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: Mr Gray on December 11, 2016, 10:36:33 AM
-
It will be 10 years May since Maddie disappeared. When do posters think the online persecution will end?
18
-
In the absence of OG coming up with the goods. probably another decade or two. Not that I'm likely to be here to witness that.
-
I think that will depend on the 'persecutors'. Perhaps as long as the support lasts.
-
In the absence of OG coming up with the goods. probably another decade or two. Not that I'm likely to be here to witness that.
You think persecution is OK, do you Jassi ?
-
You think persecution is OK, do you Jassi ?
It's immaterial to me.
-
they only get what they deserve ....
its maddie who did not deserve what happened to her ....
all the time you support maddie .
you don't support the mccs ...
-
Madeleine is dead. Don't bother looking for her? That's supporting Madeleine, is it?
-
It will be 10 years May since Maddie disappeared. When do posters think the online persecution will end?
When both Kate and Gerry are dead, or their chief hounders have all died, whichever comes first.
-
Madeleine is dead. Don't bother looking for her? That's supporting Madeleine, is it?
yessssssss
-
yessssssss
How very odd.
-
It has been virtually ten years since she disappeared, and in the real world there has been no trace of her.
Meanwhile, taxpayers in Portugal and the UK have paid for the Mccanns incompetent parenting, and they have yet to prove they have contributed even 1 pence from their own resources to 'search' for her.
I don't count using donated money, or those earned from a book, serialization rights, TV appearances as money they've earned. it amounts to blood money, IMHO.
-
More B.S. from the Mail.
No actual quoted sources.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4022164/Detectives-searching-Madeleine-McCann-planned-spy-family-dead-paedophile-suspect-s-here.html
It does make one think the Mccanns already know what the Supreme Court has decided, and the MSM are quite happy to play along in their support of the Mccanns.
-
they only get what they deserve ....
its maddie who did not deserve what happened to her ....
all the time you support maddie .
you don't support the mccs ...
That is such a spiteful remark. NO ONE deserves to have their child taken from them, and all who mock and taunt the parents of a missing child are in my mind lacking something in their lives.
-
That is such a spiteful remark. NO ONE deserves to have their child taken from them, and all who mock and taunt the parents of a missing child are in my mind lacking something in their lives.
What is more pertinent, is why some people devoutly support the Mccanns after they recklessly and repeatedly endangered their children.
As we know, Madeleine complained about being left, according to the Mccanns I believe, and yet they continued to do it again.
-
What is more pertinent, is why some people devoutly support the Mccanns after they recklessly and repeatedly endangered their children.
As we know, Madeleine complained about being left, according to the Mccanns I believe, and yet they continued to do it again.
Are you justifying someone kidnapping her from that dreadful situation?
-
Are you justifying someone kidnapping her from that dreadful situation?
Another pathetic comment.
You don't know how she disappeared.
We have our opinions, but the reality is, there is bu##er all evidence of anything, and unless your living in dreamland, you know that's true.
-
Another pathetic comment.
You don't know how she disappeared.
We have our opinions, but the reality is, there is bu##er all evidence of anything, and unless your living in dreamland, you know that's true.
It was question not a comment. The evidence as I see it is she was seen alive by Dave and by Gerry and gone by 10:00 and there are hairs in the apartment unmatched to anyone that claims to have been in there.
-
It has been virtually ten years since she disappeared, and in the real world there has been no trace of her.
Meanwhile, taxpayers in Portugal and the UK have paid for the Mccanns incompetent parenting, and they have yet to prove they have contributed even 1 pence from their own resources to 'search' for her.
I don't count using donated money, or those earned from a book, serialization rights, TV appearances as money they've earned. it amounts to blood money, IMHO.
So you disallow all the moneys that have earned which have enabled them to keep searching ?
Using up any other monies, salaries earned, is going to impact badly on the lives of the twins ... but that's OK, is it?
Also given the emormity of the task, their own salaries would not have made much impact, ... but that's OK, is it?
Better for them not to be able to search properly for Madeleine ... is that what you are saying ?
I think you are ... and I wonder why you want that they cannot search properly for their dearly loved elder daughter?
I wonder why?
-
What would be the point? The house almost certainly has no equity. And bills have to be paid, so in fact they could save very little.
Kate earned far more by writing the book, and now stays at home to look after the twins. But if she did get a job that would still be wrong in some peoples eyes.
There really is nothing they can do to please some people. And I don't suppose they care about that anymore.
-
What would be the point? The house almost certainly has no equity. And bills have to be paid, so in fact they could save very little.
Kate earned far more by writing the book, and now stays at home to look after the twins. But if she did get a job that would still be wrong in some peoples eyes.
There really is nothing they can do to please some people. And I don't suppose they care about that anymore.
The twins are at school from, I presume, 8.30 to at least four and the book was written over 5 years ago so it does beg the question why she isn't working. Further what could people say if she did work? With the twins no longer needing her as they once did why not?
-
So you disallow all the moneys that have earned which have enabled them to keep searching ?
Using up any other monies, salaries earned, is going to impact badly on the lives of the twins ... but that's OK, is it?
Also given the emormity of the task, their own salaries would not have made much impact, ... but that's OK, is it?
Better for them not to be able to search properly for Madeleine ... is that what you are saying ?
I think you are ... and I wonder why you want that they cannot search properly for their dearly loved elder daughter?
I wonder why?
I wonder why they didn't take care of their beloved elder daughter in the first place.
Can you quantify how pursuing Amaral and other parties through the courts has helped the 'search' for Madeleine ?
In what way have the McCann's 'searched' Sadie ?
They employed a series of people who achieved nothing and who had no expertise in this field.
Why should the tax payers of 2 different countries pay for the 'search' or investigations , when the McCann's have only used donations or other monies accrued from their incompetence as parents ?
So Sadie, why indeed do you support them ?
What is your motive in supporting parents such as the McCann's ?
I believe you admit to having met them.
So why Sadie have you never, as far as I can see, criticized what they did ?
Why haven't you criticized them for trying to bankrupt Amaral ?
-
The twins are at school from, I presume, 8.30 to at least four and the book was written over 5 years ago so it does beg the question why she isn't working. Further what could people say if she did work? With the twins no longer needing her as they once did why not?
Is it obligatory these days to work if you are married with children? Or is it still a personal choice?
-
It will be 10 years May since Maddie disappeared. When do posters think the online persecution will end?
18
Even after the case is solved the persecution will continue. Even after the abductors are caught and Madeleine returned home the persecution will continue. Even after the perpetrators have served their sentences the persecution will continue.
-
Even after the case is solved the persecution will continue. Even after the abductors are caught and Madeleine returned home the persecution will continue. Even after the perpetrators have served their sentences the persecution will continue.
Sadly, this is true. But the more people do this then the less effect it has. It's all becoming rather common place these days.
-
Even after the case is solved the persecution will continue. Even after the abductors are caught and Madeleine returned home the persecution will continue. Even after the perpetrators have served their sentences the persecution will continue.
...and what happens if there were no external parties responsible for Madeleine's disappearance Bob ?
What then.
-
...and what happens if there were no external parties responsible for Madeleine's disappearance Bob ?
What then.
The McCanns will be the biggest magician show the world has ever known, for they are the only couple that were able to make their child disappear and then it was never to be found again.
-
The the McCanns will be the biggest magician show the world has ever known, for they are the only couple that were able to make their child disappear and it never to be found again.
Magicians ???
You should research cases of missing children Rob..
-
Magicians ???
You should research cases of missing children Rob..
Have you done that?
-
The twins are at school from, I presume, 8.30 to at least four and the book was written over 5 years ago so it does beg the question why she isn't working. Further what could people say if she did work? With the twins no longer needing her as they once did why not?
OMG Kate McCann is being slagged off for not working now, there are many mothers who choose to stay at home Faithlilly and frankly I don't think it is anyone's business if Kate is working or not. Maybe she finds working with Missing People fulfilling enough.
-
I wonder why they didn't take care of their beloved elder daughter in the first place.
Can you quantify how pursuing Amaral and other parties through the courts has helped the 'search' for Madeleine ?
In what way have the McCann's 'searched' Sadie ?
They employed a series of people who achieved nothing and who had no expertise in this field.
Why should the tax payers of 2 different countries pay for the 'search' or investigations , when the McCann's have only used donations or other monies accrued from their incompetence as parents ?
So Sadie, why indeed do you support them ?
What is your motive in supporting parents such as the McCann's ?
I believe you admit to having met them.
So why Sadie have you never, as far as I can see, criticized what they did ?
Why haven't you criticized them for trying to bankrupt Amaral ?
That post is so full of spite.
They made a bad decision, that doesn't mean she wasn't a beloved daughter, a daughter they brought up in a loving family.
As the McCann's have said they felt Amarals book hindered the search for their daughter, claiming Madeleine was dead and that they faked an abduction. I challenge you to answer yes or no to the question, would you have ignored the book if you had been the parents of Madeleine?
Why does someone always have to have a motive for believing the McCann's are innocent?
Trying to Bankrupt Amaral? oh come on, he still had his pension didn't he? His divorce and losing his house had nothing to do with the McCann's.
-
The headlines of one of the tabloids this morning is "Britain's Most Hated Mum...wants forgiveness" (I may not have got that 100% right. It wasn't about Kate McCann though, shock horror! It's about a woman who gets a mere tiny fraction of the online hatred that Kate McC receives, despite having been found guilty of her crimes and being a proven piss-poor parent. That's life I guess....
-
The twins are at school from, I presume, 8.30 to at least four and the book was written over 5 years ago so it does beg the question why she isn't working. Further what could people say if she did work? With the twins no longer needing her as they once did why not?
What business is it of yours whether or not Kate has a job? How do you know she hasn't?
-
What business is it of yours whether or not Kate has a job? How do you know she hasn't?
We are websleuths - we want to know everything about the McCanns!
-
That post is so full of spite.
They made a bad decision, that doesn't mean she wasn't a beloved daughter, a daughter they brought up in a loving family.
As the McCann's have said they felt Amarals book hindered the search for their daughter, claiming Madeleine was dead and that they faked an abduction. I challenge you to answer yes or no to the question, would you have ignored the book if you had been the parents of Madeleine?
Why does someone always have to have a motive for believing the McCann's are innocent?
Trying to Bankrupt Amaral? oh come on, he still had his pension didn't he? His divorce and losing his house had nothing to do with the McCann's.
The post is the truth.
Get over it.
Didn't you notice by now, and with other Mccann backers, people who don't believe the Mccanns story, have their motives questioned, as Sadie did with me.
The Mccanns revenge over Amaral.
Very clear cut, plus money of course.
I believe ALL his financial assets were seized.
-
The headlines of one of the tabloids this morning is "Britain's Most Hated Mum...wants forgiveness" (I may not have got that 100% right. It wasn't about Kate McCann though, shock horror! It's about a woman who gets a mere tiny fraction of the online hatred that Kate McC receives, despite having been found guilty of her crimes and being a proven piss-poor parent. That's life I guess....
I suppose it's the difference between wanting forgiveness and thinking you have done nothing that needs forgiveness.
-
The post is the truth.
Get over it.
Didn't you notice by now, and with other Mccann backers, people who don't believe the Mccanns story, have their motives questioned, as Sadie did with me.
The Mccanns revenge over Amaral.
Very clear cut, plus money of course.
I believe ALL his financial assets were seized.
Answer the question, would you have ignored Amarals book if you was a parent of Madeleine.
-
The post is the truth.
Get over it.
Didn't you notice by now, and with other Mccann backers, people who don't believe the Mccanns story, have their motives questioned, as Sadie did with me.
The Mccanns revenge over Amaral.
Very clear cut, plus money of course.
I believe ALL his financial assets were seized.
That was all done by the court not the McCanns wasn't it? Wasn't it a court order?
-
Answer the question, would you have ignored Amarals book if you was a parent of Madeleine.
What have they achieved in going after him ?
Answer, give him more publicity.
Try answering my question, if you expect a reply from me.
-
That was all done by the court not the McCanns wasn't it? Wasn't it a court order?
Who initiated the case ?
%&5%£ %&5%£
-
Answer the question, would you have ignored Amarals book if you was a parent of Madeleine.
Yes, don't give it the oxygen of publicity. Any comment need only say it was based on the investigation at the time.
-
That was all done by the court not the McCanns wasn't it? Wasn't it a court order?
Of course it would have been, the McCann's get the blame for everything.
-
What have they achieved in going after him ?
Answer, give him more publicity.
Try answering my question, if you expect a reply from me.
What question?
What did the McCann's achieve by going after Amaral? Well for a start they got their side across to the public, that there is no proof that Madeleine is dead and that they are innocent of any involvement.
-
Of course it would have been, the McCann's get the blame for everything.
Who initiated the case. 8**8:/:
-
Who initiated the case. 8**8:/:
It would have been the courts decision to seize his assets.
-
Yes, don't give it the oxygen of publicity. Any comment need only say it was based on the investigation at the time.
It had plenty of oxygen, with Amaral surrounded with swooning women signing books.
-
What question?
What did the McCann's achieve by going after Amaral? Well for a start they got their side across to the public, that there is no proof that Madeleine is dead and that they are innocent of any involvement.
The truth of the matter, is the Mccanns gave their view, as did Amaral.
They gave their view before him, so your argument does not hold up.
Besides, the guilty party/parties, if any, remains at large.
-
It would have been the courts decision to seize his assets.
The case was initiated by the Mccanns.
No case, no seizing of funds.
Now I wonder what will happen with the Supreme Court decision. &%+((£
-
It would have been the courts decision to seize his assets.
It was. Amaral has a history of not paying his debts, and there are others after him.
-
It was. Amaral has a history of not paying his debts, and there are others after him.
That has nothing to do with this case Eleanor.
If you think it has, perhaps we could extend the scope further.
-
The twins are at school from, I presume, 8.30 to at least four and the book was written over 5 years ago so it does beg the question why she isn't working. Further what could people say if she did work? With the twins no longer needing her as they once did why not?
Oh come off it Faith - it doesn't matter what Kate does or says - it's always wrong in many sceptics eyes. And if it isn't wrong they don't rest until they've convinced themselves it is.
