for Madeleine.
Likewise, no independent verification they checked when they said they did.
Not just scraps of paper, Madeleine's book. I found that quite shocking actually.
-
Not just scraps of paper, Madeleine's book. I found that quite shocking actually.
I didn't...didn't find it shocking at all...maddie probably had tons of books
-
I didn't...didn't find it shocking at all...maddie probably had tons of books
It's a mother thing. Her last book vandalised. 8(8-))
-
It's a mother thing. Her last book vandalised. 8(8-))
But they didn't know it was her "last book".
-
It's a mother thing. Her last book vandalised. 8(8-))
I don't see it that way...it was important to note every possible detail anyone could remember...absolutely the right thing to do
-
Not just scraps of paper, Madeleine's book. I found that quite shocking actually.
Any idea how they got their hands on it?
I'm sure one of the rogatory statements says the T7 started on the time line while the McCanns were dealing with the police.
IF this is correct, then why is it Madeleine's book, rather than a book belonging to the children of the T7?
Any clarification would be welcomed.
-
Not just scraps of paper, Madeleine's book. I found that quite shocking actually.
Yes, I did too. The thing is, the police would have asked them what times - who was - where, they didn't need to write it down. Did they? No they didn't. This was the first thing what made me wonder why they couldn't just tell the police via an interpreter. Happens all over the world.
-
You know this.......How?
I said "I believe" and my opinion is based on logic because answering those 48 questions for an innocent person would not have been a problem at all.
-
I said "I believe" and my opinion is based on logic because answering those 48 questions for an innocent person would not have been a problem at all.
thats where your logic falls apart...you assume an innocent person would answer the questions...that simply isn't true
-
Not just scraps of paper, Madeleine's book. I found that quite shocking actually.
easily shocked aren't you?
-
But they didn't know it was her "last book".
Quite so Misty - hindsight is indeed a wonderful thlng. So soon after Madeleine's disappearance - they would still have very high hopes that she would be found at any moment - so the book would have no 'sentimental' significance after such a short time.
They immediately handed the written timeline to the police who were with them at the time. It could even be that the police asked them to write it down?
Extract from Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview:
'But anyway Dave Payne said to, errm... there were two members of the PJ had arrived, there was a guy I remember being almost shaved bald head, quite dark complexion, and a second one who we kind of nicknamed 'baby face', who did our fingerprinting about a week later, errm... and those two were there and Dave was... was saying, you know, 'Shouldn't we', you know, 'Why are we sitting here, shouldn't you be on the radio, shouldn't there be more people here, shouldn't there be...', you know, 'this should be on the radio, it should be on the television' and, errm... I recall 'baby face', or his colleague, saying 'No media', and, you know... and that was full-stop and then turning round to me writing the timeline and saying 'That's what we want', fair enough. Errm... huh, and that's really it.
End quote
-
It's a mother thing. Her last book vandalised. 8(8-))
Vandalised is a very emotive word in this context. Are you sure it is the right one? Or is the blatant example of your contempt for the McCanns and their friends and your inability to put yourself in their position?
-
Vandalised is a very emotive word in this context. Are you sure it is the right one? Or is the blatant example of your contempt for the McCanns and their friends and your inability to put yourself in their position?
The mccanns are responsible for the position they placed themselves in.
Just like the mccanns, you play the blame game and try to make others sympathetic for what the mccanns did to themselves.
REMEMBER, IT WAS MADELEINE WHO SUFFERED THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE MCCANNS 'RESPONSIBLE PARENTING SKILLS'.
-
But they didn't know it was her "last book".
Kate knew immediately she'd been taken. Was she expecting the abductor to come back with her?
-
The mccanns are responsible for the position they placed themselves in.
Just like the mccanns, you play the blame gain and try to make others sympathetic for what the mccanns did to themselves.
REMEMBER, IT WAS MADELEINE WHO SUFFERED THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE MCCANNS 'RESPONSIBLE PARENTING SKILLS'.
I'm very sympathetic towards the mccanns an in my experience there are many others who feel the same
-
Kate knew immediately she'd been taken. Was she expecting the abductor to come back with her?
I don't think the book was of any importance at that moment...none at all...but to you it is...it is purely subjective
-
I'm very sympathetic towards the mccanns an in my experience there are many others who feel the same
Who are these 'many' ?
Other than the mccanns themselves, their friends and associates.
-
Who are these 'many' ?
Other than the mccanns themselves, their friends and associates.
Do you really think only friends and associates support the mccanns...you've missed the family for starters...I am none of those groups
-
Kate knew immediately she'd been taken. Was she expecting the abductor to come back with her?
once again, this snide lack of empathy. She may have instinctively felt that Madeleine had been taken but that does not mean that she gave up all hope of ever seeing her again that night.
-
once again, this snide lack of empathy. She may have instinctively felt that Madeleine had been taken but that does not mean that she gave up all hope of ever seeing her again that night.
and that is based on the assumption she told the truth.
-
Kate knew immediately she'd been taken. Was she expecting the abductor to come back with her?
Even although Kate was convinced Madeleine had been taken - she would still be desperately hoping that she would be found. What mother wouldn't?
It's not unknown for abducted children to later be found dumped at the roadside etc by the perpetrator.
-
Kate 'knew immediately'. That's a bit more definite than an 'instinctive feeling'. Most mothers with the slightest hope that her child had wandered would have to be held back from searching the resort from end to end, calling for her daughter until her voice gave out. Obviously I don't expect any supporters to agree with me. In their world she did the best thing by phoning lots of people to tell them of the 'abduction'; fait accompli.
-
For Information.
I see that both threads asking for evidence of tweets have now been deleted from this board...
this is the question I posed on one of them:
The tone of the comments on the thread about atrocious tweets to OFM seems to be that these because no supporter here can provide screenshots of them that they never existed in the first place. Can we therefore apply the same logic to the claim of massive abuse towards Kerry Needham that no one can supply evidence of, and if not why not?
Both new threads askng for examples of abuse against the McCanns and the Needhams have been removed since to repeat such abuse would be a violation of the forum rules. Any suggestions as to how we can get around this are welcome.
-
For Information.
Both new threads askng for examples of abuse against the McCanns and the Needhams have been removed since to repeat such abuse would be a violation of the forum rules. Any suggestions as to how we can get around this are welcome.
Then why approve the threads in the first place ? The titles made it abundantly clear that repeating the alleged abuse would be necessary to take the discussion forward.
-
Kate 'knew immediately'. That's a bit more definite than an 'instinctive feeling'. Most mothers with the slightest hope that her child had wandered would have to be held back from searching the resort from end to end, calling for her daughter until her voice gave out. Obviously I don't expect any supporters to agree with me. In their world she did the best thing by phoning lots of people to tell them of the 'abduction'; fait accompli.
They knew that many other people were already searching the resort. IMO Kate was in such a state of terror and stress at that time - I doubt if she was capable of calm rational thought. Her thoughts would be all over the place.
As I'm sure the Manager (can't recall his name at the mo) would have pointed out - the police had been called and so they needed to be there to speak to them when they arrived - not out searching. Once they did arrive their time would be taken up speaking to them.
If I found myself plunged into every parent's worst nightmare - I would desperately want to speak to my family - even if they were only round the corner - and not hundreds of miles away. I see nothing unnatural in that. I would also be praying to God for help - which IMO is something else normal people often do when they find themselves in a terrifying situation - even if they are not remotely religious.
IMO the idea that the McCanns should be thinking clearly and methodically at such a traumatic time is totally unrealistic.
-
They knew that many other people were already searching the resort. IMO Kate was in such a state of terror and stress at that time - I doubt if she was capable of calm rational thought. Her thoughts would be all over the place.
As I'm sure the Manager (can't recall his name at the mo) would have pointed out - the police had been called and so they needed to be there to speak to them when they arrived - not out searching. Once they did arrive their time would be taken up speaking to them.
If I found myself plunged into every parent's worst nightmare - I would desperately want to speak to my family - even if they were only round the corner - and not hundreds of miles away. I see nothing unnatural in that. I would also be praying to God for help - which IMO is something else normal people often do when they find themselves in a terrifying situation - even if they are not remotely religious.
IMO the idea that the McCanns should be thinking clearly and methodically at such a traumatic time is totally unrealistic.
Is it the suggestion that Madeleine's grandparents and immediate family should have heard about her disappearance from the morning news broadcasts? Ridiculous!
Apart from anything else the first people you run to when in great distress are your family, particularly your mother.
I find the criticism of their reactions in the aftermath of one of the most shattering events possible one of the more distasteful aspects of the holier than thou who have chosen to make an internet career out of attacking the family of a missing child.
-
A difficult topic, to know what is and is not on topic.
Can we however, please try to adhere to the topic of discussion, when possible and refrain from posting personal comments, which can only disrupt the subject of discussion.
Thank You
-
imo most parents would tell parents never to do what they did in portugal ever but have the mcanns? NO??
-
For Information.
Both new threads askng for examples of abuse against the McCanns and the Needhams have been removed since to repeat such abuse would be a violation of the forum rules. Any suggestions as to how we can get around this are welcome.
Whilst I am not interested in the tweets per se, does a mechanism exist for looking at what has been tweeted historically? If so, that would provide the evidence as to what was going on in the relevant period, without the need to repeat abusive material here.
-
Whilst I am not interested in the tweets per se, does a mechanism exist for looking at what has been tweeted historically? If so, that would provide the evidence as to what was going on in the relevant period, without the need to repeat abusive material here.
I believe greptweet performs that function SiL.
-
imo most parents would tell parents never to do what they did in portugal ever but have the mcanns? NO??
That suggests the McCanns think that all other parents are too thick to work that out for themselves.
I can just imagine the comments if the McCanns started advising other parents not to do what they did. They would be crucified for daring to preach to those people who would never dream of signing up for the Listening Service or to mirror it themselves.
Hopefully many of the parents who did do the the same as the McCanns will decide not to do it again after what happened to Madeleine That won't be all of them of course as some people think that 'bad things' only ever happen to other people and if they've never had a problem themselves, they will carry on in the same way. Such is human nature imo.
-
imo most parents would tell parents never to do what they did in portugal ever but have the mcanns? NO??
One of the more intriguing aspects of the campaigns directed against Madeleine McCann's parents and their campaign on her behalf is the role of the press.
There are journalists whose comment on Madeleine's case can be considered hostile or at the least unhelpful ... but I cannot recall anything pejorative ever being printed in the sports sections.
Recent events with a self declared 'sceptic' Murdoch sports journalist contacting like minded people, putting out feelers with an end to writing an article for his newspaper the Sunday Times.
If you remember the recent libel action taken and won against this newspaper ... brings the focus of thought on the impartiality of some journalists ~ some editors ~ and some proprietors.
It only takes one to start a maelstrom which keeps the twitterers, facebookers, forumistas et al in fodder till the next one. Doesn't really matter too much if the original is discredited or not.
Apparently, according to those who know all, there are rich and powerful people controlling all this. Seems they might have something after all.
The question as always being CUI BONO? and maybe not just newspaper sales as long as Madeleine's family and their campaign for her can be discredited.
-
They knew that many other people were already searching the resort. IMO Kate was in such a state of terror and stress at that time - I doubt if she was capable of calm rational thought. Her thoughts would be all over the place.
As I'm sure the Manager (can't recall his name at the mo) would have pointed out - the police had been called and so they needed to be there to speak to them when they arrived - not out searching. Once they did arrive their time would be taken up speaking to them.
If I found myself plunged into every parent's worst nightmare - I would desperately want to speak to my family - even if they were only round the corner - and not hundreds of miles away. I see nothing unnatural in that. I would also be praying to God for help - which IMO is something else normal people often do when they find themselves in a terrifying situation - even if they are not remotely religious.
IMO the idea that the McCanns should be thinking clearly and methodically at such a traumatic time is totally unrealistic.
As I predicted.
-
As I predicted.
How did you expect The McCanns to behave?
-
They knew that many other people were already searching the resort. IMO Kate was in such a state of terror and stress at that time - I doubt if she was capable of calm rational thought. Her thoughts would be all over the place.
As I'm sure the Manager (can't recall his name at the mo) would have pointed out - the police had been called and so they needed to be there to speak to them when they arrived - not out searching. Once they did arrive their time would be taken up speaking to them.
If I found myself plunged into every parent's worst nightmare - I would desperately want to speak to my family - even if they were only round the corner - and not hundreds of miles away. I see nothing unnatural in that. I would also be praying to God for help - which IMO is something else normal people often do when they find themselves in a terrifying situation - even if they are not remotely religious.
IMO the idea that the McCanns should be thinking clearly and methodically at such a traumatic time is totally unrealistic.
absolutely correct
-
You can stop referring to empathy any time you like, it's very boring. I have repeatedly told you I don't feel it and why, so you're wasting time and effort trying to suggest I'm some kind of monster.
Kate 'knew immediately'. That's a bit more definite than an 'instinctive feeling'. Most mothers with the slightest hope that her child had wandered would have to be held back from searching the resort from end to end, calling for her daughter until her voice gave out. Obviously I don't expect any supporters to agree with me. In their world she did the best thing by phoning lots of people to tell them of the 'abduction'; fait accompli.
you may be bored by my repeated referral to your apparent lack of empathy just as I am bored by your continual griping and insinuations about the McCanns, Kate in particular. I don't suppose for one moment you plan to stop anytime doing this anytime soon, so all the while you continue to display your lack of empathy I will continue to point it out, boring as you may find it.
-
you may be bored by my repeated referral to your apparent lack of empathy just as I am bored by your continual griping and insinuations about the McCanns, Kate in particular. I don't suppose for one moment you plan to stop anytime doing this anytime soon, so all the while you continue to display your lack of empathy I will continue to point it out, boring as you may find it.
What kind of logic dictates your demand for anyone who has doubts about the truth of the matter to feel empathy? And by extension your perceived duty to keep pointing this apparently mandatory feeling or lack of out? Or do you think having justifiable suspicions should be made a thought crime? As well as "griping". How about your constant insinuations about everyone who doesn't tow your particular line?
&%+((£
-
What kind of logic dictates your demand for anyone who has doubts about the truth of the matter to feel empathy? And by extension your perceived duty to keep pointing this apparently mandatory feeling or lack of out? Or do you think having justifiable suspicions should be made a thought crime? As well as "griping". How about your constant insinuations about everyone who doesn't tow your particular line?
&%+((£
To answer your questions in full:
1) I'm not demanding anything.
2) don't understand the question, please re-phrase.
3)no
4) How about it? It's a free country and if you're entitled to say what you like and insinuate what you like then so am I.
-
you may be bored by my repeated referral to your apparent lack of empathy just as I am bored by your continual griping and insinuations about the McCanns, Kate in particular. I don't suppose for one moment you plan to stop anytime doing this anytime soon, so all the while you continue to display your lack of empathy I will continue to point it out, boring as you may find it.
I will reserve my empathy for Madeleine McCann. Whatever happened to that child she certainly suffered and could still be suffering. To empathise with someone you have to be able to put yourself in their shoes. What the Mccanns did is so far out of my experience it's impossible for me to imagine how they feel.
-
To answer your questions in full:
1) I'm not demanding anything.
2) don't understand the question, please re-phrase.
3)no
4) How about it? It's a free country and if you're entitled to say what you like and insinuate what you like then so am I.
Rephrase what exactly? my post was perfectly clear, in full!
-
Several warnings have already been given over the last few days in respect of derogatory personal comments and goading remarks being posted. If this conduct continues the member posting these comments will be suspended.
Admin
-
I will reserve my empathy for Madeleine McCann. Whatever happened to that child she certainly suffered and could still be suffering. To empathise with someone you have to be able to put yourself in their shoes. What the Mccanns did is so far out of my experience it's impossible for me to imagine how they feel.
so do you have any sympathy for the mccanns
-
I will reserve my empathy for Madeleine McCann. Whatever happened to that child she certainly suffered and could still be suffering. To empathise with someone you have to be able to put yourself in their shoes. What the Mccanns did is so far out of my experience it's impossible for me to imagine how they feel.
Are you unable to imagine how you might feel and act if your child disappears from her bed? We know you believe you would spend the rest of your adult life walking the streets knocking on doors and searchingnevery village, town city and country personally, but in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance can you understand how you might feel? Desperate? Confused? Panicked? Convinced something really bad had happened? Willing to sacrifice a cheap child's activity book to write down a timeline of events to help the police understand what happened? Or none of the above?
-
Rephrase what exactly? my post was perfectly clear, in full!
Your second question was unanswerable, I suggest you re-read it and re-phrase it if you would like an answer.
-
Are you unable to imagine how you might feel and act if your child disappears from her bed? We know you believe you would spend the rest of your adult life walking the streets knocking on doors and searchingnevery village, town city and country personally, but in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance can you understand how you might feel? Desperate? Confused? Panicked? Convinced something really bad had happened? Willing to sacrifice a cheap child's activity book to write down a timeline of events to help the police understand what happened? Or none of the above?
I am perfectly able to imagine how I would feel if my child disappeared from her bed, thank you. What I can't imagine is how I would feel if it was due to me leaving three children under 5 in an unlocked apartment on holiday while I went out to eat.
-
Your second question was unanswerable, I suggest you re-read it and re-phrase it if you would like an answer.
Oh I see
Is that because I used the word duty? My apologies, but that is the impression I got when you said you would continue pointing out others "lack of empathy"... As if it is some kind of "moral requirement" or else...fill in the blanks
You are not in any position to either dictate or moralise...you've no real foundation
-
I am perfectly able to imagine how I would feel if my child disappeared from her bed, thank you. What I can't imagine is how I would feel if it was due to me leaving three children under 5 in an unlocked apartment on holiday while I went out to eat.
No one is askng you to imagne that as it is quite immaterial to the issue of your empathy or lack thereof with the parents behaviour and feelings in the immediate aftermath of discovering their child missing. Leaving the kids alone prior to the disappearance has litte bearing on their behaviour immediately afterwards, such as using their child's activity book to note down a timelne. In any case you don't have to condone their leaving of the kids alone in order to imagine how guilty and upset you would feel on discovering one of them missing.
-
Oh I see
Is that because I used the word duty? My apologies, but that is the impression I got when you said you would continue pointing out others "lack of empathy"... As if it is some kind of "moral requirement" or else...fill in the blanks
You are not in any position to either dictate or moralise...you've no real foundation
In your opinion, which does not interest me very much, sorry.
-
from what I can see the sceptics feel no sympathy whatsoever towards the mcccanns....and I just do not understand how anyone could feel like that
-
In your opinion, which does not interest me very much, sorry.
I commented on your post which seemed to take such umbrage at someone not having empathy, I gave you a valid reason why someone might not, that's all, and do I look like I'm particularly bothered if my opinions interest you or not? No need for apologies, your position is perfectly clear, if you don't have empathy then you should etc etc
You and others here should get their heads around the issue, if you have suspicions then empathy can but normally doesn't come into it, it's not rocket science and neither does it mean that people are incapable of empathy....your and others failed game is known on this and other fronts
-
from what I can see the sceptics feel no sympathy whatsoever towards the mcccanns....and I just do not understand how anyone could feel like that
Do you have empathy for Amaral ?
-
Do you have empathy for Amaral ?
absolutely not...nor sympathy either...do you have any sympathy for the mccanns
-
I commented on your post which seemed to take such umbrage at someone not having empathy, I gave you a valid reason why someone might not, that's all, and do I look like I'm particularly bothered if my opinions interest you or not? No need for apologies, your position is perfectly clear, if you don't have empathy then you should etc etc
You and others here should get their heads around the issue, if you have suspicions then empathy can but normally doesn't come into it, it's not rocket science and neither does it mean that people are incapable of empathy....your and others failed game is known on this and other fronts
I have neither taken umbrage at a lack of empathy nor issued instructions that anyone should have it. I have simply highlighted a lack of empathy as an explanation for why certain people on this forum are unable to understand why theMcCanns and their friends behaved as they did. I hope that's clear now.
-
I have neither taken umbrage at a lack of empathy nor issued instructions that anyone should have it. I have simply highlighted a lack of empathy as an explanation for why certain people on this forum are unable to understand why theMcCanns and their friends behaved as they did. I hope that's clear now.
I would counter that it is empathy that causes some people not to understand why they did what they did.
-
I have neither taken umbrage at a lack of empathy nor issued instructions that anyone should have it. I have simply highlighted a lack of empathy as an explanation for why certain people on this forum are unable to understand why theMcCanns and their friends behaved as they did. I hope that's clear now.
But that assumes the parents are innocent, my point was, again, that those that thnk they might not be, don't have to feel empathy....do you feel empathy for people who you suspect
-
I would counter that it is empathy that causes some people not to understand why they did what they did.
you are abusing your position as a moderator
-
you are abusing your position as a moderator
No I am not, when members make crass statements about the dead they deserve censure.
-
I never said she deserved it...she certainly brought her problems onto herself by her abusive tweets,,
it is on record she had a history of mental illness
-
I never said she deserved it...she certainly brought her problems onto herself by her abusive tweets,,
it is on record she had a history of mental illness
There is a big difference between being mentally ill in the past and being mentally ill. To imply otherwise is placing an unwarranted stigma on mental illness.
-
what crass statement did I make...Brenda had a history of mental illness...you are abusing your position as a moderator,
I suggest you desist, there is ample precedent of what happens if you abuse moderators.
-
I suggest you desist, there is ample precedent of what happens if you abuse moderators.
I am not abusing you...this is an important principle of free speech...it is not crass to point out Brenda had a history of mental illness...
-
I never said she deserved it...she certainly brought her problems onto herself by her abusive tweets,,
it is on record she had a history of mental illness
Stop wriggling
You posted you thought she deserved to be door stepped why is cruel in itself
You then posted she brought all her troubles onto herself...
You DID post you didn't feel sorry for her suicide....those posts have been deleted
People have long memories
-
Stop wriggling
You posted you thought she deserved to be door stepped why is cruel in itself
You then posted she brought all her troubles onto herself...