If she did go back to work then no doubt that would be claimed as proof that she thought more about money than she did about her children - because Gerry earns more than enough to enable her not to go back to work. So - no matter what the true reason was - 'financial greed' would be the only one they would be gleefully peddling.
Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't - every step of the way.
Inexplicable.
AIMHO
-
That is such a spiteful remark. NO ONE deserves to have their child taken from them, and all who mock and taunt the parents of a missing child are in my mind lacking something in their lives.
yes well that is in your mind ..however it works........
spiteful...................I'm not the one taking pleasure at someones life being ruined...
and wanting them to feel misery for the rest of there lives
the Macs ruined there own life .................and blame everyone else for it.....
they ruined maddies life .and countless others........
don't lecture me ....when you don't even know what happened ...........
-
That has nothing to do with this case Eleanor.
If you think it has, perhaps we could extend the scope further.
It's a measure of the man. The Court obviously thought that there was a possibility that Amaral would be unable to pay damages if The McCanns win.
-
It had plenty of oxygen, with Amaral surrounded with swooning women signing books.
It would have been a flash in the pan.
-
The truth of the matter, is the Mccanns gave their view, as did Amaral.
They gave their view before him, so your argument does not hold up.
Besides, the guilty party/parties, if any, remains at large.
Amaral wrote a book, he couldn't wait to get his theory out there, he was taken off the case and he didn't like it, it was his theory and he was damned if anyone else was going to get the glory for it. IMO
It might have been the conclusion the Portuguese police made before shelving the case, but Amaral made sure everyone in Portugal knew what the conclusion was and who worked it out. His book was sold all over so the 'Madeleine is dead and the McCann's faked an abduction' story was world wide.
If you want to talk about money [which is all the time] think about what Amaral did for money.
-
It would have been a flash in the pan.
No it wasn't, his book was sold all over.
-
Amaral wrote a book, he couldn't wait to get his theory out there, he was taken off the case and he didn't like it, it was his theory and he was damned if anyone else was going to get the glory for it. IMO
It might have been the conclusion the Portuguese police made before shelving the case, but Amaral made sure everyone in Portugal knew what the conclusion was and who worked it out. His book was sold all over so the 'Madeleine is dead and the McCann's faked an abduction' story was world wide.
If you want to talk about money [which is all the time] think about what Amaral did for money.
The Mccanns through their court cases publicized the book, and gave it an audience it never would have got.
Now tell me which law prohibited Amaral having a thesis about this case ?
Meanwhile, his financial assets have been seized.
I wonder how the McCann's would like their financial assets seized ?
After all, they have made money from their incompetent parenting.
-
No it wasn't, his book was sold all over.
...and would now be sitting on shelves gathering dust instead of constant reminders in the press getting more people interested in what it said.
-
It's a measure of the man. The Court obviously thought that there was a possibility that Amaral would be unable to pay damages if The McCanns win.
...and what will happen, if the Supreme Court decision goes against the McCann's, and they are lumbered with extensive fees, their own and other parties ?
-
It would have been the courts decision to seize his assets.
Untrue. Two injunctions were applied for by the McCann legal team before the case began. To freeze Amaral's assets and to ban his book. When the book banning injunction was overturned those who had applied for it had to pay all the court costs.
Exactly the same will apply to the asset freezing injunction if the Supreme Court upholds the Appeal Court ruling. Those who applied for the injunction will be responsible for court costs plus interest plus compensation.
-
...and what will happen, if the Supreme Court decision goes against the McCann's, and they are lumbered with extensive fees, their own and other parties ?
I have no idea, Stephen. It's all if, buts and maybes at the moment. But I expect that provisions will have been made.
-
The Mccanns through their court cases publicized the book, and gave it an audience it never would have got.
Now tell me which law prohibited Amaral having a thesis about this case ?
Meanwhile, his financial assets have been seized.
I wonder how the McCann's would like their financial assets seized ?
After all, they have made money from their incompetent parenting.
So you would have, as a parent, ignored his book? Stating your child was dead and that you faked an abduction? Come off it!!! Sara Payne said in her book she would have done exactly the same, she said she knows what it's like to have someone blamed, her brother was blamed at first for the death of Ben. Sara said to lose a child and then get blamed for it was disgusting or similar words.
What money have they made? Or are you talking about the money the book made that was put into the fund.
It's all about money with you isn't it, forget the child who is missing, the McCann's did it for Madeleine.
-
yes well that is in your mind ..however it works........
spiteful...................I'm not the one taking pleasure at someones life being ruined...
and wanting them to feel misery for the rest of there lives
the Macs ruined there own life .................and blame everyone else for it.....
they ruined maddies life .and countless others........
don't lecture me ....when you don't even know what happened ...........
You said they got what they deserved, you have failed to mention that in your reply. Parents deserved to have their child stolen because of a stupid decision. I don't think so.
Poor Amaral, he CHOSE to write the book, he shouldn't have broadcasted that he believed Madeleine was dead and that the parents staged an abduction should he? Or would you have been happy with that as a parent?
Amaral caused enough misery for the McCann's and what a parent of a missing child who is probably feeling the lowest of low says is taken out of all proportion.
-
I have no idea, Stephen. It's all if, buts and maybes at the moment. But I expect that provisions will have been made.
Yes, Mr Mitchell was 'dumped' allegedly to save some money wasn't he?
-
So you would have, as a parent, ignored his book? Stating your child was dead and that you faked an abduction? Come off it!!! Sara Payne said in her book she would have done exactly the same, she said she knows what it's like to have someone blamed, her brother was blamed at first for the death of Ben. Sara said to lose a child and then get blamed for it was disgusting or similar words.
What money have they made? Or are you talking about the money the book made that was put into the fund.
It's all about money with you isn't it, forget the child who is missing, the McCann's did it for Madeleine.
I don't believe you and I certainly don't believe the McCann's.
They haven't actually searched for Madeleine since the morning of May the 4 th 2007.
We are not discussing Sara Payne. That is one of your standard diversionary tactics.
-
You said they got what they deserved, you have failed to mention that in your reply. Parents deserved to have their child stolen because of a stupid decision. I don't think so.
Poor Amaral, he CHOSE to write the book, he shouldn't have broadcasted that he believed Madeleine was dead and that the parents staged an abduction should he? Or would you have been happy with that as a parent?
Amaral caused enough misery for the McCann's and what a parent of a missing child who is probably feeling the lowest of low says is taken out of all proportion.
Provide the evidence Madeleine was taken or stolen.
You can't, can you.
-
Yes, Mr Mitchell was 'dumped' allegedly to save some money wasn't he?
Was he? The McCanns don't really need Clarence Mitchell anymore, and from what I have see he wasn't actually charging them for the odd statement anyway.
He was only answering questions put to him by The Media. Perhaps because The McCanns refuse to. So they thought they'd try it on with him.
All allegedly, of course.
-
Is it obligatory these days to work if you are married with children? Or is it still a personal choice?
Of course it's a personal choice but please don't pretend her decision is altruistic.
-
Was he? The McCanns don't really need Clarence Mitchell anymore, and from what I have see he wasn't actually charging them for the odd statement anyway.
He was only answering questions put to him by The Media. Perhaps because The McCanns refuse to. So they thought they'd try it on with him.
All allegedly, of course.
It could be argued that they never needed him in the first place.
-
Of course it's a personal choice but please don't pretend her decision is altruistic.
What? What has altruism got to do with anything. And as for pretending, why would I bother to do that?
-
So you would have, as a parent, ignored his book? Stating your child was dead and that you faked an abduction? Come off it!!! Sara Payne said in her book she would have done exactly the same, she said she knows what it's like to have someone blamed, her brother was blamed at first for the death of Ben. Sara said to lose a child and then get blamed for it was disgusting or similar words.
What money have they made? Or are you talking about the money the book made that was put into the fund.
It's all about money with you isn't it, forget the child who is missing, the McCann's did it for Madeleine.
Do you mean Kerry Needham Lace? (not Sarah Payne). Although she too has been persecuted and had to close her twitter account because of people who IMO get enjoyment out of the misfortune and suffering of others.
-
What? What has altruism got to do with anything. And as for pretending, why would I bother to do that?
Weren't you suggesting the reasons for her lack of employment such as care of the twins or writing a book to replenish the fund were altruistic ? Therefore weren't you suggesting her decision to remain unemployed was altruistic ? If not I wholeheartedly apologise.
-
It could be argued that they never needed him in the first place.
No way could the McCanns have coped with the huge media presence in PdL. Especially as they were being starved of info from the police. They would have been mobbed every time they tried to set foot out of the apartment.
It needed someone experienced with the press to guide them and to make arrangements with the media so that they could be left in peace occasionally.
Sending CM to do that job was a sensible and practical way of helping them imo.
AIMHO
-
Weren't you suggesting the reasons for her lack of employment such as care of the twins or writing a book to replenish the fund were altruistic ? Therefore weren't you suggesting her decision to remain unemployed was altruistic ? If not I wholeheartedly apologise.
Thank you for the apology. Personally I don't know why. I never thought it was any of my business.
-
Do you mean Kerry Needham Lace? (not Sarah Payne). Although she too has been persecuted and had to close her twitter account because of people who IMO get enjoyment out of the misfortune and suffering of others.
Some 'enjoy' questioning the McCann's behaviour. Some 'enjoy' questioning Amaral's behaviour. Some 'enjoy' questioning Grime's behaviour. I see no difference, although some believe their behaviour can be morally justified and other's can't.
-
Thank you for the apology. Personally I don't know why. I never thought it was any of my business.
Then perhaps it's rather foolish to be claiming this then:
"Kate earned far more by writing the book, and now stays at home to look after the twins"
-
I suppose it's the difference between wanting forgiveness and thinking you have done nothing that needs forgiveness.
And who falls into the latter category, in your view?
-
Of course it's a personal choice but please don't pretend her decision is altruistic.
Why don't you tell us the reasons for her decision as you seem to know what is and isn't the case?
-
Then perhaps it's rather foolish to be claiming this then:
"Kate earned far more by writing the book, and now stays at home to look after the twins"
Which part of the quoted sentence is incorrect?
-
Then perhaps it's rather foolish to be claiming this then:
"Kate earned far more by writing the book, and now stays at home to look after the twins"
What is to be disputed about those two statements. Perhaps you can explain why two statements of fact are foolish.
I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. Unless you are trying to wind me up, which seems to be the most logical answer.
-
And who falls into the latter category, in your view?
From the article quoted it's obvious.
-
From the article quoted it's obvious.
No it's not. Karen Matthews in the article is begging her friends and family for forgiveness (though no mention of her daughter and she still claims to be innocent of faking the kidnap) - so, perhaps you could explain exactly what you meant.
-
Some 'enjoy' questioning the McCann's behaviour. Some 'enjoy' questioning Amaral's behaviour. Some 'enjoy' questioning Grime's behaviour. I see no difference, although some believe their behaviour can be morally justified and other's can't.
Sarah Payne did not close her twitter account because she was being asked questions.
Trying to claim there is no difference between the treatment of the McCanns on the internet and that of Grime or Amaral is like claiming there is no difference between Mount Everest and Mount Snowdon, because they are both mountains.
I have never read allegations anywhere that Martin Grime was a narcissistic psychopath, or a lying fraudster or a paedophile - to name but a few of the allegations which are screeched out on the WWW about the McCanns on a regular basis by gleeful 'trolls'. I won't call them sceptics because that would be an undeserved insult to all sceptics here.
If you think Sara Payne closed her twitter account because she was being asked genuine questions by sceptics - and that she was not being persecuted by cruel people who enjoyed spitting venomous abuse at her - then that's not my problem.
Schardenfreud (sp?) is a condition where people gain pleasure from other people's misfortune and is alive and well on the internet IMO.
AIMHO
-
Sarah Payne did not close her twitter account because she was being asked questions.
Trying to claim there is no difference between the treatment of the McCanns on the internet and that of Grime or Amaral is like claiming there is no difference between Mount Everest and Mount Snowdon, because they are both mountains.
I have never read allegations anywhere that Martin Grime was a narcissistic psychopath, or a lying fraudster or a paedophile - to name but a few of the allegations which are screeched out on the WWW about the McCanns on a regular basis by gleeful 'trolls'. I won't call them sceptics because that would be an undeserved insult to all sceptics here.
If you think Sara Payne closed her twitter account because she was being asked genuine questions by sceptics - and that she was not being persecuted by cruel people who enjoyed spitting venomous abuse at her - then that's not my problem.
Schardenfreud (sp?) is a condition where people gain pleasure from other people's misfortune and is alive and well on the internet IMO.
AIMHO
'Schardenfreud (sp?) is a condition where people gain pleasure from other people's misfortune and is alive and well on the internet IMO.'
Now would that be applicable to those who have attacked Amaral and some of his fellow officers, plus people such as Grime and Harrison ?
Or would you view differently ?
-
What is to be disputed about those two statements. Perhaps you can explain why two statements of fact are foolish.
I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. Unless you are trying to wind me up, which seems to be the most logical answer.
It would seem rather obvious to me. You claimed Kate stayed at home to look after the twins. The twins are now 11 years old and will shortly be going to secondary school. I also believe from quite a young age they were driven to school in the school bus. Therefore your claim that she has not sought employment in order to look after the twins is, with respect, nonsense.
-
It would seem rather obvious to me. You claimed Kate stayed at home to look after the twins. The twins are now 11 years old and will shortly be going to secondary school. I also believe from quite a young age they were driven to school in the school bus. Therefore your claim that she has not sought employment in order to look after the twins is, with respect, nonsense.
Can you tell me why Kate McCann should seek employment? In your opinion, obviously.
Thank you in advance.
-
It would seem rather obvious to me. You claimed Kate stayed at home to look after the twins. The twins are now 11 years old and will shortly be going to secondary school. I also believe from quite a young age they were driven to school in the school bus. Therefore your claim that she has not sought employment in order to look after the twins is, with respect, nonsense.
Why are you so interested in every detail of the life of a woman who, as far as I know you have never met and who, as far as I know neither knows or cares of your existence or who has ever done you any harm?
-
Can you tell me why Kate McCann should seek employment? In your opinion, obviously.
Thank you in advance.
To help fund the litigation that she and her husband seem so fond of? Also perhaps it would not look quite so hypocritical when soliciting funds from the public via the donate button on their website that Kate actually made an attempt to contribute herself?
I believe that's exactly what Kerry Needham did.
-
To help fund the litigation that she and her husband seem so fond of? Also perhaps it would not look quite so hypocritical when soliciting funds from the public via the donate button on their website that Kate actually made an attempt to contribute herself?
I believe that's exactly what Kerry Needham did.
Kate contributed to the fund by writing a best selling book which raised hundreds of thousands of pounds. For all we know she could be writing another book, in her new career as best selling author. Of course that would greatly please you wouldn't it. @)(++(*
-
Why are you so interested in every detail of the life of a woman who, as far as I know you have never met and who, as far as I know neither knows or cares of your existence or who has ever done you any harm?
And why do you seek to defend a woman you have never met and can have no idea what motivates her?
-
Kate contributed to the fund by writing a best selling book which raised hundreds of thousands of pounds. For all we know she could be writing another book, in her new career as best selling author. Of course that would greatly please you wouldn't it. @)(++(*
Another book? When the public's only interest in the McCanns is through their daughter what else can you write? Or are you trying to suggest that the public's interest in Kate's literary efforts are anything other than prurient?
-
Why are you so interested in every detail of the life of a woman who, as far as I know you have never met and who, as far as I know neither knows or cares of your existence or who has ever done you any harm?
If Kate had a job they would be saying that she had abandoned them and didn't care. We can't win this one. Or any of the other gross misinterpretations of the lives of people that are none of their business.
Not that I personally have a need to win anything. I am probably one of the worst parents that ever walked the face of the earth. And somehow managed to drag up three of the most well balanced people I know.
One Two One Degree. One HND in Electronics and one Qualified Acupuncturist. And all without any assistance from me. Mind you, I did bog them all off to Boarding School at the first opportunity.
The Media would have field day with me and my parenting. I often laugh myself.
-
Another book? When the public's only interest in the McCanns is through their daughter what else can you write? Or are you trying to suggest that the public's interest in Kate's literary efforts are anything other than prurient?
I am suggesting that Kate McCann is a best selling author and that people continue to be fascinated by this case. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that should she choose to write another book about the case, or update her previous book, or even write a warts and all biography of her chief tormentor(s) that you for one would be first in the queue at Waterstones. @)(++(*
-
To help fund the litigation that she and her husband seem so fond of? Also perhaps it would not look quite so hypocritical when soliciting funds from the public via the donate button on their website that Kate actually made an attempt to contribute herself?
I believe that's exactly what Kerry Needham did.
So what do you want them to do?
-
And why do you seek to defend a woman you have never met and can have no idea what motivates her?
It's called, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty."
-
I am suggesting that Kate McCann is a best selling author and that people continue to be fascinated by this case. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that should she choose to write another book about the case, or update her previous book, or even write a warts and all biography of her chief tormentor(s) that you for one would be first in the queue at Waterstones. @)(++(*
Wouldn't that be dining out on her daughter's disappearance? Do you really think the public would have any interest in Kate's writings if she had not lost her daughter?
-
Another book? When the public's only interest in the McCanns is through their daughter what else can you write? Or are you trying to suggest that the public's interest in Kate's literary efforts are anything other than prurient?
In your opinion.
I suspect that "Prurient" might be Libellous. So have care, if you please.
-
I am suggesting that Kate McCann is a best selling author and that people continue to be fascinated by this case. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that should she choose to write another book about the case, or update her previous book, or even write a warts and all biography of her chief tormentor(s) that you for one would be first in the queue at Waterstones. @)(++(*
This is true. Miss an opportunity to tear any future book to pieces? No chance.
-
It's called, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty."
BINGO - that could be her next book title @)(++(*
-
Wouldn't that be dining out on her daughter's disappearance? Do you really think the public would have any interest in Kate's writings if she had not lost her daughter?
Did I say or even suggest that the public would have any interest in Kate's writings if she hadn't lost her daughter? And - wasn't it you complaining that Kate wasn't working in order to pay for litigation, so what would be wrong with her writing another book to fund it? What is it you actually want the woman to do? Perhaps we could raise enough signatures on a petition to force her to do it. Dinner lady perhaps? What would you choose to make her do, that would satisfy your burning need to see Kate McCann back in gainful employment?
-
Wouldn't that be dining out on her daughter's disappearance? Do you really think the public would have any interest in Kate's writings if she had not lost her daughter?
Perhaps not. But would you?
-
BINGO - that could be her next book title @)(++(*
Good one.
What do you think Amaral will call his next book? If he has the brass neck to write one.
-
Did I say or even suggest that the public would have any interest in Kate's writings if she hadn't lost her daughter? And - wasn't it you complaining that Kate wasn't working in order to pay for litigation, so what would be wrong with her writing another book to fund it? What is it you actually want the woman to do? Perhaps we could raise enough signatures on a petition to force her to do it. Dinner lady perhaps? What would you choose to make her do, that would satisfy your burning need to see Kate McCann back in gainful employment?
I don't think Kate would make a very good Bar Maid. Although I made a bomb at that. School Fees, you know.
-
Good one.
What do you think Amaral will call his next book? If he has the brass neck to write one.
How about " He who laughs last" ? or " The Reckoning" ?{)(**
-
Did I say or even suggest that the public would have any interest in Kate's writings if she hadn't lost her daughter? And - wasn't it you complaining that Kate wasn't working in order to pay for litigation, so what would be wrong with her writing another book to fund it? What is it you actually want the woman to do? Perhaps we could raise enough signatures on a petition to force her to do it. Dinner lady perhaps? What would you choose to make her do, that would satisfy your burning need to see Kate McCann back in gainful employment?
There'd be nothing wrong with her writing another book, where did I say there would be? In fact I'd be all for it as perhaps the money she would earn from it may help to pay the whooping litigation bill they may incur if they loose their appeal to the SC and would leave the fund to find their daughter a little richer.
-
Perhaps not. But would you?
Not in the slightest.
-
Did I say or even suggest that the public would have any interest in Kate's writings if she hadn't lost her daughter? And - wasn't it you complaining that Kate wasn't working in order to pay for litigation, so what would be wrong with her writing another book to fund it? What is it you actually want the woman to do? Perhaps we could raise enough signatures on a petition to force her to do it. Dinner lady perhaps? What would you choose to make her do, that would satisfy your burning need to see Kate McCann back in gainful employment?
Humiliating Employment would probably be better. However, you can earn quite a lot of money cleaning lavatories. I should know. I've cleaned a few of those in my time. School Fees, you know. And I am frightfully upper class.
-
Humiliating Employment would probably be better. However, you can earn quite a lot of money cleaning lavatories. I should know. I've cleaned a few of those in my time. School Fees, you know. And I am frightfully upper class.
I reckon Kate would make a fortune as an Aunt Sally. Sceptics could hold Hate Parties and rent her out for the evening. She'd be onto a sure fire winner.
-
How about " He who laughs last" ? or " The Reckoning" ?{)(**
"The Reckoning" sounds good. I would love to hear about what a terrible hard time he had in Paying Up.
-
There'd be nothing wrong with her writing another book, where did I say there would be? In fact I'd be all for it as perhaps the money she would earn from it may help to pay the whooping litigation bill they may incur if they loose their appeal to the SC and would leave the fund to find their daughter a little richer.
That is really kind. I have hope for you yet.
-
Not in the slightest.
No, nor would I. No doubt I would read the précis here. Gosh, we might even get on.
-
There'd be nothing wrong with her writing another book, where did I say there would be? In fact I'd be all for it as perhaps the money she would earn from it may help to pay the whooping litigation bill they may incur if they loose their appeal to the SC and would leave the fund to find their daughter a little richer.
Perhaps you could explain what you meant by "Wouldn't that be dining out on her daughter's disappearance?" in relation to her writing another book then.
-
In your opinion.
I suspect that "Prurient" might be Libellous. So have care, if you please.
You can't libel the public.
-
You can't libel the public.
Try Googling "Prurient" and you might see where this could be going.
I prefer to avoid rather than delete, which is what Moderators should be doing.
So let's have no further discussion on anything Prurient.
-
No, nor would I. No doubt I would read the précis here. Gosh, we might even get on.
Now wouldn't that be a thing ?{)(**
-
Try Googling "Prurient" and you might see where this could be going.
I prefer to avoid rather than delete, which is what Moderators should be doing.
So let's have no further discussion on anything Prurient.
Google definition:
prurient
ˈprʊərɪənt/Submit
adjective
having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others.
"she'd been the subject of much prurient curiosity"
synonyms: salacious, licentious, voyeuristic, lascivious, lecherous, lushut upl, lewd, libidinous, lubricious;
Where did that idea come from??
-
What would be "a thing" is if all the critics of the McCanns decided after 10 years of criticizing and doubting that there was nothing to be gained from all the online chatter about the case and called it a day. Never gonna happen of course!
-
What would be "a thing" is if all the critics of the McCanns decided after 10 years of criticizing and doubting that there was nothing to be gained from all the online chatter about the case and called it a day. Never gonna happen of course!
What would be "a miracle" is if all the critics of Luz decided after 10 years of criticizing and doubting that there was nothing to be gained from all the media coverage about the case and called it a day. Never gonna happen of course!
-
Now wouldn't that be a thing ?{)(**
Isn't it pretty to think so.
-
What would be "a miracle" is if all the critics of Luz decided after 10 years of criticizing and doubting that there was nothing to be gained from all the media coverage about the case and called it a day. Never gonna happen of course!
Huh? You think Luz comes in for the same amount (or even a tenth) of criticism as the McCanns? Are you serious?! What doubting goes on about Luz? How do you persecute a place, exactly?
-
I can imagine the persecution of the McCanns will continue for quite some time. I am amazed it has continued to this day, in spite of the case being investigated by two police forces and not one whiff or indication that they are being considered as suspects. I have never altered my opinion that they and Madeleine are the victims of a dreadful crime.
-
I can imagine the persecution of the McCanns will continue for quite some time. I am amazed it has continued to this day, in spite of the case being investigated by two police forces and not one whiff or indication that they are being considered as suspects. I have never altered my opinion that they and Madeleine are the victims of a dreadful crime.
I am amazed that it hasn't been officially stopped. By a new Law maybe?
People who persecute like this were the playground bullies of yesterday ... imo
-
I can imagine the persecution of the McCanns will continue for quite some time. I am amazed it has continued to this day, in spite of the case being investigated by two police forces and not one whiff or indication that they are being considered as suspects. I have never altered my opinion that they and Madeleine are the victims of a dreadful crime.
What you need to be aware of, is that many people have never believed there was an abduction from very early on after Madeleine's disappearance.
Likewise, simply no evidence which shows abduction any more possible than other scenarios.
-
I am amazed that it hasn't been officially stopped. By a new Law maybe?
People who persecute like this were the playground bullies of yesterday ... imo
The even sadder thing is that they will produce children who will likewise persecute.
Then we counsellers have to try and pick up the pieces to try and help people who are falling apart thru it. These poor people torn apart by the unthinking or sadistic words and deeds of others.
-
What you need to be aware of, is that many people have never believed there was an abduction from very early on after Madeleine's disappearance.
Likewise, simply no evidence which shows abduction any more possible than other scenarios.
I don't need to be made aware of any such thing, Stephen. I am aware of the online persecution of the McCanns but by no means am aware that "many people have never believed them"
There would need to be a poll on that question with results that would prove such a claim. As yet I have not met one person in real life who believes they are criminals.
-
I don't need to be made aware of any such thing, Stephen. I am aware of the online persecution of the McCanns but by no means am aware that "many people have never believed them"
There would need to be a poll on that question with results that would prove such a claim. As yet I have not met one person in real life who believes they are criminals.
I don't suppose it's great topic of conversation for most people.
-
I don't suppose it's great topic of conversation for most people.
No I don't have in-depth conversations with anyone about this case but when there has been a news item or a newspaper article then the a brief conversation can take place and in those conversations I have yet to hear anyone say that they believe the McCanns to be criminals.
-
You don't know what they're thinking, though 8(>((
-
I am amazed that it hasn't been officially stopped. By a new Law maybe?
People who persecute like this were the playground bullies of yesterday ... imo
Attempts were made to stop people expressing their opinions with tragic consequences. Any laws created in the UK apply only to the UK and many people using the internet don't come under UK jurisdiction. Any 'new Law' would need international cooperation therefore.
I agree with the Portuguese Appeal Court;
the applicants by having disseminated the case in the public sphere giving it worldwide notoriety and, hence , opening all doors to all opinions, including those that are contrary to theirs.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
-
I don't need to be made aware of any such thing, Stephen. I am aware of the online persecution of the McCanns but by no means am aware that "many people have never believed them"
There would need to be a poll on that question with results that would prove such a claim. As yet I have not met one person in real life who believes they are criminals.
Persecution Erngath ???
That remains a matter of perspective.
My sympathies are for Madeleine and her two siblings, who will have to live with the consequences of the actions of their parents.
-
I am amazed that it hasn't been officially stopped. By a new Law maybe?
People who persecute like this were the playground bullies of yesterday ... imo
Also the people who deliberately put out disinformation should be charged imo
Bullying, persecution and lies should not be tolerated
-
My sympathy is with the entire McCann family, parents, grandparents, Madeleine, her brother and sister, aunts and uncles and cousins who have been the victims of a criminal offence and who have to live with the consequences of that offence committed by a person as yet unknown.
-
Also the people who deliberately put out disinformation should be charged imo
Bullying, persecution and lies should not be tolerated
Disinformation, bullying, persecution and lies are often matters of opinion, not of fact.
-
My sympathy is with the entire McCann family, parents, grandparents, Madeleine, her brother and sister, aunts uncles and cousins who have been the victims of a criminal offence and who have to live with the consequences of that offence committed by a person as yet unknown.
The question is, who committed a criminal act, if there was one ?
We have our beliefs based on what we have read, but none on here I imagine know what really happened to Madeleine.
The only thing we know for sure, is that the McCann's and their associates left their children for periods with some checks. Then at some point Madeleine disappeared.
-
Also the people who deliberately put out disinformation should be charged imo
Bullying, persecution and lies should not be tolerated
You mean like Moroccan children myths?