You DID post you didn't feel sorry for her suicide....those posts have been deleted
People have long memories
you are now telling me what I think which is ridiculous..I REPEAT ...Brenda had a history of mental illness...she brought her troubles on herself with her abusive tweets...if that warrants further censure..so be it
-
I disagree..so its ok to imply Brunt was to blame...which is libellous....I believe Brenda killed herself due to her delicate mental state,,,,the door stepping may have been a contributory factor but was not the cause..is that crass...no it isn't..its basically what the coroner said
-
you are now telling me what I think which is ridiculous..I REPEAT ...Brenda had a history of mental illness...she brought her troubles on herself with her abusive tweets...if that warrants further censure..so be it
Mental illness covers a multitude of things from anxiety or depression which millions of NORMAL peoplesuffer from to other conditions....the way YOU use the term is obviously in a derogatory abusive way not only to those that suffer at times or always from various symptoms in an attempt to paint BL as some nutter troll...she was no different from anyone else out there having her say...if she was abusive it's still no reason for anyone especially the dossier COWARDS to engineer a massive media machine to doorstep her (which you agreed was a good thing shame on you) ...they have her blood in their hands you must be very very stupid to want to be associated with their mentality and actions
-
Mental illness covers a multitude of things from anxiety or depression which millions of NORMAL peoplesuffer from to other conditions....the way YOU use the term is obviously in a derogatory abusive way not only to those that suffer at times or always from various symptoms in an attempt to paint BL as some nutter troll...she was no different from anyone else out there having her say...if she was abusive it's still no reason for anyone especially the dossier COWARDS to engineer a massive media machine to doorstep her (which you agreed was a good thing shame on you) ...they have her blood in their hands you must be very very stupid to want to be associated with their mentality and actions
how dare you assume you have any idea how I view mental illness..
-
I disagree..so its ok to imply Brunt was to blame...which is libellous....I believe Brenda killed herself due to her delicate mental state,,,,the door stepping may have been a contributory factor but was not the cause..is that crass...no it isn't..its basically what the coroner said
Saying she wasn't mentally strong enough to cope isn't crass. Extrapolating to a direct cause and effect without evidence is.
-
Saying she wasn't mentally strong enough to cope isn't crass. Extrapolating to a direct cause and effect without evidence is.
there is ample evidence that Brenda had a history of mental illness...she had previously tried to commit suiciude
-
there is ample evidence that Brenda had a history of mental illness...she had previously tried to commit suiciude
Fine.
-
Mental illness covers a multitude of things from anxiety or depression which millions of NORMAL peoplesuffer from to other conditions....the way YOU use the term is obviously in a derogatory abusive way not only to those that suffer at times or always from various symptoms in an attempt to paint BL as some nutter troll...she was no different from anyone else out there having her say...if she was abusive it's still no reason for anyone especially the dossier COWARDS to engineer a massive media machine to doorstep her (which you agreed was a good thing shame on you) ...they have her blood in their hands you must be very very stupid to want to be associated with their mentality and actions
Brenda had previously attempted suicide....
-
how dare you assume you have any idea how I view mental illness..
I didn't have to have any idea, you made your attack on BL clear...she was "mentally ill"
Stop digging a hole when you're in comes to mind, oh well, bored by your Harikiri / backtracking mission now
You could end it I suppose by saying you have empathy /sympathy for Brenda
-
Brenda had previously attempted suicide....
Being doorstepped by a massive media machine will have ensured it then
-
I didn't have to have any idea, you made your attack on BL clear...she was "mentally ill"
Stop digging a hole when you're in comes to mind, oh well, bored by your Harikiri / backtracking mission now
You could end it I suppose by saying you have empathy /sympathy for Brenda
Brenda had a history of mental illness...it is on record...
-
Back on topic please.
-
I would counter that it is empathy that causes some people not to understand why they did what they did.
What do you mean "what they did"?
-
But that assumes the parents are innocent, my point was, again, that those that thnk they might not be, don't have to feel empathy....do you feel empathy for people who you suspect
such as?
-
What do you mean "what they did"?
Left children alone in a holiday flat, refused to answer question, not offering an unqualified mea culpa fir leaving the kids....etc. Etc.
-
such as?
Such as anyone you have ever suspected, wasn't a very difficult question dear alf
-
Stop ignoring the issues and if you're not qualified to comment then don't
mental illness was part of my initial degree
-
If the whole country's media is set up to support the Mccanns and that country's media doorsteps you you'd be shitting your pants at best I reckon
Anyway we've been told to get back on topic
So I have a question which might NOT be in topic (so fine if it's deleted) but in the same vein...some of the (DO notice I didn't say all as I'm fairer than a lot of the accusers) supporters have accused Mr Amaral of abducting Madeleine himself, or getting someone else to do it, or that he is protecting the abductors via brown envelopes...or getting someone round the local morgue to collect cadaver scent to rub all over 5a flat....
Is there any reason why he wouldn't be sensitive to McCann supporters "theories" ?
Isn't that why he wrote his books?
-
Do expand dear
Well, wasn't he sensitive to the presence of the Leics police, MI5, MI6, the British Government, in fact anything coming out of the UK? Therefore, it can safely be assumed he was sensitive to anyone who questioned his raison d'etre to be anything other than the search for truth & justice for Madeleine.
-
Left children alone in a holiday flat, refused to answer question, not offering an unqualified mea culpa fir leaving the kids....etc. Etc.
but as I have already explained none of that has any bearing on empathising with their feelings and behaviour in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance and why they might have felt it necessary to "vandalise" Madeleine's activity book, the comment which prompted my "snide lack of empathy" comment in the first place.
-
but as I have already explained none of that has any bearing on empathising with their feelings and vehaviour i. the immediat aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance and why they might have felt it necessary to "vandalise" Madeleine's activity book, the comment which prompted my "snide lack of empathy" comment in the first place.
Have you any idea how disturbing the McCanns laissez-faire attutude worries and upsets normal folk who love their children? If your daughter told you that they cried, would you still leave that child so that you can eat crappy food and chat crap, knowing that the child was worried and scared?
-
Have you any idea how disturbing the McCanns laissez-faire attutude worries and upsets normal folk who love their children? If your daughter told you that they cried, would you still leave that child so that you can eat crappy food and chat crap, knowing that the child was worried and scared?
most normal parents wouldnt
-
Have you any idea how disturbing the McCanns laissez-faire attutude worries and upsets normal folk who love their children? If your daughter told you that they cried, would you still leave that child so that you can eat crappy food and chat crap, knowing that the child was worried and scared?
A fair point. Further if that child had woken the previous night and found she was alone I believe it would have been almost impossible to get her to sleep on the 3rd without promising not to leave her alone again.
-
Have you any idea how disturbing the McCanns laissez-faire attutude worries and upsets normal folk who love their children? If your daughter told you that they cried, would you still leave that child so that you can eat crappy food and chat crap, knowing that the child was worried and scared?
This isn't my fight, and I expect that my posts will get deleted. But the McCanns were bloody awful parents. Smug. And they put their pleasures before the safety of their little girl. She was bright, and funny, and switched on. And she asked them...why didn't you come when Sean cried?
-
Have you any idea how disturbing the McCanns laissez-faire attutude worries and upsets normal folk who love their children? If your daughter told you that they cried, would you still leave that child so that you can eat crappy food and chat crap, knowing that the child was worried and scared?
Once again, irrelevant to my point. Can you understand why, in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, the McCanns (or one of their group) used her activity book to write down a timeline for the police, or do you see this action as suspicious or malevolent in some way?
-
Have you any idea how disturbing the McCanns laissez-faire attutude worries and upsets normal folk who love their children? If your daughter told you that they cried, would you still leave that child so that you can eat crappy food and chat crap, knowing that the child was worried and scared?
Is there any evidence that Madeleine was fearful & scared when she was put to bed on the Thursday night? If there was, then that would be distressing. However, statements suggest she was dog-tired & presumably never murmured before the parents left her sleeping at 8.30pm.
Would any listening service offered so widely by Mark Warner Group have addressed the care issue?
-
This isn't my fight, and I expect that my posts will get deleted. But the McCanns were bloody awful parents. Smug. And they put their pleasures before the safety of their little girl. She was bright, and funny, and switched on. And she asked them...why didn't you come when Sean cried?
and how do you konw this? Because "smug, bloody awful" Kate told us, hardly the actions of a smug or deceitful person IMO.
-
Life's hard enough, without having to take on board the McCanns selfish stupidity.
-
Life's hard enough, without having to take on board the McCanns selfish stupidity.
Well said! No one should ever give them the time of day anymore
They've had years of publicity and multi millions of pounds like 15 plus million they are having a laugh now
-
Well said! No one should ever give them the time of day anymore
They've had years of publicity and multi millions of pounds like 15 plus million they are having a laugh now
You don't have to read the media articles or spend hours expressing your distaste for the McCanns, do you?
There are many who care enough or are interested enough to watch this case progress & hope for a positive outcome.
You have an "off" button. Sadly, Madeleine's parents don't at this time.
-
Is it within forum rules to 'talk among yourselves' about other members? Or is it behaviour which should be reported?
Since I consider it blasphemous and therefore highly offensive to be called a 'worshipper' of any human being ... should this also be reported?
The thread is not about how sensitive I am about what other posters feel free to say about me ... unless the posters are merely illustrating by example a modicum of what the Drs McCann are treated to every day of their lives.
-
but as I have already explained none of that has any bearing on empathising with their feelings and behaviour in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance and why they might have felt it necessary to "vandalise" Madeleine's activity book, the comment which prompted my "snide lack of empathy" comment in the first place.
Which was made to me and I explained that I couldn't empathise with the McCanns because I don't know what happened that night. The McCanns claim that they do know what happened; a window and shutter were opened and their child was taken. If true, that's awful and I could empathise, but what if it's not true? Then they have knowledge which I don't have, and without it how can I understand how they felt? It's possible to empathise with them only if you believe them.
-
and how do you konw this? Because "smug, bloody awful" Kate told us, hardly the actions of a smug or deceitful person IMO.
Exactly. The McCanns had no need to ever mention what Madeleine had said to them. They told the PJ because they thought it may have some relevance to her disappearance and that the perpetrator might have been in their apartment the night before. Even then - they could have come up with a story like...''Madeleine told us she had a nasty dream about a man being in her room ' ... or something similar - which would get the same message across without leaving themselves open to criticism. That's what deceitful liars would do IMO.
-
Exactly. The McCanns had no need to ever mention what Madeleine had said to them. They told the PJ because they thought it may have some relevance to her disappearance and that the perpetrator might have been in their apartment the night before. Even then - they could have come up with a story like...''Madeleine told us she had a nasty dream about a man being in her room ' ... or something similar - which would get the same message across without leaving themselves open to criticism. That's what deceitful liars would do IMO.
Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
-
Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
Can I take it that you believe the McCanns were being entirely truthful when they told the PJ what Madeleine had said to them - even though they didn't have to and it would put them in a bad light if they did? That doesn't sound like the actions of deceitful liars to me. Quite the opposite in fact.
-
Can I take it that you believe the McCanns were being entirely truthful when they told the PJ what Madeleine had said to them - even though they didn't have to and it would put them in a bad light if they did? That doesn't sound like the actions of deceitful liars to me. Quite the opposite in fact.
I don't know.
-
Life's hard enough, without having to take on board the McCanns selfish stupidity.
WTF? And it's the McCanns who are supposed to be overly sensitive!!
-
Well said! No one should ever give them the time of day anymore
They've had years of publicity and multi millions of pounds like 15 plus million they are having a laugh now
Then if the offend your sensibilities so very much why do you spend most evenings contemplating their actions?
-
Can I take it that you believe the McCanns were being entirely truthful when they told the PJ what Madeleine had said to them - even though they didn't have to and it would put them in a bad light if they did? That doesn't sound like the actions of deceitful liars to me. Quite the opposite in fact.
Are you naive enough to believe that people always tell the truth ?
Also, what does it say about the mccanns, if Madeleine complained about them being left alone, and yet they still carried on doing the same ?
-
Which was made to me and I explained that I couldn't empathise with the McCanns because I don't know what happened that night. The McCanns claim that they do know what happened; a window and shutter were opened and their child was taken. If true, that's awful and I could empathise, but what if it's not true? Then they have knowledge which I don't have, and without it how can I understand how they felt? It's possible to empathise with them only if you believe them.
the key phrase there is "I don't know". As you don't know, and as you have no empathy for them, the best course of action IMO is to give them the benefit of the doubt and keep your snide remarks about their actions to yourself. You may be right to doubt the McCanns and they may deserve your insinuations and suspicions, on the other hand thereis a very strong and real possibility that you are wrong, in which case that makes you (and all those who publicly voice their doubts) look both foolish and quite frankly rather unpleasant. Your choice of course, my choice to keep on voicing this opinion. In any case I know I can continue to do so, safe in the knowledge that you are not in any way sensitive to such criticisms, and instead seem to rather relish them.
-
Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
what a lot of long words in which to imply that you believe the McCanns to be liars. Isn't that against forum rules?
-
I don't know.
so why imply it in the first place?
-
so why imply it in the first place?
So much whoosh.
-
so why imply it in the first place?
Your belief that the mccanns told the truth has not been tested in court.
That you 'believe' them, is your choice, why should other people do so ?
-
so why imply it in the first place?
Imply what?
-
Are you naive enough to believe that people always tell the truth ?
Also, what does it say about the mccanns, if Madeleine complained about them being left alone, and yet they still carried on doing the same ?
How many times are you going to keep asking the same question?
As I have said before:
I believe the McCanns (along with all witnesses) told the truth as they remembered it.
However because of the known fallibilty of memory - as described in detail by Steve Retford, a former head of the Investigative Skills Unit at GMP and now Specialist Interviewing Adviser with the force - it means that their recall of events may not be 100% accurate.
Do you think the McCanns were being less than forthcoming when they told the PJ what Madeleine had said to them? A reply would be appreciated.
[Edited]
-
what a lot of long words in which to imply that you believe the McCanns to be liars. Isn't that against forum rules?
That seems to be your understanding of the sentence, it isn't what it says.
-
Exactly. The McCanns had no need to ever mention what Madeleine had said to them. They told the PJ because they thought it may have some relevance to her disappearance and that the perpetrator might have been in their apartment the night before. Even then - they could have come up with a story like...''Madeleine told us she had a nasty dream about a man being in her room ' ... or something similar - which would get the same message across without leaving themselves open to criticism. That's what deceitful liars would do IMO.
There is nothing in the files to support your assumption that the McCanns told the PJ about Madeleine's comment because they thought someone may have been in their apartment the previous evening.
Kate told Fiona and the other women about Madeleine's comment during dinner on the evening of the 3rd. It was given as the reason for leaving the patio door unlocked, to allow Madeleine to find them if she woke. Neither Kate nor Gerald told the PJ on 4th May about it. Gerald told them on 10th May, but didn't offer an explanation.
The alternative explanation is that Gerald realised that Kate had told the others about the incident, and that's why he decided to mention it on 10th. I don't know when the theory about an earlier intrusion was first mentioned, but it was reported in the press in September 2007.
-
the key phrase there is "I don't know". As you don't know, and as you have no empathy for them, the best course of action IMO is to give them the benefit of the doubt and keep your snide remarks about their actions to yourself. You may be right to doubt the McCanns and they may deserve your insinuations and suspicions, on the other hand thereis a very strong and real possibility that you are wrong, in which case that makes you (and all those who publicly voice their doubts) look both foolish and quite frankly rather unpleasant. Your choice of course, my choice to keep on voicing this opinion. In any case I know I can continue to do so, safe in the knowledge that you are not in any way sensitive to such criticisms, and instead seem to rather relish them.
When I say I don't know, that is a factual statement. You also don't know. As neither of us know we are both free to make whatever observations and insinuations we wish, and we do.
The difference is that you then start posting personal accusations at me. I am unable to feel empathy. I am making myself look foolish. I am unpleasant. I am insensitive to criticism, in fact I relish it.
-
There is nothing in the files to support your assumption that the McCanns told the PJ about Madeleine's comment because they thought someone may have been in their apartment the previous evening.
Kate told Fiona and the other women about Madeleine's comment during dinner on the evening of the 3rd. It was given as the reason for leaving the patio door unlocked, to allow Madeleine to find them if she woke. Neither Kate nor Gerald told the PJ on 4th May about it. Gerald told them on 10th May, but didn't offer an explanation.
The alternative explanation is that Gerald realised that Kate had told the others about the incident, and that's why he decided to mention it on 10th. I don't know when the theory about an earlier intrusion was first mentioned, but it was reported in the press in September 2007.
Quote from Kates' book re the incident: Page 63.
........But it is my belief that there was somebody either in or trying to get into the children's bedroom that night, and is what disturbed them.
Unquote.
And it is for that reason IMO that they told the PJ of what Madeleine had said.
As for what the others had said: It's the sceptic viewpoint that their friends had agreed to aid and abet covering up Madeleine's death and removal from 5a. Having agreed to be a party to such an horrendous crime I see no reason for them to have any compunction at all about lying re what Kate told them Madeleine had said - if requested to by the McCanns. Obviously none of that happened.
My posts on this were because of the comments made about K&G being lying deceitful people. I maintain that if that was the case, they would not have told the truth about what Madeleine said to them when they didn't have to. But they did tell the PJ - and they told the truth - even though it put themselves in a bad light, IMO.
-
Is there any evidence that Madeleine was fearful & scared when she was put to bed on the Thursday night? If there was, then that would be distressing. However, statements suggest she was dog-tired & presumably never murmured before the parents left her sleeping at 8.30pm.
Would any listening service offered so widely by Mark Warner Group have addressed the care issue?
It doesn't need evidence just experience in looking after children to tell you that if a child has woken scared and alone one night they are going to be harder to put down the night after as they will be wary of it happening again.
-
Exactly. The McCanns had no need to ever mention what Madeleine had said to them. They told the PJ because they thought it may have some relevance to her disappearance and that the perpetrator might have been in their apartment the night before. Even then - they could have come up with a story like...''Madeleine told us she had a nasty dream about a man being in her room ' ... or something similar - which would get the same message across without leaving themselves open to criticism. That's what deceitful liars would do IMO.
Is that a serious suggestion? If it is do you consider it a serious proposition ?
Doing a dummy run is hardly likely is it?
-
Are you for real? How many posts are there on here from posters accusing the McCanns of lying about the open shutters and in fact - practically everything else they have ever said about this case? They don't get accused of commiting or encouraging libel.
My question to Stephen asking his opinion was a simple enough one. If his reply is that he believes the McCanns told the truth - then that is definitely not libel. If his opinion is that they lied,- then what is the difference between that opinion and the innumerable posts from other people who believe the McCanns lied about various events and who have no compunction at all in saying so on this forum?
I think your comment is out of order.
(Edited for clarity.)
Pointing out discrepancies in statements casts doubt on those statements.
-
It doesn't need evidence just experience in looking after children to tell you that if a child has woken scared and alone one night they are going to be harder to put down the night after as they will be wary of it happening again.
Madeleine was not in a state of distress when she questioned her parents. In fact the opposite is true as she didn't even wait for a reply - but moved away to do something else and didn't mention it again. The fact that she did not have any problems at the next bedtime (and neither did Sean) - or mention any fears to her parents at that time - would suggest that she had completely forgotten about the incident IMO.
-
Is that a serious suggestion? If it is do you consider it a serious proposition ?
Doing a dummy run is hardly likely is it?
At the moment the consensus from the faithful seems to be that a burglar broke into the apartment waking Madeleine then took her with him. Yet now it seems we are being told to believe that he broke in and also woke her the night before too which somewhat begs the question, why didn't he take her the night before ?
-
Madeleine was not in a state of distress when she questioned her parents. In fact the opposite is true as she didn't even wait for a reply - but moved away to do something else and didn't mention it again. The fact that she did not have any problems at the next bedtime (and neither did Sean) - or mention any fears to her parents at that time - would suggest that she had completely forgotten about the incident IMO.
Or would more likely suggest it simply wasn't true.
-
At the moment the consensus from the faithful seems to be that a burglar broke into the apartment waking Madeleine then took her with him. Yet now it seems we are being told to believe that he broke in and also woke her the night before too which somewhat begs the question, why didn't he take her the night before ?
And why increase the risk of being caught? The guy being experienced enough to have a load of 'is 'oppos watching the place and seeing people trucking up and down the street at irregular intervals.
-
And why increase the risk of being caught? The guy being experienced enough to have a load of 'is 'oppos watching the place and seeing people trucking up and down street at irregular intervals.
You have to wonder, don't you !
-
You have to wonder, don't you !
Not really!. I did a Victor Meldrew on that bit ages ago.
-
Pointing out discrepancies in statements casts doubt on those statements.
Discrepancies in statements is not proof that lies have been told. Far from it. However that is exactly what is claimed as 'fact' by many sceptics on this forum and they are allowed to say it.
Perhaps you could explain why - if Stephen had said he didn't believe the McCanns told the truth about what Madeleine had said to them - that would be any more libellous than folk claiming that the McCanns lied about the open shutter and window?.
-
Or would more likely suggest it simply wasn't true.
Am I allowed to ask you to be more specific about what 'simply wasn't true?' and why you would think that? Or would that be perceived as my 'encouraging libel'?
-
Quote from Kates' book re the incident: Page 63.
........But it is my belief that there was somebody either in or trying to get into the children's bedroom that night, and is what disturbed them.
Unquote.
And it is for that reason IMO that they told the PJ of what Madeleine had said.
As for what the others had said: It's the sceptic viewpoint that their friends had agreed to aid and abet covering up Madeleine's death and removal from 5a. Having agreed to be a party to such an horrendous crime I see no reason for them to have any compunction at all about lying re what Kate told them Madeleine had said - if requested to by the McCanns. Obviously none of that happened.
My posts on this were because of the comments made about K&G being lying deceitful people. I maintain that if that was the case, they would not have told the truth about what Madeleine said to them when they didn't have to. But they did tell the PJ - and they told the truth - even though it put themselves in a bad light, IMO.
When, in your opinion, did the McCanns decide that Madeleine and her brother may have cried because an abductor did a dummy run? When, in your opinion, were those suspicions passed on to the PJ?
-
Am I allowed to ask you to be more specific about what 'simply wasn't true?' and why you would think that? Or would that be perceived as my 'encouraging libel'?