-
Disinformation, bullying, persecution and lies are often matters of opinion, not of fact.
There was a campaign on Twitter a few years back to spread disinformation, lies and to bully a twitter user who McCann sceptics believed was Amy Tierney. That's a fact, not my opinion. It all ended rather disastrously for one of the tormentors, sadly.
-
I don't need to be made aware of any such thing, Stephen. I am aware of the online persecution of the McCanns but by no means am aware that "many people have never believed them"
There would need to be a poll on that question with results that would prove such a claim. As yet I have not met one person in real life who believes they are criminals.
I have met people who believe they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance, as well as those who believed she died in an accident.
Some believe the garbage in the papers, others aren't taken in. On the whole, those who take an interest in the case, read behind the headlines.
As to the Mccanns, they have ruthlessly used the media and high ranking people to deflect attention from them, almost from day one.
I have no sympathy for them, because of what they did. I have, for their children, like i said earlier.
I do find it hard to believe that none of the people you know, don't believe the Mccanns. Mind you, would you say anything else. My father believes them, but then he believes Blair is a socialist.
-
Also the people who deliberately put out disinformation should be charged imo
Bullying, persecution and lies should not be tolerated
How do you know the Mccanns have told the truth ?
-
How do you know the Mccanns have told the truth ?
We are not allowed to call anyone a liar. Eleanor said so!
-
We are not allowed to call anyone a liar. Eleanor said so!
Try reading what I typed.
Then read what was said in the McCann book.
-
Try reading what I typed.
Then read what was said in the McCann book.
What are you talking about I read your posts and I've read the book!
-
How do you know the Mccanns have told the truth ?
I repeat
Anyone who puts out deliberate disinformation should be charged IMO
We should Not tolerate bullying, persecution and lies.
-
I repeat
Anyone who puts out deliberate disinformation should be charged IMO
We should Not tolerate bullying, persecution and lies.
The question is Sadie, is who is doing that ?
Now if you are making allegations , you better make it clear, hadn't you.
Now what were you saying about Shrimpton ?
-
What are you talking about I read your posts and I've read the book!
You sound angry.
Why is that ?
Now what did Kate McCann admit to in the book ?
-
The question is Sadie, is who is doing that ?
Now if you are making allegations , you better make it clear, hadn't you.
Now what were you saying about Shrimpton ?
Was what Shrimpton said deliberate disinformation, or did he get a good deal of it right?
Did he get so much of it right that he had to be riduculed in public by his report having silly bits added, so that no-one would take notice of it ? .... and when he carried on in a lesser way, did he have to be shut up and phoney charges made against him to get him out of the way?
Seems SY are thinking along roughly the same lines as Shrimpton now. Trafficking by Europeans .
I actually think that it is bigger than European.
I think it is Global, but Europeans might be directing it ... or South Americans maybe.
I really do not know, but I am open minded about that.
-
Was what Shrimpton said deliberate disinformation, or did he get a good deal of it right?
Did he get so much of it right that he had to be riduculed in public by his report having silly bits added, so that no-one would take notice of it ? .... and when he carried on in a lesser way, did he have to be shut up and phoney charges made against him to get him out of the way?
Seems SY are thinking along roughly the same lines as Shrimpton now. Trafficking by Europeans .
I actually think that it is bigger than European.
I think it is Global, but Europeans might be directing it ... or South Americans maybe.
I really do not know, but I am open minded about that.
I know full well what Shrimpton has been convicted of, DO YOU ???
-
....
Now what did Kate McCann admit to in the book ?
You tell me.
-
I know full well what Shrimpton has been convicted of, DO YOU ???
i know what things were thrown against him ... but was he set uop?
Set up because he had worked too much out, he was too clever. Too erudite, too brilliant and too important a person as a barrister and Defence Expert to be saying these things.
People might listen to such a person and start demanding answers.
I am open minded but I do wonder if he was set up by VERY important people in the UK.
It is very interesting that SY now seem to be thinking the same (partially) as he does.
Me too, i think some of the things that Shrimpton and SY are thinking ... and i have pointers.
Hiowever, as I have said before, I always know that I could be wrong despite scores of pointers and a near perfect jigsaw of facts.
-
i know what things were thrown against him ... but was he set uop?
Set up because he had worked too much out, he was too clever. Too erudite, too brilliant and too important a person as a barrister and Defence Expert to be saying these things.
People might listen to such a person and start demanding answers.
I am open minded but I do wonder if he was set up by VERY important people in the UK.
It is very interesting that SY now seem to be thinking the same (partially) as he does.
Me too, i think some of the things that Shrimpton and SY are thinking ... and i have pointers.
Hiowever, as I have said before, I always know that I could be wrong despite scores of pointers and a near perfect jigsaw of facts.
I have read background material about him.
It is quite clear what he is.
I view him in the same vein as David Icke.
Icke being the person who claimed that Saturn was Earth's original Sun, along with many other claims.
The term fantasist applies.
-
I repeat
Anyone who puts out deliberate disinformation should be charged IMO
We should Not tolerate bullying, persecution and lies.
Do you include yourself in that?
-
i know what things were thrown against him ... but was he set uop?
Set up because he had worked too much out, he was too clever. Too erudite, too brilliant and too important a person as a barrister and Defence Expert to be saying these things.
People might listen to such a person and start demanding answers.
I am open minded but I do wonder if he was set up by VERY important people in the UK.
It is very interesting that SY now seem to be thinking the same (partially) as he does.
Me too, i think some of the things that Shrimpton and SY are thinking ... and i have pointers.
Hiowever, as I have said before, I always know that I could be wrong despite scores of pointers and a near perfect jigsaw of facts.
He nay be clever, erudite and brilliant but he also seems to have strayed into the realms of fantasy imo.
-
Do you include yourself in that?
I NEVER put out deliberate disinformation.
On the few occasions when I have made a mistake I have apologised for it {unless the opposing member has beebn rude to me - then I dont bother)
-
I NEVER put out deliberate disinformation.
On the few occasions when I have made a mistake I have apologised for it {unless the opposing member has beebn rude to me - then I dont bother)
No you just put out conspiracy theories whch = disinformation
-
No you just put out conspiracy theories whch = disinformation
When I put forward a theory it has many pointers (facts) confirming it .... and I always make it plain that I might not be correct. I also never name my suspect.
That is soooo .... different from some on your side who blatently dish out their thoughts as facts
.... and NEVER admit that they are their fantasies.
-
When I put forward a theory it has many pointers (facts) confirming it .... and I always make it plain that I might not be correct. I also never name my suspect.
That is soooo .... different from some on your side who blatently dish out their thoughts as facts
.... and NEVER admit that they are their fantasies.
I don't recall you admitting yours are fantasies?
-
When I put forward a theory it has many pointers (facts) confirming it .... and I always make it plain that I might not be correct. I also never name my suspect.
That is soooo .... different from some on your side who blatently dish out their thoughts as facts
.... and NEVER admit that they are their fantasies.
Your pointers as you call them are based on your beliefs and what you want to believe happened.
There is one word to describe them.
-
Your pointers as you call them are based on your beliefs and what you want to believe happened.
There is one word to describe them.
Is that an example of flaming? Stephen ease up on Sadie please.
-
Is that an example of flaming? Stephen ease up on Sadie please.
Since when did you become a mod?
-
Is that an example of flaming? Stephen ease up on Sadie please.
Who do you think you are ?
-
Who do you think you are ?
I'm trying to keep the focus on real issues.
-
I'm trying to keep the focus on real issues.
You mean Sadie's fantasies, including the Illuminati, and other highly positioned people in society involved in this case ?
-
You mean Sadie's fantasies, including the Illuminati, and other highly positioned people in society involved in this case ?
I mention the Podesta brothers but none of the others. "and other highly positioned people in society involved in this case ?" Yes.
-
I mention the Podesta brothers but none of the others. "and other highly positioned people in society involved in this case ?" Yes.
The Podesta brothers were a red herring Rob.
Didn't you know ???
Do you believe in Sadie's 'stories' as well ?
Perhaps we should ask David Icke as well. 8)-)))
-
The Podesta brothers were a red herring Rob.
Didn't you know ???
....
I'll believe that when SY makes the announcement clearing them.
-
I'll believe that when SY makes the announcement clearing them.
Do you actually comprehend they were the subject of a made up story ?
-
Do you actually comprehend they were the subject of a made up story ?
I'll believe that when SY makes the announcement clearing them.
-
I'll believe that when SY makes the announcement clearing them.
Why do they need clearing ?
-
Why do they need clearing ?
This video covers the reasons so much quicker than typing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1ANutfHYn8
...and its got pictures so you'll be able to understand.
-
Is that an example of flaming? Stephen ease up on Sadie please.
I think backhanded compliments could be an example of flaming. So could accusing people of having nefarious motives for what they post, such as being part of sme sort of 'conspiracy' to help the 'abductor' escape.
-
I think backhanded compliments could be an example of flaming. So could accusing people of having nefarious motives for what they post, such as being part of sme sort of 'conspiracy' to help the 'abductor' escape.
This is what I understand as flaming wrt forums Thanks to Google Flaming is a hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users, often involving the use of profanity. It can also be the swapping of insults back and forth or with many groups teaming up on a single victim.
-
I don't recall you admitting yours are fantasies?
No mine are not fantasies. It is especially someone on your side that has them.
Mine are thoroughly worked out scenarios that could be fact ... and quite probably are.
-
Is that an example of flaming? Stephen ease up on Sadie please.
Thank you Rob
I prefer it face to face than behind my back on another forum unknown to me ... as it used to be. At least when i can see the abuse then, if I have the time, I can respond
-
Thank you Rob
I prefer it face to face than behind my back on another forum unknown to me ... as it used to be. At least when i can see the abuse then, if I have the time, I can respond
I want the forum to be a place of cooperation, peace and harmony.
-
I want the forum to be a place of cooperation, peace and harmony.
That would be nice, I agree.
How good if we all worked together to try and sort out exactly what happened
But, Rob, after several years like this ... sadly it aint gonna happen imo
-
This video covers the reasons so much quicker than typing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1ANutfHYn8
...and its got pictures so you'll be able to understand.
I live in the real world Rob, and I will leave you and anyone else who might believe you to your fantasies.
It would be interesting to see the reaction of the police to your 'theories'. 8)--))
-
No mine are not fantasies. It is especially someone on your side that has them.
Mine are thoroughly worked out scenarios that could be fact ... and quite probably are.
Illuminati, bloodlines , smugglers, etc., etc.
Where is your evidence ???
If you can't provide it, your 'theories' remains fantasies best left in the world of authors like Dan Brown.
-
I live in the real world Rob, and I will leave you and anyone else who might believe you to your fantasies.
It would be interesting to see the reaction of the police to your 'theories'. 8)--))
Do you live in Syria? I'd like to see the reaction of the police to my 'theories' too. It is really tricky to find out a way to get them to listen.
-
Do you live in Syria? I'd like to see the reaction of the police to my 'theories' too. It is really tricky to find out a way to get them to listen.
What the police want is facts, not theories with no facts to back them up.
-
What the police want is facts, not theories with no facts to back them up.
someone should have told amaral and the pj
-
What the police want is facts, not theories with no facts to back them up.
Well the "fact" I have discovered in the last 24 hours is that ROB admits doing checks in the McCann's apartment yet there is no evidence the McCanns were aware that this was happening. That is a fact that has not been discussed on the internet yet you, G-Unit, seemed to be aware of that fact before I posted it.
-
Do you live in Syria? I'd like to see the reaction of the police to my 'theories' too. It is really tricky to find out a way to get them to listen.
' Do you live in Syria ? '
What on earth goes on in your mind ? &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
' Do you live in Syria ? '
What on earth goes on in your mind ? &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
You said something about living in the real world.
-
You said something about living in the real world.
....and that says it all about you.
-
Well the "fact" I have discovered in the last 24 hours is that ROB admits doing checks in the McCann's apartment yet there is no evidence the McCanns were aware that this was happening. That is a fact that has not been discussed on the internet yet you, G-Unit, seemed to be aware of that fact before I posted it.
That's because I have read all the statements. More than once. ROB also says he took Matthew's key and checked his child, but neither Matthew or Rachael mention him ever checking their child. According to Gerry his apartment was locked on Sunday so ROB couldn't have entered via the patio doors;
That they left the house by the main door, that he was sure he locked, it being that the rear door was also closed and locked. They were the first to arrive at the TAPAS where everyone showed up except only for MATHEW, who was still ill.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Only on Wednesday did Gerry mention leaving the patio door open;
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Dave, of course, is adamant that he never checked any children, not even his own. Of the others only ROB says he did so but even then only once and on a day when it seems unlikely that it could have happened because the doors were locked. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the reason for leaving the door unlocked was for 'checking colleagues'.
-
Wasn't it more a ease of access thing. Instead of walking all the way around to the front door, just a quick dart up to the patio door. OK he does say for his colleagues so maybe he was aware that ROB was checking his children at the same time as checking his own. It certainly isn't proven, and then how can we be sure ROB didn't check on the Kids on Thursday night as well?
-
Wasn't it more a ease of access thing. Instead of walking all the way around to the front door, just a quick dart up to the patio door. OK he does say for his colleagues so maybe he was aware that ROB was checking his children at the same time as checking his own. It certainly isn't proven, and then how can we be sure ROB didn't check on the Kids on Thursday night as well?
Are you suggesting that these careful, cautious loving parents put their own convenience before the safety of their children? Leaving a door unlocked to save themselves a bit of time?
No, it was left unlocked for the children's benefit so they could be checked by colleagues in addition to the checks made every 30 minutes by their parents!
None of the colleagues agreed with this of course, all strenuously denying they ever entered the McCann's apartment except ROB, and his Sunday check raises more questions than answers when it's compared with the facts according to his colleagues.
It is such conflicting and confusing statements which aroused the suspicions of the authorities and which have subsequently been highlighted by online posters.
-
Are you suggesting that these careful, cautious loving parents put their own convenience before the safety of their children? Leaving a door unlocked to save themselves a bit of time?
No, it was left unlocked for the children's benefit so they could be checked by colleagues in addition to the checks made every 30 minutes by their parents!