You were not there when that conversation took place, therefore, you do not know if Madeleine was distressed or not, you also do not know the actual content. The conversation according to Kate was something of nothing- if that was the case why did Maddie tell her parents?
I find it difficult to grasp that a 3 year old woke up maybe crying or her sibling was, she goes through to get her parents and realises they are all alone in that house! And she goes back to bed, falls asleep not the least bit bothered by that? I would be terrified at that age. So, we only have Kate's version of that story, and her version makes it to be something out of nothing.
The only reason they told the police, was because Kate had told someone else about it,IMO.
-
When, in your opinion, did the McCanns decide that Madeleine and her brother may have cried because an abductor did a dummy run? When, in your opinion, were those suspicions passed on to the PJ?
I don't have a particular opinion on it - I quoted Kate's opinion - to show why she truthfully told the police about the incident - and which was not the action of deceitful liars IMO. That - along with the stain on Madeleine's pjs which she couldn't explain - made her wonder if the perpetrator had been in the apartment on 2nd May.
They were desperately going over every tiny event at the time trying to make sense of what had happened and so stuff which seemed relatively unimportant before she was taken took on a whole new perspective after she disappeared. IMO
-
You were not there when that conversation took place, therefore, you do not know if Madeleine was distressed or not, you also do not know the actual content. The conversation according to Kate was something of nothing- if that was the case why did Maddie tell her parents?
I find it difficult to grasp that a 3 year old woke up maybe crying or her sibling was, she goes through to get her parents and realises they are all alone in that house! And she goes back to bed, falls asleep not the least bit bothered by that? I would be terrified at that age. So, we only have Kate's version of that story, and her version makes it to be something out of nothing.
The only reason they told the police, was because Kate had told someone else about it,IMO.
No I wasn't there - and neither were you Faith. You have your opinion and I have mine. As we come from different ends of the spectrum we shall never agree.
Anyway visitors are imminent - so I'll leave you to it. Have a pleasant day.
-
I don't have a particular opinion on it - I quoted Kate's opinion - to show why she truthfully told the police about the incident - and which was not the action of deceitful liars IMO. That - along with the stain on Madeleine's pjs which she couldn't explain - made her wonder if the perpetrator had been in the apartment on 2nd May.
They were desperately going over every tiny event at the time trying to make sense of what had happened and so stuff which seemed relatively unimportant before she was taken took on a whole new perspective after she disappeared. IMO
Was she being truthful though was she when she said that incident would never ever have crossed her mind ever again had Madeleine not been abducted, or was that another discrepancy-non discrepancy-she forgot-kind of thing
-
You don't have to read the media articles or spend hours expressing your distaste for the McCanns, do you?
There are many who care enough or are interested enough to watch this case progress & hope for a positive outcome.
You have an "off" button. Sadly, Madeleine's parents don't at this time.
You must be mistaking me for someone else as I don't spend much time let alone hours expressing "distaste" of two strangers ...the case is interesting on quite a few levels and until it is solved and I dare say even afterm will hold fascination, which is different to agreeing to never ending unprecedented levels of support
-
Am I allowed to ask you to be more specific about what 'simply wasn't true?' and why you would think that? Or would that be perceived as my 'encouraging libel'?
The whole ' Madeleine waking the night before' nonsense. If I had to take a stab at why it was inserted to begin with I would say to muddy the waters with regard to the crying heard on the 1st of May. The McCanns would certainly have been aware that Madeleine's crying may have been overheard on that night.
-
Then if the offend your sensibilities so very much why do you spend most evenings contemplating their actions?
Cold cases are fascinating, puzzles to be solved, what is also fascinating is people watching, watchng people jumping through hoops and coming out with outrageous and often laughable statements, always interesting human nature...I'm sure you would agree
8((()*/
-
Madeleine was not in a state of distress when she questioned her parents. In fact the opposite is true as she didn't even wait for a reply - but moved away to do something else and didn't mention it again. The fact that she did not have any problems at the next bedtime (and neither did Sean) - or mention any fears to her parents at that time - would suggest that she had completely forgotten about the incident IMO.
It was me who replied to say you were not there....
(something gone wrong here)
-
I don't have a particular opinion on it - I quoted Kate's opinion - to show why she truthfully told the police about the incident - and which was not the action of deceitful liars IMO. That - along with the stain on Madeleine's pjs which she couldn't explain - made her wonder if the perpetrator had been in the apartment on 2nd May.
They were desperately going over every tiny event at the time trying to make sense of what had happened and so stuff which seemed relatively unimportant before she was taken took on a whole new perspective after she disappeared. IMO
You said they told the PJ and you gave your opinion as to why they told the PJ. On 4th May Kate told the PJ that Madeleine had said the twins were crying. She didn't refer to Madeleine crying and she gave no opinion on why the incident might be significant. Gerald told the PJ in his statement dated 10th May that it was Madeleine and a twin who were crying. He also gave no opinion as to why that might be signifcant.
The theory about a 'dummy run' by an abductor seems to have come later and wasn't shared with the PJ. Therefore your opinion that they told the Pj because they thought it was significant has no supporting evidence. I would suggest that they told the PJ because Kate had already told their friends about it. When she told their friends the reason for telling them was quite different; it was to justify leaving the patio door unlocked.
-
You said they told the PJ and you gave your opinion as to why they told the PJ. On 4th May Kate told the PJ that Madeleine had said the twins were crying. She didn't refer to Madeleine crying and she gave no opinion on why the incident might be significant. Gerald told the PJ in his statement dated 10th May that it was Madeleine and a twin who were crying. He also gave no opinion as to why that might be signifcant.
The theory about a 'dummy run' by an abductor seems to have come later and wasn't shared with the PJ. Therefore your opinion that they told the Pj because they thought it was significant has no supporting evidence. I would suggest that they told the PJ because Kate had already told their friends about it. When she told their friends the reason for telling them was quite different; it was to justify leaving the patio door unlocked.
I'm not altogether sure she actually told the friends about it at the time. No one, AFAIAA, mentioned being told about Madeleine's comment until the rogatory interviews and therefore after the cosy get-together in Rothley. For me anything 'remembered' after that meeting must have the suspicion of collusion attached to it.
-
Your belief that the mccanns told the truth has not been tested in court.
That you 'believe' them, is your choice, why should other people do so ?
The trouble with that statement is that for the Drs McCann to have been 'tested in court' there had to be evidence to allow them to be taken to court in the first instance.
That is the usual requirement of law in a democratic state.
After investigation the State of Portugal chose not to prosecute them ... you know better?
-
The trouble with that statement is that for the Drs McCann to have been 'tested in court' there had to be evidence to allow them to be taken to court in the first instance.
That is the usual requirement of law in a democratic state.
After investigation the State of Portugal chose not to prosecute them ... you know better?
You are quite right, of course.
But you will never get Stephen to understand that there must be evidence to take someone to court before that step is even considered ....
-
You are quite right, of course.
But you will never get Stephen to understand that there must be evidence to take someone to court before that step is even considered ....
And a person can also be guilty even without that evidence.
-
And I am going to get cross in a minute if you all don't stay on topic, and cut the insults.
-
Posters are reminded to stay within the topic boundary otherwise posts are liable to be removed or reassigned.
Admin
-
Am I allowed to ask you to be more specific about what 'simply wasn't true?' and why you would think that? Or would that be perceived as my 'encouraging libel'?
Encouraging other members to speculate on the honesty of any individual is a breach of our rules Benice. There are other ways of asking questions without falling foul of the rules.
Admin
-
Imply what?
that the McCanns made stuff up and are liars, obviously!!
-
When I say I don't know, that is a factual statement. You also don't know. As neither of us know we are both free to make whatever observations and insinuations we wish, and we do.
The difference is that you then start posting personal accusations at me. I am unable to feel empathy. I am making myself look foolish. I am unpleasant. I am insensitive to criticism, in fact I relish it.
Well at least you admit all these things which is something I suppose.
-
Which is worse -
1) parents are charged and found guilty of hiding their child's body but attracted little or no previous online chatter casting casting suspicion on them.
2) parents endure years of online aspersions cast on their integrity and honesty but are eventually found not to have had any part in their child's disappearance
?
-
that the McCanns made stuff up and are liars, obviously!!
They cannot claim to be whiter than white when it came to telling lies. As an example they did make stuff up according to Kate when they lied to the press as to where they were going on one particular day.
-
They cannot claim to be whiter than white when it came to telling lies. As an example they did make stuff up according to Kate when they lied to the press as to where they were going on one particular day.
yawn. Liars with something serious to hide tend not to own up to their lies in best-selling books, but do carry on birsmirching their characters if it makes you happy.
-
yawn. Liars with something serious to hide tend not to own up to their lies in best-selling books, but do carry on birsmirching their characters if it makes you happy.
It just goes to prove that they were not incapable of lying when the need arose but then most people are.
-
yawn. Liars with something serious to hide tend not to own up to their lies in best-selling books, but do carry on birsmirching their characters if it makes you happy.
However some liars wrap their lies in a smidgen of truth to make them harder to identify.
-
It just goes to prove that they were not incapable of lying when the need arose but then most people are.
And then admitted it. Very odd. Some big secret.
-
The biggest lie in my book was the fund which was created (according to the parents) to look for Madeleine and then used to gag their critics. Then there was the promise of transparency where the fund was concerned which ended up more opaque than transparent.
-
The biggest lie in my book was the fund which was created (according to the parents) to look for Madeleine and then used to gag their critics. Then there was the promise of transparency where the fund was concerned which ended up more opaque than transparent.
so are you, a moderator of this forum, stating as fact that the McCanns are liars?
-
so are you, a moderator of this forum, stating as fact that the McCanns are liars?
Perish the thought !! I'm sure insider is only suggesting that having stated the fund to help look for Madeleine they found that, for the search's sake, it was much more important to convince people they weren't fibbing and how else could they do that than sue everyone who disagreed. It was a natural progression I'm sure you'll agree ?
-
Perish the thought !! I'm sure insider is only suggesting that having stated the fund to help look for Madeleine they found that, for the search's sake, it was much more important to convince people they weren't fibbing and how else could they do that than sue everyone who disagreed. It was a natural progression I'm sure you'll agree ?
Very droll. Now let's wait for Insider's answer, which should be a bit more interesting than yours, however he or she seems to have scarpered now....
-
so are you, a moderator of this forum, stating as fact that the McCanns are liars?
They did though didn't they and mores to the point by their own admission.
-
They did though didn't they and mores to the point by their own admission.
Just so we're clear - a moderator of this forum is impugning the McCanns which is against forum rules.
-
Just so we're clear - a moderator of this forum is impugning the McCanns which is against forum rules.
Why don't you get over yourself Alfred. Kate admitted to lieing in her book, I'm just reminding you of it.
eta. If what I state is incorrect in your opinion I await your rebut.
-
Has Alfred gone off to consult the book per chance?
-
Why don't you get over yourself Alfred. Kate admitted to lieing in her book, I'm just reminding you of it.
eta. If what I state is incorrect in your opinion I await your rebut.
I think it would be relevant to keep in mind that Dr McCann does not have a criminal conviction on the strength of it, nor would the alleged 'lie' have been actionable anyway.
However I don't think it is in any way commensurate with the campaigns of opprobrium directed at her. It would appear to me to be more of an accusation than an alternative point of view.
-
Has Alfred gone off to consult the book per chance?
Don't use that word - it upsets the faithful @)(++(*
-
I think it would be relevant to keep in mind that Dr McCann does not have a criminal conviction on the strength of it, nor would the alleged 'lie' have been actionable anyway.
However I don't think it is in any way commensurate with the campaigns of opprobrium directed at her. It would appear to me to be more of an accusation than an alternative point of view.
Deciding for oneself if someone seems or is trustworthy or not has zilch to do with the law
Your incessant use of the word campaigns is puzzling...there may be a couple of them that come to mind, which arguably fit the description, just, but IMO the vast majority of commentators on this cold case are just that, single commentators, with no strategy or goal
-
Deciding for oneself if someone seems or is trustworthy or not has zilch to do with the law
Your incessant use of the word campaigns is puzzling...there may be a couple of them that come to mind, which arguably fit the description, just, but IMO the vast majority of commentators on this cold case are just that, single commentators
Brietta used the word for one of two reasons.
Either she can't understand why people don't believe the mccanns, or she is here merely to defend them.
-
Don't use that word - it upsets the faithful @)(++(*
Not at all ... however it seems apparent that the what might upset the "faithful" doesn't appear to carry the weight of things that upset the faithless.
Again the use of "that word" while telling me volumes about the user ... is a very, very mild jeer in the oceans of alternative points of view directed at the Drs McCann and their campaign for Madeleine.
The use of the word "book" is almost as good a pointer as is how one pronounces "H" on the streets of Belfast.
-
Don't use that word - it upsets the faithful @)(++(*
It was first used by redblossom many moons ago and appears to have stuck with me. I can't think why &%+((£
-
Brietta used the word for one of two reasons.
Either she can't understand why people don't believe the mccanns, or she is here merely to defend them.
She can understand I'm sure as she is far from stupid, but can't stand that some don't believe them, rightly or wrongly, but honestly, and her attack on everyone who doesn't in some of the vilest of ways is my problem with her and a couple others in here
Its IMO very disingenuous plus also smacks of ther own "campaign"
-
I think it would be relevant to keep in mind that Dr McCann does not have a criminal conviction on the strength of it, nor would the alleged 'lie' have been actionable anyway.
However I don't think it is in any way commensurate with the campaigns of opprobrium directed at her. It would appear to me to be more of an accusation than an alternative point of view.
Yes I agree, neither McCann parents have a criminal conviction. Telling the odd fib is not beyond anyone though.
-
Cut the insults now, please. They will be deleted.
-
Brietta used the word for one of two reasons.
Either she can't understand why people don't believe the mccanns, or she is here merely to defend them.
Your presence on the McCann boards is not a matter for conjecture by anyone but yourself as is mine to me.
Is there something in particular or in general in the way you address posters expressing a different point of view to yours on what is known to be a balanced forum.
Where is my name in the thread title?
Not there ... that I can see ... but apparently you see differently.
What different point of view do you hold to the Drs McCann? Might you not consider addressing a point about that rather than directing yet another tiresome ad hominem at me
-
Your presence on the McCann boards is not a matter for conjecture by anyone but yourself as is mine to me.
Is there something in particular or in general in the way you address posters expressing a different point of view to yours on what is known to be a balanced forum.
Where is my name in the thread title?
Not there ... that I can see ... but apparently you see differently.
What different point of view do you hold to the Drs McCann? Might you not consider addressing a point about that rather than directing yet another tiresome ad hominem at me
Reading your posts, it is very clear you question other peoples motives as to why they don't believe and/or support the mccanns.
Yet you dislike it when the tables are turned..
-
Well at least you admit all these things which is something I suppose.
Beg pardon? that post makes no sense.
-
They did though didn't they and mores to the point by their own admission.
you claim that their biggest lie was the fund, and now you're saying that they admitted it was a lie - now kindly provide your evidence for these accusations.
-
Beg pardon? that post makes no sense.
yes it does, if you read it in the context of the post of yours to which I was responding. 8(0(*
-
you claim that their biggest lie was the fund, and now you're saying that they admitted it was a lie - now kindly provide your evidence for these accusations.
It's best not to misquote people or at least try and read properly to ensure you have the best understanding at least and not the wrong one! That's all assuming yure not deliberately doing anythng untoward of course
-
It's best not to misquote people or at least try and read properly to ensure you have the best understanding at least and not the wrong one! That's all assuming yure not deliberately doing anythng untoward of course
what is inaccurate about what I wrote?
-
what is inaccurate about what I wrote?
Read back and use your comprehension skills
Insider never said they admitted they lied about the fund
And before you accuse me of being insulting, you let down on your abusive posts to whoever DARES to question and I might try and forgive you for them, fairs fair etc
8((()*/
I've no wish to discuss with you anymore, as you are being irrational as always so perhaps you can go back and carry on and take off with an answer to g unit
-
Read back and use your comprehension skills
Insider never said they admitted they lied about the fund
And before you accuse me of being insulting, you let down on your abusive posts to whoever DARES to question and I might try and forgive you for them, fairs fair etc
8((()*/
Insider has written that their biggest lie is the fund. If the McCanns did not admit that the fund was a lie, then clearly and without equivocation Insider is libelling the McCanns which is against forum rules, the very forum which he or she is supposed to moderate. Now, tell me where I have misunderstood or abused anyone for pointing out this fact?
-
Insider has written that their biggest lie is the fund. If the McCanns did not admit that the fund was a lie, then clearly and without equivocation Insider is libelling the McCanns which is against forum rules, the very forum which he or she is supposed to moderate. Now, tell me where I have misunderstood or abused anyone for pointing out this fact?
Do posts just go over your head? Obviously, no point carryng on trying
Insider said they lied
Insider said they lied about the fund
Insider said they admitted to their lies
Inside never said they admitted to lyng about the fund
The comment about your abuse was in general and not specific to this particular part of this discussion in this particular thread
-
Do posts just go over your head? Obviously, no point carryng on trying
Insider said they lied
Insider said they lied about the fund
Insider said they admitted to their lies
Inside never said they admitted to lyng about the fund
The comment about your abuse was in general and not specific to this particular part of this discussion in this particular thread
Do you understand what libel is? If so you will know that that is what Insider has done, you will also know that it is against forum rules, so what are you arguing about?
-
Reading your posts, it is very clear you question other peoples motives as to why they don't believe and/or support the mccanns.
Yet you dislike it when the tables are turned..
I am not the subject of this thread ... those with an"alternative point of view" whatever that means, are. I see "the McCanns" are up there too. So let's put me entirely out of the equation and concentrate on the thread topic.
Do you have an alternative point of view ... not to me, we already know that ... but to the subjects mentioned in the thread title?
Are you in accord with the subjects of the thread?
I'm sure you must have an opinion one way or t'other ... please discuss it with us ... but do try to stay on topic if you possibly can.
-
It seems to me that the only one entitled to claim something is libel is the one being libeled. Why do people insist on claiming it on behalf of others?
-
Do you understand what libel is? If so you will know that that is what Insider has done, you will also know that it is against forum rules, so what are you arguing about?
Something which you started and lost
Stating facts can never be libel, try again
-
It seems to me that the only one entitled to claim something is libel is the one being libeled. Why do others insist on claiming it on behalf of others?
Very good point.
-
Hmmm ... why are we deliberately being taken off topic yet again? We already have a new thread on libel so why not take the discussion there?
Nobody got anything at all to say about the hypersensitivity of the innocent people to the alternative points of view mentioned in the topic.
How about a definition of what these so called alternatives are all about, someone must know ... or why start a thread about it?
-
yes it does, if you read it in the context of the post of yours to which I was responding. 8(0(*
I admitted what things?
Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 10:24:45 AM
When I say I don't know, that is a factual statement. You also don't know. As neither of us know we are both free to make whatever observations and insinuations we wish, and we do.
The difference is that you then start posting personal accusations at me. I am unable to feel empathy. I am making myself look foolish. I am unpleasant. I am insensitive to criticism, in fact I relish it.
Well at least you admit all these things which is something I suppose.
-
I admitted what things?
Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 10:24:45 AM
When I say I don't know, that is a factual statement. You also don't know. As neither of us know we are both free to make whatever observations and insinuations we wish, and we do.
The difference is that you then start posting personal accusations at me. I am unable to feel empathy. I am making myself look foolish. I am unpleasant. I am insensitive to criticism, in fact I relish it.
Well at least you admit all these things which is something I suppose.
There you go!
-
Hmmm ... why are we deliberately being taken off topic yet again? We already have a new thread on libel so why not take the discussion there?
Nobody got anything at all to say about the hypersensitivity of the innocent people to the alternative points of view mentioned in the topic.
How about a definition of what these so called alternatives are all about, someone must know ... or why start a thread about it?
Alfred started the libel issue
As for innocent people , this has not been established, has it?!! So who are you to keep bandying it about as fact? Just asking
-
There you go!
Another example of your inability to read properly? Oh dear. But bless if it's true.Must have got you all wrong all along, maybe
-
This thread was created using a post of mine discussing the closing down of the Mccann's twitter thread. They seemed to be upset because people were expressing opinions that they didn't like. I said they didn't seem to want to allow other opinions, only their opinions. That's achievable with the media, but not online. It's a fact of the internet that a variety of opinions will be expressed. Anyone objecting to that freedom has two choices; retreat or discuss. The Mccanns chose to retreat, complaining as they went. At least their webmaster did, on their behalf.
Surprisingly, they have had the twitter account for a long time and have managed to deal with any problems. Quite what changed we don't know, but they blamed Kerry Needham for allowing followers on her twitter account who criticised the McCanns.
-
There you go!
I was quoting what you said about me in your personal attacks. Imagining that I was admitting anything says volumes about your reading comprehension.
-
Alfred started the libel issue
As for innocent people , this has not been established, has it?!! So who are you to keep bandying it about as fact? Just asking
MC – How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.
MC – But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.
EL says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.
MC – If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.
MC – People don't know?
EL hesitates, she says the majority don't.
MC – Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?
EL answers yes.
MC – Why ?
EL says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.
MC – The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
MC is judge, Maria de Melo e Castro ... I think she could safely be classed as an expert in Portuguese Law and she seems to be "bandying about" the undoubted truth that the Drs McCann ARE INNOCENT. A fact you may not like but a fact nonetheless.
EL says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.
MC – In which way is it different?
EL doesn't answer, she is obviously upset. The judge says she may leave. Previous witness Mrs Susan Hubbard gets up immediately and follows EL out of the court room.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Libel_trial_Day_1b_Emma_Loach.pdf
Now that we have established that the Drs McCann are innocent ... may we try to get into the topic of the thread.
It is really quite easy.
There was you thinking one thing, who knows what that may have been ... and there, I have sorted it for you with some accurate information. So one bone of contention or alternative view point solved quite simply.
What's your next problem and we'll see if we can sort out the truth of it as easily?
-
Nice try Brietta but 1/10
I thought you were more intelligent, oh well, I sometimes get stuff wrong
-
MC – How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.
MC – But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.
EL says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.
MC – If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.
MC – People don't know?
EL hesitates, she says the majority don't.