None of the colleagues agreed with this of course, all strenuously denying they ever entered the McCann's apartment except ROB, and his Sunday check raises more questions than answers when it's compared with the facts according to his colleagues.
It is such conflicting and confusing statements which aroused the suspicions of the authorities and which have subsequently been highlighted by online posters.
IMO one of the main reasons they left the patio door unlocked was because it meant they could gain access to 5A in under 60 seconds rather than having to go the much longer way round - and therefore take longer.
This is a very human way of dealing with distances. People will almost always take the short cut - when given the choice.
My postman always jumps over the low wall separating my path from my next door neighbours - rather than have to go back down my path and then up their path. He could trip and break his leg doing it - but I'm sure as with most people he doesn't believe for a moment that will happen to him. That's another human trait - people always think 'nasty stuff' only happens to other people. Hence ... 'I never thought this could happen to me/us' .. being a familiar comment. Irrational but true.
But obviously as the McCanns have been excluded from the rest of the human race with all it's flaws by some - that doesn't apply to them. Nothing short of total perfection at all times - both as people and parents is allowed.
Also totally irrational.
AIMHO
-
IMO one of the main reasons they left the patio door unlocked was because it meant they could gain access to 5A in under 60 seconds rather than having to go the much longer way round - and therefore take longer.
This is a very human way of dealing with distances. People will almost always take the short cut - when given the choice.
My postman always jumps over the low wall separating my path from my next door neighbours - rather than have to go back down my path and then up their path. He could trip and break his leg doing it - but I'm sure as with most people he doesn't believe for a moment that will happen to him. That's another human trait - people always think 'nasty stuff' only happens to other people. Hence ... 'I never thought this could happen to me/us' .. being a familiar comment. Irrational but true.
But obviously as the McCanns have been excluded from the rest of the human race with all it's flaws by some - that doesn't apply to them. Nothing short of total perfection at all times - both as people and parents is allowed.
Also totally irrational.
AIMHO
You and others have been asked this question before.
The McCann's claim they thought the resort safe.
Yet they locked the apartment during the day, yet left it effectively unlocked at night.
Can you or someone else provide the rationale behind that, with no more evasion or diversion.
-
IMO one of the main reasons they left the patio door unlocked was because it meant they could gain access to 5A in under 60 seconds rather than having to go the much longer way round - and therefore take longer.
This is a very human way of dealing with distances. People will almost always take the short cut - when given the choice.
My postman always jumps over the low wall separating my path from my next door neighbours - rather than have to go back down my path and then up their path. He could trip and break his leg doing it - but I'm sure as with most people he doesn't believe for a moment that will happen to him. That's another human trait - people always think 'nasty stuff' only happens to other people. Hence ... 'I never thought this could happen to me/us' .. being a familiar comment. Irrational but true.
But obviously as the McCanns have been excluded from the rest of the human race with all it's flaws by some - that doesn't apply to them. Nothing short of total perfection at all times - both as people and parents is allowed.
Also totally irrational.
AIMHO
So according to you the others should have unlocked their patio doors to make it quicker for them to check but they didn't lose a child. Madeleine disappeared in suspicious circumstances due to an unlocked door. Why would only they take that unnecessary risk and leave it open for anyone to enter? The window was not used for entry or exit. There is a reason for the unlocked door but not what you think.
-
You and others have been asked this question before.
The McCann's claim they thought the resort safe.
Yet they locked the apartment during the day, yet left it effectively unlocked at night.
Can you or someone else provide the rationale behind that, with no more evasion or diversion.
Benice has already done that:
"one of the main reasons they left the patio door unlocked was because it meant they could gain access to 5A in under 60 seconds rather than having to go the much longer way round - and therefore take longer".
-
Benice has already done that:
"one of the main reasons they left the patio door unlocked was because it meant they could gain access to 5A in under 60 seconds rather than having to go the much longer way round - and therefore take longer".
And why would it matter if it took a few seconds longer? Was it right to further jeopardise the safety of their children for the sake of a few seconds?
-
IMO one of the main reasons they left the patio door unlocked was because it meant they could gain access to 5A in under 60 seconds rather than having to go the much longer way round - and therefore take longer.
This is a very human way of dealing with distances. People will almost always take the short cut - when given the choice.
My postman always jumps over the low wall separating my path from my next door neighbours - rather than have to go back down my path and then up their path. He could trip and break his leg doing it - but I'm sure as with most people he doesn't believe for a moment that will happen to him. That's another human trait - people always think 'nasty stuff' only happens to other people. Hence ... 'I never thought this could happen to me/us' .. being a familiar comment. Irrational but true.
But obviously as the McCanns have been excluded from the rest of the human race with all it's flaws by some - that doesn't apply to them. Nothing short of total perfection at all times - both as people and parents is allowed.
Also totally irrational.
AIMHO
Another one who believes they put their own convenience above the safety of their children. Well well. Of course they never expected an abduction and after almost ten years there's still no reason to believe it happened either.
What they could have expected was a child waking and wandering out onto that balcony. A far less dramatic possibility, but far more likely and easily predicted. Perfection isn't required, just normal parental safety awareness and precautions.
It's irrational to ignore that everyday possibility in my opinion.
-
Benice has already done that:
"one of the main reasons they left the patio door unlocked was because it meant they could gain access to 5A in under 60 seconds rather than having to go the much longer way round - and therefore take longer".
I read that before Alfie.
They locked the apartment during the day.
Unlocked effectively at night.
-
Are you justifying someone kidnapping her from that dreadful situation?
What kidnapping Bob ?
By the way, the tactic of asking me the same question won't wash, unlike cuddlecat.
-
So according to you the others should have unlocked their patio doors to make it quicker for them to check but they didn't lose a child. Madeleine disappeared in suspicious circumstances due to an unlocked door. Why would only they take that unnecessary risk and leave it open for anyone to enter? The window was not used for entry or exit. There is a reason for the unlocked door but not what you think.
Please do not put words into my mouth. I haven't mentioned what other people did or should have done.
Once again you are using hindsight. We know that Madeleine disappeared but it never entered the McCanns heads that someone would come into 5A and abduct their child. The reasons why that didn't occur to them have been given many times - but mainly due to their being lulled into a false sense of security.
IIRC the reason why MW have discontinued the Listening Service is because they did not want to lull their clients into a false sense of security.
The fact that you don't want to accept that and prefer to believe that they knew it was possible their child could be abducted - but still did it - is not my problem.
AIMHO
-
Please do not put words into my mouth. I haven't mentioned what other people did or should have done.
Once again you are using hindsight. We know that Madeleine disappeared but it never entered the McCanns heads that someone would come into 5A and abduct their child. The reasons why that didn't occur to them have been given many times - but mainly due to their being lulled into a false sense of security.
IIRC the reason why MW have discontinued the Listening Service is because they did not want to lull their clients into a false sense of security.
The fact that you don't want to accept that and prefer to believe that they knew it was possible their child could be abducted - but still did it - is not my problem.
AIMHO
They locked the apartment during the day Benice, so nothing you can say about being safe makes sense.
-
I read that before Alfie.
They locked the apartment during the day.
Unlocked effectively at night.
I know Stephen. I guess (and notice it is only a guess) that they felt that because of their proximity to the apartment and their regular checking that it was safe to leave the side door locked, whereas during the day when they were out and about doing activities and not returning to the apartment regularly, they locked it.
-
They locked the apartment during the day Benice, so nothing you can say about being safe makes sense.
They were less than a minute away from the premises while dining and were checking frequently ... during the day the whole family were participating in various activities in the resort.
-
I know Stephen. I guess (and notice it is only a guess) that they felt that because of their proximity to the apartment and their regular checking that it was safe to leave the side door locked, whereas during the day when they were out and about doing activities and not returning to the apartment regularly, they locked it.
SNAP, Alfie.
I think it is a logical conclusion.
-
They were less than a minute away from the premises while dining and were checking frequently ... during the day the whole family were participating in various activities in the resort.
Yet they said they considered the resort safe.
You argument is fundamentally flawed.
-
Yet they said they considered the resort safe.
You argument is fundamentally flawed.
I'm not arguing. Merely stating the facts. It is normal to lock premises on exiting to spend the day elsewhere ... in my opinion ... absolutely no big deal irrespective of the spin you seem espoused to attach to it.
-
Gerry said he used his key in his first statement which suggests that patio door (there are two) was in fact locked at 9. It was unlocked for Kate's next due check (confirmed by Matt because he did it). Matt didn't look inside to see Madeleine but Kate would have - the door is not ajar but open, I will investigate that door. Do you believe Madeleine was in bed at 9:30?
-
I'm not arguing. Merely stating the facts. It is normal to lock premises on exiting to spend the day elsewhere ... in my opinion ... absolutely no big deal irrespective of the spin you seem espoused to attach to it.
I am giving no spin.
I merely related the ilogical claims made to defend their actions.
I leave the spin to you.
-
Another one who believes they put their own convenience above the safety of their children. Well well. Of course they never expected an abduction and after almost ten years there's still no reason to believe it happened either.
What they could have expected was a child waking and wandering out onto that balcony. A far less dramatic possibility, but far more likely and easily predicted. Perfection isn't required, just normal parental safety awareness and precautions.
It's irrational to ignore that everyday possibility in my opinion.
Another one who thinks that parents who don't do exactly what they would do - or think the way they would in the same circumstances are automatically wrong.
IMO it's irrational to go through life looking for danger round every corner, not trusting anyone - and having to have every little thing confirmed before you can believe it. AFAIAC that's verging on paranoia. But each to their own. We are all different.
AIMHO
-
Another one who thinks that parents who don't do exactly what they would do - or think the way they would in the same circumstances are automatically wrong.
IMO it's irrational to go through life looking for danger round every corner, not trusting anyone - and having to have every little thing confirmed before you can believe it. AFAIAC that's verging on paranoia. But each to their own. We are all different.
AIMHO
There is paranoia, and then there's rank stupidity.
The Mccann's displayed the latter.
IMHO of course.
-
Another one who thinks that parents who don't do exactly what they would do - or think the way they would in the same circumstances are automatically wrong.
IMO it's irrational to go through life looking for danger round every corner, not trusting anyone - and having to have every little thing confirmed before you can believe it. AFAIAC that's verging on paranoia. But each to their own. We are all different.
AIMHO
I think it's disgraceful to suggest that parents who behave responsibly and don't leave their children home alone are paranoid. It might give people the impression that it's OK to leave them, which it definitely isn't.
-
Benice has already done that:
"one of the main reasons they left the patio door unlocked was because it meant they could gain access to 5A in under 60 seconds rather than having to go the much longer way round - and therefore take longer".
So purely for the parent's benefit?
-
And why would it matter if it took a few seconds longer? Was it right to further jeopardise the safety of their children for the sake of a few seconds?
They have regretted making that decision, but it was a decision and it backfired but why did it backfire?
-
They have regretted making that decision, but it was a decision and it backfired but why did it backfire?
When we know what happened to her, we might be able to answer that.
-
What kidnapping Bob ?
By the way, the tactic of asking me the same question won't wash, unlike cuddlecat.
Are you justifying someone kidnapping her from that dreadful situation?
Are you justifying Kate washing cuddle cat?
When we know what happened to her, we might be able to answer that.
Exactly that might answer the question "why did it backfire?".
-
So purely for the parent's benefit?
Not purely. Partly. And partly to reduce the amount of time required to gain access to the apartment in case of an emergency.
-
Going by the number of posts here the online persecution is already slowing...excellent
-
Not purely. Partly. And partly to reduce the amount of time required to gain access to the apartment in case of an emergency.
Some mod decided to remove my reply to you for reasons known only to them
My post was saying does it really matter how quick they could get there if they were otu of sight and hearing and sitting dor half an hour in a restaraunt before going over to check....whats the mods problem with that? that is so bad that they deem its removable lol
-
Some mod decided to remove my reply to you for reasons known only to them
My post was saying does it really matter how quick they could get there if they were otu of sight and hearing and sitting dor half an hour in a restaraunt before going over to check....whats the mods problem with that? that is so bad that they deem its removable lol
I've given what I believe to be the McCanns ' rationale for leaving the door unlocked, I think also there was a view on their part that Madeleine could get out and come and find them if she needed to. You are quite at liberty to disagree with their rationale and I'm sure you shall in the most vociferous of terms.
-
I've given what I believe to be the McCanns ' rationale for leaving the door unlocked, I think also there was a view on their part that Madeleine could get out and come and find them if she needed to. You are quite at liberty to disagree with their rationale and I'm sure you shall in the most vociferous of terms.
Their rationale? That a three year old should be given the opportunity to wonder about a strange town in the dark? Shouldn't everyone disagree with that?
-
Their rationale? That a three year old should be given the opportunity to wonder about a strange town in the dark? Shouldn't everyone disagree with that?
Wonder or wander? I don't suppose they wanted Madeleine to wander around town, you'd really have to address that question to them though. They may have simply envisaged Madeleine shouting out to them from the balcony if she needed them, but don't use me as a source, remember I am not the McCanns and cannot know definitely what their rationale was.
-
Wonder or wander? I don't suppose they wanted Madeleine to wander around town, you'd really have to address that question to them though. They may have simply envisaged Madeleine shouting out to them from the balcony if she needed them, but don't use me as a source, remember I am not the McCanns and cannot know definitely what their rationale was.
Shouting to them from the balcony eh? On a wobbly, plastic patio chair so she could see better perhaps? That sounds like an accident waiting to happen, doesn't it?
-
Shouting to them from the balcony eh? On a wobbly, plastic patio chair so she could see better perhaps? That sounds like an accident waiting to happen, doesn't it?
Sure, if you like. So we have Madeleine falling down the patio stairs from a wobbly chair whilst the McCanns are at the Tapas Bar, at what time, in your view?
-
Shouting to them from the balcony eh? On a wobbly, plastic patio chair so she could see better perhaps? That sounds like an accident waiting to happen, doesn't it?
It certainly would be if I stood on a wobbly plastic chair. The thought of it. Were there chairs like you describe on the patio?
-
It certainly would be if I stood on a wobbly plastic chair. The thought of it. Were there chairs like you describe on the patio?
The idea of a fatal accident is balmy unless a car appeared on the patio and knocked her of the chair
-
It certainly would be if I stood on a wobbly plastic chair. The thought of it. Were there chairs like you describe on the patio?
obviously the chairs were wobbly, most only had three legs left, made of the flimsiest bendy plastic, that had mostly rotted away. Well that's in the fantasy world of the "Accidental Death" theorist anyway.
-
The idea of a fatal accident is balmy unless a car appeared on the patio and knocked her of the chair
It doesn't have to be fatal does it. Any accident that requires medical attention is enough for someone to panic and take her away.
obviously the chairs were wobbly, most only had three legs left, made of the flimsiest bendy plastic, that had mostly rotted away. Well that's in the fantasy world of the "Accidental Death" theorist anyway.
Never heard of it before.
-
obviously the chairs were wobbly, most only had three legs left, made of the flimsiest bendy plastic, that had mostly rotted away. Well that's in the fantasy world of the "Accidental Death" theorist anyway.
Plastic chairs on holiday hotel balconies is not exactly uncommon.
-
Where would the Mccanns be without the claim of an unsubstantiated abductor/kidnapper/burglar ?
Up shitte creak without a paddle.
-
Where would the Mccanns be without the claim of an unsubstantiated abductor/kidnapper/burglar ?
Up shitte creak without a paddle.
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/28/british-cops-know-who-snatched-maddie-5848349/
"British cops ‘know who snatched Maddie’"
How likely is this? It seems real quiet on the McCann front isn't it?
I don't believe it.
-
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/28/british-cops-know-who-snatched-maddie-5848349/
"British cops ‘know who snatched Maddie’"
How likely is this? It seems real quiet on the McCann front isn't it?
I don't believe it.
B.S. Story as per usual.
4 coppers in an office reading files. That's about the end of it. A nice little earner and no stress in the job.
-
B.S. Story as per usual.
4 coppers in an office reading files. That's about the end of it. A nice little earner and no stress in the job.
It could be like that, but isn't that libelous?
Do you think it can be solved?
-
It could be like that, but isn't that libelous?
Do you think it can be solved?
Why is that libelous ?
The only way this case will be solved will be by a confession.
-
Why is that libelous ?
The only way this case will be solved will be by a confession.
You made it sound like SY staff were ripping the public off. How are you going to get a confession? Do you think your continual niggle will work?
-
Plastic chairs on holiday hotel balconies is not exactly uncommon.
You don't say. I expect they're all wobbly as well.
-
My plastic garden chairs aren't wobbly.
-
You made it sound like SY staff were ripping the public off. How are you going to get a confession? Do you think your continual niggle will work?
Have SY found how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment ?
Have SY found Madeleine ?
ANSWER : No to both.
As to niggling, you have been doing that from your first day on here.
Don't think your intentions have gone unnoticed.
-
Leave out the personal insults, please. This is not a request.
-
My plastic garden chairs aren't wobbly.
Perhaps a new thread entitled "Just how wobbly were the OC patio chairs?" is in order? I'm sure Rob will oblige... 8(0(*
-
Perhaps a new thread entitled "Just how wobbly were the OC patio chairs?" is in order? I'm sure Rob will oblige... 8(0(*
I presume you mean Alfie, that Rob is keen on the wibbly wobblies. @)(++(*
-
I presume you mean Alfie, that Rob is keen on the wibbly wobblies. @)(++(*
It isn't part of my theory AFAIK.
-
It isn't part of my theory AFAIK.
What theories ?
-
What theories ?
Life is too short to go through that again. I've been here since July and you haven't picked up on my theories yet? (July 09, 2016, 07:56:12 AM) if you want to be precise!
-
Life is too short to go through that again. I've been here since July and you haven't picked up on my theories yet?
I said, what theories ?
Do you get my drift ?
-
My plastic garden chairs aren't wobbly.
I'm sure they would be if someone stood on them and tried leaning over.
-
I said, what theories ?
Do you get my drift ?
I hardly ever get your jokes.
-
I'm sure they would be if someone stood on them and trying to lean over.
Not with the back against the balcony they wouldn't. They wouldn't even tip because the back would stop them.
-
I'm sure they would be if someone stood on them and trying to lean over.
How would someone who had been drugged with some illicit sedative to make them fall into a deep sleep get up moments later to stand on a wobbly chair?
-
Not with the back against the balcony they wouldn't. They wouldn't even tip because the back would stop them.
If it was in front of the small set of railings that were removed at some point I believe, then it would be an accident waiting to happen.
-
If it was in front of the small set of railings that were removed at some point I believe, then it would be an accident waiting to happen.
Weren't the railings removed after Madeleine went missing?
-
I hardly ever get your jokes.
That is precisely how I regard your 'theories'.
-
Weren't the railings removed after Madeleine went missing?
Yes. Now I wonder why that was?
-
Weren't the railings removed after Madeleine went missing?
The railings can be clearly seen in the crime scene photographs ... so if they were removed, and I think that is a moot point, it was definitely after the event.
-
Yes. Now I wonder why that was?
Why did you suggest an accident waiting to happen in relation to Madeleine if you are perfectly well aware there is no suggestion they were not in situ on the third ... therefore no "ifs" about it.
-
That is precisely how I regard your 'theories'.
So you don't get the joke either!
-
So you don't get the joke either!
Don't kid yourself.
I know full well your intentions. 8((()*/
-
Don't kid yourself.
I know full well your intentions. 8((()*/
To get the million dollar reward?
-
Yes. Now I wonder why that was?
Erm,.....Nope, can't think of a single reason. Mayhap you can help. My mind doesn't run to making things up.
-
Yes. Now I wonder why that was?
I wonder who will tell us?
-
Why did you suggest an accident waiting to happen in relation to Madeleine if you are perfectly well aware there is no suggestion they were not in situ on the third ... therefore no "ifs" about it.
I didn't suggest the railings were removed before 3rd of May, I posted that they were removed at some point. My point was that they were obviously of interest to the PJ as they were removed.
-
I didn't suggest the railings were removed before 3rd of May, I posted that they were removed at some point. My point was that they were obviously of interest to the PJ as they were removed.
Please give a cite that the railings had been subject to removal ... and not merely covered by vegetation.
I would imagine that given the saturation media coverage over the relevant period, at least one photographer, journalist or news channel might have managed coverage of the event.
-
I didn't suggest the railings were removed before 3rd of May, I posted that they were removed at some point. My point was that they were obviously of interest to the PJ as they were removed.
Were the railings subject to forensic examination then?
-
Weren't the railings removed after Madeleine went missing?
After Madeleine was abducted?
I'm not sure.
Were the railings removed after Madeleine was abducted?
-
After Madeleine was abducted?
I'm not sure.
Were the railings removed after Madeleine was abducted?
The rules of this forum I believe entails providing cites.
Let's have one to show an abduction happened.
Opinion or hearsay doesn't count.
-
The rules of this forum I believe entails providing cites.
Let's have yet be to show an abduction happened.
Opinion or hearsay doesn't count.
Opinion and hearsay is what far too much of the comment on this board, with the blessing of the almighty, revered and omniscient moderators whom John insists we must slip every disc in our backs genuflecting in obeisance and awe to, consists of.
Meanwhile, the cite from the files and the prosecutors' archiving dispatch that demonstrates the ultimate conclusion of the shelved enquiry that Madeleine was abducted has been trotted out countless times on this board; yet no matter how often it is produced, the likes of you demand that it is produced yet again, as if it has never been seen or heard of before.
Here it is (for the umpteenth time!)
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
(Prosecutors' archiving dispatch).
-
Opinion and hearsay is what far too much of the comment on this board, with the blessing of the almighty, revered and omniscient moderators whom John insists we must slip every disc in our backs genuflecting in obeisance and awe to, consists of.
Meanwhile, the cite from the files and the prosecutors' archiving dispatch that demonstrates the ultimate conclusion of the shelved enquiry that Madeleine was abducted has been trotted out countless times on this board; yet no matter how often it is produced, the likes of you demand that it is produced yet again, as if it has never been seen or heard of before.
Here it is (for the umpteenth time!)
(Prosecutors' archiving dispatch).
...and for the umpteenth time, the crime has not been established, if any.
Why do you pretend otherwise ?
By the way I am familiar with the archiving dispatch.
-
...and for the umpteenth time, the crime has not been established, if any.
Why do you pretend otherwise ?
By the way I am familiar with the archiving dispatch.
That neither Kate, Gerry nor any of their friends have any case to answer has been established.
The prosecutors' archiving dispatch says so.
-
That neither Kate, Gerry nor any of their friends have any case to answer has been established.
The prosecutors' archiving dispatch says so.
The crime, if any , is undetermined.
There is not a shred of evidence to show a third party in the apartment.
Now , once and for all ferryman, who carries the can if there wasn't an abduction/burglary/ kidnapping ?
-
...and for the umpteenth time, the crime has not been established, if any.
Why do you pretend otherwise ?
By the way I am familiar with the archiving dispatch.
You are propagating a theory of the death of a child ~ without evidence ~ promoted by a man who knows nothing of the progress of the case now being investigated by Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria.
If that is the opinion you wish to nurture, that is your privilege.
It is also the privilege of those members who have watched closely the direction the present investigators have followed regarding Madeleine McCann's case since 2011 and to come to their conclusions about the direction that investigation may be following.
As you may no doubt recall, new evidence allowed Madeleine's case to be reopened in 2013.
The fact that the present investigators are looking out as supposed to looking inwards as was done and failed, in 2007 suggests that they too also discarded the theories which have been thoroughly investigated by the Amaral inquiry and the Rebelo inquiry which concluded with Madeleine's case being archived.
Neither investigation produced evidence which associated Madeleine's parents and their friends of any complicity in her disappearance. It is also unsurprising that 'no crime has been established' since the initial Portuguese investigation failed in that respect at the most propitious opportunities for success, also for well rehearsed reasons.
Madeleine remains missing ... and her human rights demand that as long as there is information capable of being followed which might provide the answer to that ... it is appropriate for it to be followed without let or hindrance by people who know nothing of current developments.
Scotland Yard have not discounted the possibility that Madeleine may indeed be alive.
You have your opinion ~ which in my opinion is seriously flawed for reasons well rehearsed on the board ~ similarly other members are clear that they hold opinions similar to yours and other members hold opinions which reflect mine.
It is clear that you seem determined to denigrate all opinions which are not yours.
Please desist.
-
You are propagating a theory of the death of a child ~ without evidence ~ promoted by a man who knows nothing of the progress of the case now being investigated by Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria.
If that is the opinion you wish to nurture, that is your privilege.
It is also the privilege of those members who have watched closely the direction the present investigators have followed regarding Madeleine McCann's case since 2011 and to come to their conclusions about the direction that investigation may be following.
As you may no doubt recall, new evidence allowed Madeleine's case to be reopened in 2013.
The fact that the present investigators are looking out as supposed to looking inwards as was done and failed, in 2007 suggests that they too also discarded the theories which have been thoroughly investigated by the Amaral inquiry and the Rebelo inquiry which concluded with Madeleine's case being archived.
Neither investigation produced evidence which associated Madeleine's parents and their friends of any complicity in her disappearance. It is also unsurprising that 'no crime has been established' since the initial Portuguese investigation failed in that respect at the most propitious opportunities for success, also for well rehearsed reasons.
Madeleine remains missing ... and her human rights demand that as long as there is information capable of being followed which might provide the answer to that ... it is.
Current events suggest that is exactly what is happening.
Scotland Yard have not discounted the possibility that Madeleine may indeed be alive.
You have your opinion ~ which in my opinion is seriously flawed for reasons well rehearsed on the board ~ similarly other members are clear that they hold opinions similar to yours and other members hold opinions which reflect mine.
It is clear that you seem determined to denigrate all opinions which are not yours.
Please desist.
It may have escaped your attention, but none of the theories have been disproved or proved.
SY have said Madeleine may be alive or dead.
Ferryman stated abduction as a fact, WHICH YOU ARE WELL AWARE OF.
Now why have you not told Ferryman to desist from that ?
Is that because of your bias in this case ?
As far as I am and others are concerned, your bias is influencing your judgement on this forum.
So I suggest very nicely, you take your own advice.
P.S. Posters on your side of the fence, denigrate those on the other, yet I have not seen you once address them in the same regard as you address me and others.
You express your views and I will express mine.
By the way, in case you delete this post I have kept a copy, to be sent to the forum owner.
-
Please give a cite that the railings had been subject to removal ... and not merely covered by vegetation.
I would imagine that given the saturation media coverage over the relevant period, at least one photographer, journalist or news channel might have managed coverage of the event.
I believe there is a photograph of it.
-
I believe there is a photograph of it.
I believe the forum discussed the matter fairly recently. However you have stated the railings were removed ... that will require a cite. Thankyou
-
None of those who propose an accident can come up with a scenario that would result in a fatality.
Had Maddie fallen over the railings she would have landed on the bushes below and sustained some scratches and bruises... that's all
-
Yet again, the accidental death scenario remains on the table as one of the viable explanations.
The reality is, none of the scenarios have absolute evidence to confirm or disprove them.
I have , but with the odd exception, never seen Mccann supporters en masse agreeing that other possibilities exist, other than abduction. By not accepting other scenarios......
it leads to ONE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION.
-
Yet again, the accidental death scenario remains on the table as one of the viable explanations.
The reality is, none of the scenarios have absolute evidence to confirm or disprove them.
I have , but with the odd exception, never seen Mccann supporters en masse agreeing that other possibilities exist, other than abduction.
I WONDER WHY. 8)-)))
Accidental death is NOT a viable explanation
No one has been able to come up with a viable scenario
-
Accidental death is NOT a viable explanation
No one has been able to come up with a viable scenario
Accidental Death and viable is a poor choice of words.
-
Accidental Death and viable is a poor choice of words.
No it isn't
And it was Stephen who introduced the two words which you had no problem with until o used them.... showing your bias again
-
You are propagating a theory of the death of a child ~ without evidence ~ promoted by a man who knows nothing of the progress of the case now being investigated by Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria.
If that is the opinion you wish to nurture, that is your privilege.
It is also the privilege of those members who have watched closely the direction the present investigators have followed regarding Madeleine McCann's case since 2011 and to come to their conclusions about the direction that investigation may be following.