MC – Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?
EL answers yes.
MC – Why ?
EL says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.
MC – The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
MC is judge, Maria de Melo e Castro ... I think she could safely be classed as an expert in Portuguese Law and she seems to be "bandying about" the undoubted truth that the Drs McCann ARE INNOCENT. A fact you may not like but a fact nonetheless.
EL says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.
MC – In which way is it different?
EL doesn't answer, she is obviously upset. The judge says she may leave. Previous witness Mrs Susan Hubbard gets up immediately and follows EL out of the court room.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Libel_trial_Day_1b_Emma_Loach.pdf
Now that we have established that the Drs McCann are innocent ... may we try to get into the topic of the thread.
It is really quite easy.
There was you thinking one thing, who knows what that may have been ... and there, I have sorted it for you with some accurate information. So one bone of contention or alternative view point solved quite simply.
What's your next problem and we'll see if we can sort out the truth of it as easily?
Probably a translation error.
-
I was quoting what you said about me in your personal attacks. Imagining that I was admitting anything says volumes about your reading comprehension.
dear me, you really don't have a sense of humour do you? Talk about too sensitive..
-
It seems to me that the only one entitled to claim something is libel is the one being libeled. Why do people insist on claiming it on behalf of others?
@)(++(* Better tell that to the forum owner then and see if you can get the rules changed.
-
Something which you started and lost
Stating facts can never be libel, try again
I was told in no uncertain terms some time ago by the owner of this forum that it was against forum rules to state implicitly or explicitly that the McCanns had lied. If the rules have changed, then I will stand corrected - perhaps Admin could clarify?
-
I was told in no uncertain terms some time ago by the owner of this forum that it was against forum rules to state implicitly or explicitly that the McCanns had lied. If the rules have changed, then I will stand corrected - perhaps Admin could clarify?
Do you have problems in following discussion? Insider never libelled the Mccanns, he merely repeated their own words
You may as well accuse the Mccanns of libelling themselves, the argument would be better
And before you bleat any more please go and read post 454, good lad
-
Do you have problems in following discussion? Insider never libelled the Mccanns, he merely repeated their own words
You may as well accuse the Mccanns of libelling themselves, the argument would be better
And before you bleat any more please go and read post 454, good lad
no more. bleating from me. Happy to let Admn decide who's right and who's wrong.
-
dear me, you really don't have a sense of humour do you? Talk about too sensitive..
More insults? It sounds like the typical excuse used by bullies to me; 'I was only having a laugh'. Unlike the McCanns I'm not too sensitive, I don't care what you say because it's all wrong. I will point out when you break the rules by making personal attacks though. I'm also unlike the Mccanns in that I don't run away from unpleasant people who call me names. I won't retaliate in kind because I respect the rules of the forum and the hard work people do behind the scenes to keep it online.
-
OK, it seems that I am wrong, and it is permissable to say on this forum that the McCanns lied about the Fund, so fill your boots folks!
-
More insults? It sounds like the typical excuse used by bullies to me; 'I was only having a laugh'. Unlike the McCanns I'm not too sensitive, I don't care what you say because it's all wrong. I will point out when you break the rules by making personal attacks though. I'm also unlike the Mccanns in that I don't run away from unpleasant people who call me names. I won't retaliate in kind because I respect the rules of the forum and the hard work people do behind the scenes to keep it online.
8@??)( i agree g unit
-
More insults? It sounds like the typical excuse used by bullies to me; 'I was only having a laugh'. Unlike the McCanns I'm not too sensitive, I don't care what you say because it's all wrong. I will point out when you break the rules by making personal attacks though. I'm also unlike the Mccanns in that I don't run away from unpleasant people who call me names. I won't retaliate in kind because I respect the rules of the forum and the hard work people do behind the scenes to keep it online.
OH dear. it strikes me that you really are rather over-sensitive, if it is OK to say this about the McCanns then why can't I say it about you? of course I knew that you weren't really admitting to the things I had written about you but because of the way you had repeated them using the "I" pronoun, and did not put quote marks around them it could have been read as an admission on your part. I was yanking your chain, silly (oops another shocking insult, I do apologise!). As was said to me the other day, lighten up!
-
OK, it seems that I am wrong, and it is permissable to say on this forum that the McCanns lied about the Fund, so fill your boots folks!
can you prove they didnt lie? no you cant
-
This Thread is not about whether or not The McCanns lied. Saying that they did is Libel.
So let's get back On Topic.
-
@)(++(* Better tell that to the forum owner then and see if you can get the rules changed.
Why should I wish to change the rules?
The administrator will make decisions to safeguard the existence of the forum. He may well air on the side of caution rather than risk the wrath of the likes of Carter Ruck.
-
It was me who replied to say you were not there....
(something gone wrong here)
My apols - I was in a rush as family were due at any moment - and didn't notice that it wasn't Faith who had answered my post to her. Sorry about that.
-
OH dear. it strikes me that you really are rather over-sensitive, if it is OK to say this about the McCanns then why can't I say it about you? of course I knew that you weren't really admitting to the things I had written about you but because of the way you had repeated them using the "I" pronoun, and did not put quote marks around them it could have been read as an admission on your part. I was yanking your chain, silly (oops another shocking insult, I do apologise!). As was said to me the other day, lighten up!
That would be because you are on a forum with rules which you have broken. I don't see it as being over sensitive to point that out. Unlike the McCanns I will stand my ground because I don't care about your opinions. Your behaviour reminds me of bullies, who often try to excuse themselves by saying they were only joking.
-
That would be because you are on a forum with rules which you have broken. I don't see it as being over sensitive to point that out. Unlike the McCanns I will stand my ground because I don't care about your opinions. Your behaviour reminds me of bullies, who often try to excuse themselves by saying they were only joking.
Last time someone was accusing someone of passive aggressive behaviour, I found this.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/passive-aggressive-diaries/201011/10-things-passive-aggressive-people-say (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/passive-aggressive-diaries/201011/10-things-passive-aggressive-people-say)
Probably things all members should try and avoid.
-
just for everyone
1. "I'm not mad."
Denying feelings of anger is classic passive aggressive behavior. Rather than being upfront and honest when questioned about his feelings, the passive aggressive person insists, "I'm not mad" even when he or she is seething on the inside.
2. "Fine." "Whatever."
Sulking and withdrawing from arguments are primary strategies of the passive aggressive person. Since passive aggression is motivated by a person's belief that expressing anger directly will only make his life worse (Long, Long & Whitson, 2008), the passive aggressive person uses phrases like "Fine" and "Whatever" to express anger indirectly and to shut down direct, emotionally honest communication.
3. "I'm coming!"
Passive aggressive persons are known for verbally complying with a request, but behaviorally delaying its completion. If whenever you ask your child to clean his room, he cheerfully says, "Okay, I'm coming," but then fails to show up to complete the chore, chances are he is practicing the fine passive aggressive art of temporary compliance.
4. "I didn't know you meant now."
On a related note, passive aggressive persons are master procrastinators. While all of us like to put off unpleasant tasks from time to time, people with passive aggressive personalities rely on procrastination as a way of frustrating others and/or getting out of certain chores without having to directly refuse them.
5. "You just want everything to be perfect."
When procrastination is not an option, a more sophisticated passive aggressive strategy is to carry out tasks in a timely, but unacceptable manner. For example:
A student hands in sloppy homework.
An individual prepares a well-done steak for his or her spouse wife, knowing the spouse prefers to eat steak rare.
An employee dramatically overspends the budget on an important project.
In all of these instances, the passive aggressive person complies with a particular request, but carries it out in an intentionally inefficient way. When confronted, he or she defends the work, counter-accusing others of having rigid or perfectionist standards.
6. "I thought you knew."
Sometimes, the perfect passive aggressive crime has to do with omission. Passive aggressive persons may express their anger covertly by choosing not to share information when it could prevent a problem. By claiming ignorance, the person defends inaction, while taking pleasure in a foe's trouble and anguish.
7. "Sure, I'd be happy to."
Have you ever been in a customer service situation where a seemingly concerned clerk or super-polite phone operator assures you that your problem will be solved. On the surface, the representative is cooperative, but beware of the angry smile; behind the scenes, he or she is filing your request in the trash and stamping your paperwork with "DENY."
8. "You've done so well for someone with your education level."
The backhanded compliment is the ultimate socially acceptable means by which the passive aggressive person insults you to your core. If anyone has ever told you, "Don't worry; you can still get braces, even at your age" or, "There are a lot of men out there who like plump women," chances are you know how much "joy" a passive aggressive compliment can bring.
9. "I was only joking"
Like backhanded compliments, sarcasm is a common tool of a passive aggressive person who expresses hostility aloud, but in socially acceptable, indirect ways. If you show that you are offended by biting, passive aggressive sarcasm, the hostile joke teller plays up his or her role as victim, asking, "Can't you take a joke?"
10. "Why are you getting so upset?"
The passive aggressive person is a master at maintaining calm and feigning shock when others, worn down by his or her indirect hostility, blow up in anger. In fact, the person takes pleasure out of setting others up to lose their cool and then questioning their "overreactions."
-
just for everyone
1. "I'm not mad."
Denying feelings of anger is classic passive aggressive behavior. Rather than being upfront and honest when questioned about his feelings, the passive aggressive person insists, "I'm not mad" even when he or she is seething on the inside.
2. "Fine." "Whatever."
Sulking and withdrawing from arguments are primary strategies of the passive aggressive person. Since passive aggression is motivated by a person's belief that expressing anger directly will only make his life worse (Long, Long & Whitson, 2008), the passive aggressive person uses phrases like "Fine" and "Whatever" to express anger indirectly and to shut down direct, emotionally honest communication.
3. "I'm coming!"
Passive aggressive persons are known for verbally complying with a request, but behaviorally delaying its completion. If whenever you ask your child to clean his room, he cheerfully says, "Okay, I'm coming," but then fails to show up to complete the chore, chances are he is practicing the fine passive aggressive art of temporary compliance.
4. "I didn't know you meant now."
On a related note, passive aggressive persons are master procrastinators. While all of us like to put off unpleasant tasks from time to time, people with passive aggressive personalities rely on procrastination as a way of frustrating others and/or getting out of certain chores without having to directly refuse them.
5. "You just want everything to be perfect."
When procrastination is not an option, a more sophisticated passive aggressive strategy is to carry out tasks in a timely, but unacceptable manner. For example:
A student hands in sloppy homework.
An individual prepares a well-done steak for his or her spouse wife, knowing the spouse prefers to eat steak rare.
An employee dramatically overspends the budget on an important project.
In all of these instances, the passive aggressive person complies with a particular request, but carries it out in an intentionally inefficient way. When confronted, he or she defends the work, counter-accusing others of having rigid or perfectionist standards.
6. "I thought you knew."
Sometimes, the perfect passive aggressive crime has to do with omission. Passive aggressive persons may express their anger covertly by choosing not to share information when it could prevent a problem. By claiming ignorance, the person defends inaction, while taking pleasure in a foe's trouble and anguish.
7. "Sure, I'd be happy to."
Have you ever been in a customer service situation where a seemingly concerned clerk or super-polite phone operator assures you that your problem will be solved. On the surface, the representative is cooperative, but beware of the angry smile; behind the scenes, he or she is filing your request in the trash and stamping your paperwork with "DENY."