As you may no doubt recall, new evidence allowed Madeleine's case to be reopened in 2013.
The fact that the present investigators are looking out as supposed to looking inwards as was done and failed, in 2007 suggests that they too also discarded the theories which have been thoroughly investigated by the Amaral inquiry and the Rebelo inquiry which concluded with Madeleine's case being archived.
Neither investigation produced evidence which associated Madeleine's parents and their friends of any complicity in her disappearance. It is also unsurprising that 'no crime has been established' since the initial Portuguese investigation failed in that respect at the most propitious opportunities for success, also for well rehearsed reasons.
Madeleine remains missing ... and her human rights demand that as long as there is information capable of being followed which might provide the answer to that ... it is appropriate for it to be followed without let or hindrance by people who know nothing of current developments.
Scotland Yard have not discounted the possibility that Madeleine may indeed be alive.
You have your opinion ~ which in my opinion is seriously flawed for reasons well rehearsed on the board ~ similarly other members are clear that they hold opinions similar to yours and other members hold opinions which reflect mine.
It is clear that you seem determined to denigrate all opinions which are not yours.
Please desist.
The PJ have primacy and seem, largely to have kept shtum. The Met, apart from odd "leaks" by Mr Made up Person, seem to also to have kept shtum. Given those constraints following what either are doing would demand an ology in clairvoyancy on the part of those doing the following methinks
-
No it isn't
And it was Stephen who introduced the two words which you had no problem with until o used them.... showing your bias again
Sorry missed that, still was a general comment.
-
Sorry missed that, still was a general comment.
That's ok.. I'm not surprised you don't bother to read Stephens posts
Mine are much more interesting
-
Type A or type B ?
Not too hard to work out. *&*%£
-
Type A or type B ?
Not too hard to work out. *&*%£
I'm type AB and there will be type O as well.
-
I'm type AB and there will be type O as well.
I wasn't referring to blood types Rob.
&%+((£
-
I wasn't referring to blood types Rob.
&%+((£
Neither am I.
I'm a mix of p r o and anti - in the AB group and there will be those with zero opinion at all - the O group.
-
Neither am I.
I'm a mix of p r o and anti - in the AB group and there will be those with zero opinion at all - the O group.
You're still on the wrong track.
-
You're still on the wrong track.
I lost in the thick of it. Help!
-
I lost in the thick of it. Help!
Don't worry Rob, I wasn't referring to you. 8((()*/
-
I lost in the thick of it. Help!
A or B
I think Stephens a C
-
More wind in the house.
Aye. ?>)()<
-
Type A or type B ?
Not too hard to work out. *&*%£
Presuming that you actually know anything about Blood Groups.
-
I believe the forum discussed the matter fairly recently. However you have stated the railings were removed ... that will require a cite. Thankyou
It was discussed here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7538.0.
I believe you yourself acknowledge within the thread that the railings had been removed so please stop wasting the forum and my time by asking for cites that you know are not required.
-
Presuming that you actually know anything about Blood Groups.
Yup.
How about you ? 8)-)))
-
Yup.
How about you ? 8)-)))
Indeed, I do. And I don't need stupid Smillies to tell me otherwise.
Are these silly Smillies the best that you can do?
-
I've given what I believe to be the McCanns ' rationale for leaving the door unlocked, I think also there was a view on their part that Madeleine could get out and come and find them if she needed to. You are quite at liberty to disagree with their rationale and I'm sure you shall in the most vociferous of terms.
Whatever their rationale, it was irresponsible and negligent to treat two and three year olds like that..ie leaving them alone and open to many dangers (including any wierdo having access a possibility played down which is extraordinary in this day and age) where they would not have been in any position whatsoever to deal with, but do carry on though apologising for their actions in some smug superior fashion as is want
No skin off my nose
-
It was discussed here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7538.0.
I believe you yourself acknowledge within the thread that the railings had been removed so please stop wasting the forum and my time by asking for cites that you know are not required.
Where on that thread has it been substantiated that the railing was removed? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7538.0. You have stated on this thread it was. That requires a cite. Thankyou.
-
Where on that thread has it been substantiated that the railing was removed? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7538.0. You have stated on this thread it was. That requires a cite. Thankyou.
' I wonder if the railing was removed for repair at the same time as the metal grille was put on the bedroom window and the small gate to the street replaced with one giving more security and privacy (Pegasus will probably know that)? '
Your post Brietta.
-
' I wonder if the railing was removed for repair at the same time as the metal grille was put on the bedroom window and the small gate to the street replaced with one giving more security and privacy (Pegasus will probably know that)? '
Your post Brietta.
You made a statement ... back it up with a cite ... or withdraw it please.
-
You made a statement ... back it up with a cite ... or withdraw it please.
You posted yourself that the railing had been removed. Why in heaven's name would I need a cite?
-
Did Brietta say that the railing was Removed? I must have missed that.
-
You posted yourself that the railing had been removed. Why in heaven's name would I need a cite?
You have made an unsubstantiated claim which flies in the face of the ethos of this fact based forum ... if you cannot substantiate it with a cite you are morally obliged to remove it. Thankyou
-
You have made an unsubstantiated claim which flies in the face of the ethos of this fact based forum ... if you cannot substantiate it with a cite you are morally obliged to remove it. Thankyou
Why are you removing posts that are neither abusive or libellous?
-
You posted yourself that the railing had been removed. Why in heaven's name would I need a cite?
There is a thread about this, and from photos the railing is there early on but later photos show it has been removed (not visible). No paper work to prove this just photos. Does that count as a cite?
-
There is a thread about this, and from photos the railing is there early on but later photos show it has been removed (not visible). No paper work to prove this just photos. Does that count as a cite?
Absolutely.
-
Absolutely.
Well there were several threads discussing the balustrades
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7503.msg349780#msg349780
and
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7538.msg351230#msg351230
-
Well there were several threads discussing the balustrades
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7503.msg349780#msg349780
and
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7538.msg351230#msg351230
Once again - where is the safety notice warning anyone venturing onto the patio of the hazard??
The railing was not removed, there is no evidence it was removed & there are no forensic tests on it listed in the PJ files. Zero evidence that the railing was abducted for an undetermined period of time.
-
Once again - where is the safety notice warning anyone venturing onto the patio of the hazard??
The railing was not removed, there is no evidence it was removed & there are no forensic tests on it listed in the PJ files. Zero evidence that the railing was abducted for an undetermined period of time.
I agree Misty. After studying the photograph where the railing is not visible I think the growth of the vegetation has merely completely obscured it from view.
Logic dictates ... any activity around the McCann residence would have excited interest. If the railing had been removed for any purpose and later replaced it would have been noticed and an observer would have mentioned it somewhere.
-
Once again - where is the safety notice warning anyone venturing onto the patio of the hazard??
The railing was not removed, there is no evidence it was removed & there are no forensic tests on it listed in the PJ files. Zero evidence that the railing was abducted for an undetermined period of time.
You shouldnt need a safety notice if youre a responsible parent ie one that doesnt leave three toddlers on their own able to go out and fall off a balcony, simples, deary me, jesus also wept
!
-
You shouldnt need a safety notice if youre a responsible parent ie one that doesnt leave three toddlers on their own able to go out and fall off a balcony, simples, deary me, jesus also wept
!
5a was unoccupied at the time of the photo showing the "missing railing" was taken. Perish the thought OC or the PJ be liable for a poor unsuspecting gardener leaning over to trim down the bush whilst standing on the patio, eh?
-
5a was unoccupied at the time of the photo showing the "missing railing" was taken. Perish the thought OC or the PJ be liable for a poor unsuspecting gardener leaning over to trim down the bush whilst standing on the patio, eh?
5a was occupied by 3 yr old madleine mccann on her own with front door unlocked and back door left open
Parents were negligent and took a risk day after day,,,,end of story
-
Indeed, I do. And I don't need stupid Smillies to tell me otherwise.
Are these silly Smillies the best that you can do?
It was sarcasm, as you know full well I teach Science subjects.
Your response indicates anger.
In case you didn't read, yet again I wasn't referring to blood groups.
-
It was sarcasm, as you know full well I teach Science subjects.
Your response indicates anger
Fair enough.
-
There is a thread about this, and from photos the railing is there early on but later photos show it has been removed (not visible). No paper work to prove this just photos. Does that count as a cite?
NOT VISIBLE is the operative word.
We dont know whether it was removed or whether the foliage had grown over the railings thus hiding them. Foliage is VERY lush and fast growing in PT.
-
You shouldnt need a safety notice if youre a responsible parent ie one that doesnt leave three toddlers on their own able to go out and fall off a balcony, simples, deary me, jesus also wept
!
Ocean Club and Mark Warner would NEVER let a flat with the balustrade missing. An accident there showing such negligence could ruin them.
Are you coming up with the cite Faith, or are you withdrawing your assertion ?
-
Have you worked out yet what types A and B, I was referring to ?
-
5a was occupied by 3 yr old madleine mccann on her own with front door unlocked and back door left open
Parents were negligent and took a risk day after day,,,,end of story
Front door was locked. It needed a key to open it.
It was not double locked but it was single locked as you well know.
-
Ocean Club and Mark Warner would NEVER let a flat with the balustrade missing. An accident there showing such negligence could ruin them.
Are you coming up with the cite Faith, or are you withdrawing your assertion ?
It was on the ground floor. Even if there was no balustrade the fall would be minimal.
-
Whatever their rationale, it was irresponsible and negligent to treat two and three year olds like that..ie leaving them alone and open to many dangers (including any wierdo having access a possibility played down which is extraordinary in this day and age) where they would not have been in any position whatsoever to deal with, but do carry on though apologising for their actions in some smug superior fashion as is want
No skin off my nose
8((()*/
-
8((()*/
So the other families who locked their doors were more responsible. What the others did was that acceptable? To leave the kids in locked apartments plus regular checking was that acceptable?
-
It was on the ground floor. Even if there was no balustrade the fall would be minimal.
Sometimes people make statements which display an almost unbelievable level of callousness in my opinion. The apartment was 'ground floor' at the front of the building in the true sense of the word; level with the ground. At the back it was no such thing.
In an average house with 10 ft stories there will be around 13 steps in the staircase. There was a flight of ten steps up to that balcony. Add the balustrade and the fall is very close to one from a bedroom window. Anyone describing as 'minimal' a fall from that balcony onto that hard patio or steps should be made to do it themselves.
(http://c7.alamy.com/comp/CN0W8T/the-apartment-ground-floor-of-the-ocean-club-apartments-praia-da-luz-CN0W8T.jpg)
-
Sometimes people make statements which display an almost unbelievable level of callousness in my opinion. The apartment was 'ground floor' at the front of the building in the true sense of the word; level with the ground. At the back it was no such thing.
In an average house with 10 ft stories there will be around 13 steps in the staircase. There was a flight of ten steps up to that balcony. Add the balustrade and the fall is very close to one from a bedroom window. Anyone describing as 'minimal' a fall from that balcony onto that hard patio or steps should be made to do it themselves.
(http://c7.alamy.com/comp/CN0W8T/the-apartment-ground-floor-of-the-ocean-club-apartments-praia-da-luz-CN0W8T.jpg)
I have fallen from that sort of height, its not funny but it might not kill you. In this case with all the bushes there you'd be hard pressed to fall at all.
-
I have fallen from that sort of height, its not funny but it might not kill you. In this case with all the bushes there you'd be hard pressed to fall at all.
A reasonable point but as pointed out the patio was one storey high. Have you noticed what is on the ground beneath?
-
A reasonable point but as pointed out the patio was one storey high. Have you noticed what is on the ground beneath?
John several months ago you posted that the railings near the patio doors had been removed. Do you still stand by that claim?
-
John several months ago you posted that the railings near the patio doors had been removed. Do you still stand by that claim?
So Maddie died immediately
No one else noticed even though the stairs open on to the road
A ten yr cover up with the parent continually pushing for the case to be reinvestigated
Totally ridiculous
-
I have fallen from that sort of height, its not funny but it might not kill you. In this case with all the bushes there you'd be hard pressed to fall at all.
So you've decided it's not 'minimal' now, have you? I can see landing sites below that balcony that I wouldn't want to risk any child of mine landing on. My son fell off the back of the sofa and concussed himself. My granddaughter fell off a chest of drawers and had to have two operations on her broken arm.
-
So Maddie died immediately
No one else noticed even though the stairs open on to the road
A ten yr cover up with the parent continually pushing for the case to be reinvestigated
Totally ridiculous
Who passed by? What time? Was it daylight or dark? Do people always look into gateways when passing? Could they see the patio if they did? Have you thought that through?
-
So you've decided it's not 'minimal' now, have you? I can see landing sites below that balcony that I wouldn't want to risk any child of mine landing on. My son fell off the back of the sofa and concussed himself. My granddaughter fell off a chest of drawers and had to have two operations on her broken arm.
Crikey! where were you when these accidents occurred?!
-
Who passed by? What time? Was it daylight or dark? Do people always look into gateways when passing? Could they see the patio if they did? Have you thought that through?
Have YOU thought through what happened after Madeleine supposedly fell to her death? Perhaps you would like to do so. I can send you a reminder of the list of improbable events that might have followed after such a mishap, in the opinion of a leading sceptic.
-
Crikey! where were you when these accidents occurred?!
My son was just school age but stayed home with a cough and cold. I was doing normal things; cleaning, tidying, etc. Accidents happen very quickly; it takes seconds. As I was present I was able to pick him up, see his eyes rolling, notice his drowsiness and help him when he went pale and felt sick. Within 30 minutes he was in A & E being checked and then admitted for overnight observation. What a good job I was there to act quickly.
My daughter was downstairs and my granddaughter was upstairs (quite OK, she was 9 years old). Again, she was very quickly on the spot after the scream and able to act immediately.
Just two examples of normal accidents, and good examples of why adults need to be present in the home with their children.
-
Have YOU thought through what happened after Madeleine supposedly fell to her death? Perhaps you would like to do so. I can send you a reminder of the list of improbable events that might have followed after such a mishap, in the opinion of a leading sceptic.
If that happened (and there's no reason why it couldn't have) what happened next was entirely in the hands of those who found her. All I can say with certainty is that any such accident wasn't reported.