8. "You've done so well for someone with your education level."
The backhanded compliment is the ultimate socially acceptable means by which the passive aggressive person insults you to your core. If anyone has ever told you, "Don't worry; you can still get braces, even at your age" or, "There are a lot of men out there who like plump women," chances are you know how much "joy" a passive aggressive compliment can bring.
9. "I was only joking"
Like backhanded compliments, sarcasm is a common tool of a passive aggressive person who expresses hostility aloud, but in socially acceptable, indirect ways. If you show that you are offended by biting, passive aggressive sarcasm, the hostile joke teller plays up his or her role as victim, asking, "Can't you take a joke?"
10. "Why are you getting so upset?"
The passive aggressive person is a master at maintaining calm and feigning shock when others, worn down by his or her indirect hostility, blow up in anger. In fact, the person takes pleasure out of setting others up to lose their cool and then questioning their "overreactions."
So anyone who has ever said .... 'I'm only joking' ... is a bully? Good grief!
-
So anyone who has ever said .... 'I'm only joking' ... is a bully? Good grief!
The author has also written about ...
Using Technology and Social Media Ethically ... http://signewhitson.com/books/bullying-in-elementary-school/
That might be something which could be of use for the participants in organised bullying campaigns to peruse.
Particularly as the target audience is adolescent.
-
The author has also written about ...
Using Technology and Social Media Ethically ... http://signewhitson.com/books/bullying-in-elementary-school/
That might be something which could be of use for the participants in organised bullying campaigns to peruse.
Particularly as the target audience is adolescent.
'target audience is adolescent.'
I can think of a certain book which could come under that heading. 8)--))
-
So anyone who has ever said .... 'I'm only joking' ... is a bully? Good grief!
Who said that? No-one! it is a common tactic of bullies who have been exposed to excuse themselves with such phrases as 'I was only joking' and 'I was only teasing' when their behaviour was clearly malicious and not funny in the slightest. Most people understand how that works.
-
The author has also written about ...
Using Technology and Social Media Ethically ... http://signewhitson.com/books/bullying-in-elementary-school/
That might be something which could be of use for the participants in organised bullying campaigns to peruse.
Particularly as the target audience is adolescent.
Do people take part in 'organised bullying campaigns'? I have seen that accusation many times, but have seen no evidence that it happens. The other day I was reading a facebook thread where someone actually said he was going to disrupt the phone lines set up for Crimewatch in 2013. Not one other person agreed with him and they all told him not to do it.
-
Who said that? No-one! it is a common tactic of bullies who have been exposed to excuse themselves with such phrases as 'I was only joking' and 'I was only teasing' when their behaviour was clearly malicious and not funny in the slightest. Most people understand how that works.
Yes I am well aware of all that. However it seems to me the article was posted because it contained the words ''I was only joking' and was aimed at one of our members who had said that - as some kind of proof of bullying behaviour. If that was the case - I think it was uncalled for. If that wasn't the purpose of posting it - then what was the reason?
On reading the article I can think of posters who are
(1) frequently sarcastic.
(2) frequently procrastinate rather than answer questions directly.
(3) and who make statements asking why people appear to be getting upset - when there is no evidence they are.
However in the context of this forum I don't personally consider the above to be bullying behaviour.
What I do consider to be bullying behaviour is when several people post to one another all making sneering, personal remarks about another poster - in an attempt to ridicule them for their opinions.
-
Yes I am well aware of all that. However it seems to me the article was posted because it contained the words ''I was only joking' and was aimed at one of our members who had said that - as some kind of proof of bullying behaviour. If that was the case - I think it was uncalled for. If that wasn't the purpose of posting it - then what was the reason?
On reading the article I can think of posters who are
(1) frequently sarcastic.
(2) frequently procrastinate rather than answer questions directly.
(3) and who make statements asking why people appear to be getting upset - when there is no evidence they are.
However in the context of this forum I don't personally consider the above to be bullying behaviour.
What I do consider to be bullying behaviour is when several people post to one another all making sneering, personal remarks about another poster - in an attempt to ridicule them for their opinions.
I didn't post the article or accuse anyone of bullying. I did point out that using the phrase 'I was only joking' is a common tactic used by bullies to excuse their behaviour and it is.
My point was, and still is, that forum rules don't allow personal attacks, although some people ignore those rules. When they do so I reserve the right to point it out. That doesn't mean I am too sensitive to alternative points of view. I expect alternative points of view, and defend the right of everyone to form and express their own opinions. What is unacceptable is name-calling, whether by a group or by one person. If a member disagrees with another member they should point out why. Accusing the other member of lacking certain desirable attributes adds nothing to the debate. It's akin to saying ' you are an inadequate human being so you must be wrong'. Illogical.
-
I didn't post the article or accuse anyone of bullying. I did point out that using the phrase 'I was only joking' is a common tactic used by bullies to excuse their behaviour and it is.
My point was, and still is, that forum rules don't allow personal attacks, although some people ignore those rules. When they do so I reserve the right to point it out. That doesn't mean I am too sensitive to alternative points of view. I expect alternative points of view, and defend the right of everyone to form and express their own opinions. What is unacceptable is name-calling, whether by a group or by one person. If a member disagrees with another member they should point out why. Accusing the other member of lacking certain desirable attributes adds nothing to the debate. It's akin to saying ' you are an inadequate human being so you must be wrong'. Illogical.
your post would carry some weight if you were prepared to condemn both sides..there are insults form both sides and like the chicken and the egg no one seems to accept which came first
-
That would be because you are on a forum with rules which you have broken. I don't see it as being over sensitive to point that out. Unlike the McCanns I will stand my ground because I don't care about your opinions. Your behaviour reminds me of bullies, who often try to excuse themselves by saying they were only joking.
so you've accusing me of being a bully now are you? In what way do you feel bullied by me? Bullying behaviour should be reported as should libellous posts. I have reported the latter but it seems these were deemed acceptable, has my alleged bullying been deemed acceptable too?
-
your post would carry some weight if you were prepared to condemn both sides..there are insults form both sides and like the chicken and the egg no one seems to accept which came first
I can only speak fr myself. If I am the target of personal attacks I will respond. I do condemn insults whoever they are from and to, and i suggest that anyone attacked in such a manner points out what is happening and that the rules are being broken just as I do. Everyone has the freedom to report such attacks also, although that's not something I do because I was brought up not to tell tales and to fight my own battles. I think I've done it once since I joined the forum, and that was an exceptional case.
-
so you've accusing me of being a bully now are you? In what way do you feel bullied by me? Bullying behaviour should be reported as should libellous posts. I have reported the latter but it seems these were deemed acceptable, has my alleged bullying been deemed acceptable too?
I haven't accused you of bullying me Alfred, and I don't feel bullied by you at all. I commented that your attempt at passing your posts off as a joke reminded me of the way bullies behave, as that's a well-known ploy of the bully. I'm sure you wouldn't dream of attempting to bully another member. Probably you just have a unique take on what is or isn't funny.
-
I haven't accused you of bullying me Alfred, and I don't feel bullied by you at all. I commented that your attempt at passing your posts off as a joke reminded me of the way bullies behave, as that's a well-known ploy of the bully. I'm sure you wouldn't dream of attempting to bully another member. Probably you just have a unique take on what is or isn't funny.
so you don't think I'm a bully, I just remind you of one, I see. Well I don't think you're an un-empathetic humourless over-sensitive flower either, but your posts just reminded me of one, glad that's sorted.
-
so you don't think I'm a bully, I just remind you of one, I see. Well I don't think you're an un-empathetic humourless over-sensitive flower either, but your posts just reminded me of one, glad that's sorted.
Unfortunately that's a little late, it was perfectly clear what you meant when you made the remarks. Do I detect some over-sensitivity on your part? There's a lot of protesting going on. You seem to have a similar outlook to the Mccanns. in that anyone who disagrees with you is lacking in some way? They have also resorted to name-calling when people have disagreed with their viewpoint.
-
Unfortunately that's a little late, it was perfectly clear what you meant when you made the remarks. Do I detect some over-sensitivity on your part? There's a lot of protesting going on. You seem to have a similar outlook to the Mccanns. in that anyone who disagrees with you is lacking in some way? They have also resorted to name-calling when people have disagreed with their viewpoint.
When have the McCanns claimed that anyone who disagrees with them is lacking in some way. All they have ever done is object to vicious lies and disinformation being spread about them and have taken action against those who command large audiences, like newspapers, Amaral with his book and Tony Bennet who took his campaign off the internet and into their village.
That's how any normal person would react to such disgusting treatment imo. I find it inexplicable that some people apparently cannot comprehend that.
-
Unfortunately that's a little late, it was perfectly clear what you meant when you made the remarks. Do I detect some over-sensitivity on your part? There's a lot of protesting going on. You seem to have a similar outlook to the Mccanns. in that anyone who disagrees with you is lacking in some way? They have also resorted to name-calling when people have disagreed with their viewpoint.
Most of the recent protesting on this thread appears to be from you objecting my voiced opinion of you and your posts. It's kind of boring now so, to help move things on, I'd like to explore this earlier comment of yours a little further:
"Why should I feel empathy with people when I don't know what the truth is?"
By your own admission you don't know what the truth is. The McCanns might be innocent of hiding their kid's body, they might be guilty. That seems to be your position. Given that you agree they might be innocent then can you see why, if they are innocent, they might have been moved in the traumatic aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance to grab the nearest paper-based product (which just happened to be Madeleine's activity book), tear off the cover and jot down a timeline for the police? Or are you of the opinion that, no matter how innocent they are, the use of her book for this purpose was an unforgiveable act of vandalism, because Kate felt sure Madeleine had been abducted?
-
And a person can also be guilty even without that evidence.
Yes... Cipriano was found guilty and thre was no evidence at all
-
Yes... Cipriano was found guilty and thre was no evidence at all
Off topic.
-
Off topic.
Aw c'mon. Cipriano is a staple. You know like rice is to China so Cipriano is to the faithful.
It hasn't been rolled out for a while so let's have a laugh.
-
Aw c'mon. Cipriano is a staple. You know like rice is to China so Cipriano is to the faithful.
It hasn't been rolled out for a while so let's have a laugh.
Too true.
They have nowhere else to go.
-
Aw c'mon. Cipriano is a staple. You know like rice is to China so Cipriano is to the faithful.
It hasn't been rolled out for a while so let's have a laugh.
You must admit it's a good example to support faiths idea that you don't need evidence to find someone guilty
-
You must admit it's a good example to support faiths idea that you don't need evidence to find someone guilty
So remind us all, on what grounds were they convicted ?
-
I think the McCanns would be very sensitive to opposing points of view in Portugal. It seems that, even when a court finds you innocent, the powers-that-be can have that decision altered without even having a re-trial.
Ana Saltao is still a victim of the justice system. Meanwhile, those who libelled her on the TV, including police professionals, are cleared of all charges.
http://www.flashvidas.pt/a_ferver/detalhe/tribunal_absolve_julia_pinheiro.html
Beating the prosecution must be rather like trying to win the jackpot on Euromillions with only one line of numbers.
-
Back on topic please.