-
If that happened (and there's no reason why it couldn't have) what happened next was entirely in the hands of those who found her. All I can say with certainty is that any such accident wasn't reported.
There is every reason to think it didn't happen
-
Please don't re-post a close variant of material that moderators have removed from this thread already.
*&(+(+
-
Have YOU thought through what happened after Madeleine supposedly fell to her death? Perhaps you would like to do so. I can send you a reminder of the list of improbable events that might have followed after such a mishap, in the opinion of a leading sceptic.
No clue whether G-Unit has, but I have and my thoughts are not allowed.
-
There is every reason to think it didn't happen
I notice you don't feel confident enough to dismiss the possibility completely.
-
Have YOU thought through what happened after Madeleine supposedly fell to her death? Perhaps you would like to do so. I can send you a reminder of the list of improbable events that might have followed after such a mishap, in the opinion of a leading sceptic.
It seems that thoughts are not allowed on this.
Apparently there is one, official, 'line' that is 'allowed'; any contrary thoughts will be censured.
Marvellous ....
-
A reasonable point but as pointed out the patio was one storey high. Have you noticed what is on the ground beneath?
It is less than half a story high if you look at the photograph. Underneath the bit with the hedge looks like soil.
-
I notice you don't feel confident enough to dismiss the possibility completely.
There are heaps of reasons to be far in excess of 95% confident it didn't happen, censured from discussion on this board.
-
So you've decided it's not 'minimal' now, have you? I can see landing sites below that balcony that I wouldn't want to risk any child of mine landing on. My son fell off the back of the sofa and concussed himself. My granddaughter fell off a chest of drawers and had to have two operations on her broken arm.
As you have experienced it , falls from minimal heights can readily be survived. It wasn't from the second, third or fourth floor. There was potential to start a fall from much higher up but you can't get much lower than the ground floor.
-
So you've decided it's not 'minimal' now, have you? I can see landing sites below that balcony that I wouldn't want to risk any child of mine landing on. My son fell off the back of the sofa and concussed himself. My granddaughter fell off a chest of drawers and had to have two operations on her broken arm.
It would take a much greater height to cause a fatality
I have asked before and there is NO recorded similar accident anywhere in the world
-
If that happened (and there's no reason why it couldn't have) what happened next was entirely in the hands of those who found her. All I can say with certainty is that any such accident wasn't reported.
So you've given no thought whatsoever to what may have happened next, how or why?
-
It seems that thoughts are not allowed on this.
Apparently there is one, official, 'line' that is 'allowed'; any contrary thoughts will be censured.
Marvellous ....
It makes tackling the issue head on nigh on impossible doesn't it? But then that's a huge advantage for one side, they can pick away at the minutiae, having their "doubts", puzzling over the minor discrepancies, but never actually being forced to try and join any dots. Frustrating!
-
My son was just school age but stayed home with a cough and cold. I was doing normal things; cleaning, tidying, etc. Accidents happen very quickly; it takes seconds. As I was present I was able to pick him up, see his eyes rolling, notice his drowsiness and help him when he went pale and felt sick. Within 30 minutes he was in A & E being checked and then admitted for overnight observation. What a good job I was there to act quickly.
My daughter was downstairs and my granddaughter was upstairs (quite OK, she was 9 years old). Again, she was very quickly on the spot after the scream and able to act immediately.
Just two examples of normal accidents, and good examples of why adults need to be present in the home with their children.
Neither of my kids has ever had to be rushed to A & E - not bad going for a child neglect supporter, eh? 8(0(*
-
Neither of my kids has ever had to be rushed to A & E - not bad going for a child neglect supporter, eh? 8(0(*
But not a child neglector ?{)(**
-
So you've given no thought whatsoever to what may have happened next, how or why?
If the emergency services couldn't be called for some reason another solution had to be found. Unless a solution was found terrible consequences would follow. A case of 'needs must when the Devil drives'
-
Neither of my kids has ever had to be rushed to A & E - not bad going for a child neglect supporter, eh? 8(0(*
You 'support' child neglect, do you? How does that work? Do you support all child neglectors or just a select few?
-
You 'support' child neglect, do you? How does that work? Do you support all child neglectors or just a select few?
Are you so hide bound that you cannot see different circumstances?
-
Are you so hide bound that you cannot see different circumstances?
What makes you think that?
-
Neither of my kids has ever had to be rushed to A & E - not bad going for a child neglect supporter, eh? 8(0(*
None of mine either
But 2 of gunits
Makes you wonder who is looking after their children properly
-
If the emergency services couldn't be called for some reason another solution had to be found. Unless a solution was found terrible consequences would follow. A case of 'needs must when the Devil drives'
what terrible consequences
Another myth
-
If the emergency services couldn't be called for some reason another solution had to be found. Unless a solution was found terrible consequences would follow. A case of 'needs must when the Devil drives'
Who is thinking this? At Praia da Luz who is thinking this?
-
What seems very apparent after a glance through tonight's threads, is that some Mccann supporters, only have sympathy for the Mccanns.
The Mccanns regret their actions, as they bloody well should, as no one forced them to do what they did in the first place, and hindsight by expressing regret, is no excuse for their failures.
I also noted comments about supporting the Mccanns, implying those doing it, are bad parents themselves. That doesn't follow. However, I've got little time who won't criticize the Mccanns for what they clearly did wrong.
I've also seen, on here and elsewhere, criticism of those backing Amaral. That includes attacks on the morals and ethics of those who believe his hypothesis. So those attacking him can hardly complain if the tables are turned.
The bickering at the moment on this forum, is a preclude to the decision by the Portuguese Supreme Court. May that happen sooner rather than later.
-
What seems very apparent after a glance through tonight's threads, is that some Mccann supporters, only have sympathy for the Mccanns.
The Mccanns regret their actions, as they bloody well should, as no one forced them to do what they did in the first place, and hindsight by expressing regret, is no excuse for their failures.
I also noted comments about supporting the Mccanns, implying those doing it, are bad parents themselves. That doesn't follow. However, I've got little time who won't criticize the Mccanns for what they clearly did wrong.
I've also seen, on here and elsewhere, criticism of those backing Amaral. That includes attacks on the morals and ethics of those who believe his hypothesis. So those attacking him can hardly complain if the tables are turned.
The bickering at the moment on this forum, is a preclude to the decision by the Portuguese Supreme Court. May that happen sooner rather than later.
Amaral claims Maddie fell off the sofa and died
The man is an idiot if he thinks that is possible
-
But not a child neglector ?{)(**
Could you explain that comment please?
-
You 'support' child neglect, do you? How does that work? Do you support all child neglectors or just a select few?
Yup, love a good child neglector me.
Sigh.
You're obviously unaware that according to some McCann "sceptics", if you support the McCanns that means you support child neglect.
My comment was a joke. Sorry it went over your head.
-
What seems very apparent after a glance through tonight's threads, is that some Mccann supporters, only have sympathy for the Mccanns.
The Mccanns regret their actions, as they bloody well should, as no one forced them to do what they did in the first place, and hindsight by expressing regret, is no excuse for their failures.
I also noted comments about supporting the Mccanns, implying those doing it, are bad parents themselves. That doesn't follow. However, I've got little time who won't criticize the Mccanns for what they clearly did wrong.
I've also seen, on here and elsewhere, criticism of those backing Amaral. That includes attacks on the morals and ethics of those who believe his hypothesis. So those attacking him can hardly complain if the tables are turned.
The bickering at the moment on this forum, is a preclude to the decision by the Portuguese Supreme Court. May that happen sooner rather than later.
I was going to remove that post for being off topic. Then I realised it is far from it ... it is actually a perfect example of the mindset that fuels the flame of prejudice.
Madeleine McCann's plight just isn't going to be addressed in any way by such negativity ... only positive and loving action such as that taken by the parents who conceived her in love and bore her in love can assist her.
What they have done has resulted in the success of having her case reopened giving some hope for her.
What has the hatred achieved ... apart from corrupting those who nurture it in their bosoms?
In anticipation of the usual rejoinder ... the person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and who appears to have dropped off the opprobrium radar, is the person who stole her.
It is worth bearing that in mind.
-
You can't beat unkindness because it has no care beyond a fixed opinion.
-
I was going to remove that post for being off topic. Then I realised it is far from it ... it is actually a perfect example of the mindset that fuels the flame of prejudice.
Madeleine McCann's plight just isn't going to be addressed in any way by such negativity ... only positive and loving action such as that taken by the parents who conceived her in love and bore her in love can assist her.
What they have done has resulted in the success of having her case reopened giving some hope for her.
What has the hatred achieved ... apart from corrupting those who nurture it in their bosoms?
In anticipation of the usual rejoinder ... the person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and who appears to have dropped off the opprobrium radar, is the person who stole her.
It is worth bearing that in mind.
All I see in your response is the same old mantra, typed out again and again.
I see hatred in your posts. Hatred of anyone who doesn't believe the Mccanns version of events, and thereby you try to undermine people by your criticisms. it won't work.
I'm afraid your pro-Mccann support ran stale a long time ago, and anyone taking the time to read about what actually happened will see exactly what you are up to.
It is also worth bearing in mind, it is not known if anyone stole/kidnapped Madeleine.
That is the propaganda machine at work again, and that wore thin years ago.
It hasn't been established with any certainty whatsoever, what happened to her, and it you pretend otherwise, you are deluded.
A point of fact which you got wrong, Madeleine was conceived by IVF.
Decent parents, would never have placed her or her siblings in danger in the first place.
By the way, as I said yesterday to you, IMO, you are overstepping the mark in moderating, letting your personal views get in the way of being even handed.
Copies of my posts are being kept, and removing them here would only result in them being posted elsewhere.
-
I was going to remove that post for being off topic. Then I realised it is far from it ... it is actually a perfect example of the mindset that fuels the flame of prejudice.
Madeleine McCann's plight just isn't going to be addressed in any way by such negativity ... only positive and loving action such as that taken by the parents who conceived her in love and bore her in love can assist her.
What they have done has resulted in the success of having her case reopened giving some hope for her.
What has the hatred achieved ... apart from corrupting those who nurture it in their bosoms?
In anticipation of the usual rejoinder ... the person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and who appears to have dropped off the opprobrium radar, is the person who stole her.
It is worth bearing that in mind.
You do say the funniest of things at times.
-
If the emergency services couldn't be called for some reason another solution had to be found. Unless a solution was found terrible consequences would follow. A case of 'needs must when the Devil drives'
A most oblique answer but still, I understand the constraints you are under. I'd be very grateful if you would sketch out what you think happened after the child was found dead at the bottom of the stairs and PM it to me. I will not divulge your theory to a soul without your permission. I'm assuming you have a plausible and coherent narrative that makes perfect sense and fits all the evidence? I have been waiting ten years to read just such a theory of parental involvement so please put me out of my misery asap. 8((()*/
-
It makes tackling the issue head on nigh on impossible doesn't it? But then that's a huge advantage for one side, they can pick away at the minutiae, having their "doubts", puzzling over the minor discrepancies, but never actually being forced to try and join any dots. Frustrating!
That's the difference, one side have made their mind up it was abduction, the other side has doubts and possibilities, and admit to not knowing what happened. You just have to
live with it.
-
That's the difference, one side have made their mind up it was abduction, the other side has doubts and possibilities, and admit to not knowing what happened. You just have to
live with it.
I think you should have posted that there are 3 sides - those who believe an abduction occurred, those who believe only the parents were responsible for all events and those who just really can't form a definite opinion.
Whilst I am 95% sure that an abduction did occur, the remaining 5% of my mind says Madeleine may well have opened & climbed out the window herself, wandered to an unknown place & met an accidental death & the CSI did a rubbish job on the window handle prints.I'm not sure how much persecution the parents would warrant in that scenario.
-
That's the difference, one side have made their mind up it was abduction, the other side has doubts and possibilities, and admit to not knowing what happened. You just have to
live with it.
Doubts and possibiliries, did you say? 8**8:/: @)(++(* 8(>((
-
A most oblique answer but still, I understand the constraints you are under. I'd be very grateful if you would sketch out what you think happened after the child was found dead at the bottom of the stairs and PM it to me. I will not divulge your theory to a soul without your permission. I'm assuming you have a plausible and coherent narrative that makes perfect sense and fits all the evidence? I have been waiting ten years to read just such a theory of parental involvement so please put me out of my misery asap. 8((()*/
All I have ever said is that a fatal fall was possible. The balcony was high enough and the steps and patio were hard enough for an unsupervised child to fall and to have a very bad landing. Madeleine was able to access the balcony during the early evening of 3rd May when her father was playing tennis and her mother was in the bathroom showering. She was also able to access the balcony from 8.30 pm. Dying from a fall is more common than being abducted by a stranger.
39% of all children’s accidents are from falling. 10 children die each year from falling through a window or off a balcony
http://www.childalert.co.uk/safety.php?tab=Safety
-
All I have ever said is that a fatal fall was possible. The balcony was high enough and the steps and patio were hard enough for an unsupervised child to fall and to have a very bad landing. Madeleine was able to access the balcony during the early evening of 3rd May when her father was playing tennis and her mother was in the bathroom showering. She was also able to access the balcony from 8.30 pm. Dying from a fall is more common than being abducted by a stranger.
39% of all children’s accidents are from falling. 10 children die each year from falling through a window or off a balcony
http://www.childalert.co.uk/safety.php?tab=Safety
your claim thta this balcony was high enough is totally without validity .
The falls you claim occur from much greater heights....tower blocks and rarely second story....All the falls from balconies involve tower blocks so in fact abduction is more likely
-
your claim thta this balcony was high enough is totally without validity .
The falls you claim occur from much greater heights....tower blocks and rarely second story....All the falls from balconies involve tower blocks so in fact abduction is more likely
The greater the height the greater the risk of death, but the surface you land on and how you land are also significant factors. A fall onto a hard patio or steps and landing on your head, for example.
-
The greater the height the greater the risk of death, but the surface you land on and how you land are also significant factors. A fall onto a hard patio or steps and landing on your head, for example.
the figure you quote relate in no way to the maddie situation...the balcony falls are from high rise flats. if thats the best you can come up with it is a massive fail and simply proves my point that there was no accidental death
-
the figure you quote relate in no way to the maddie situation...the balcony falls are from high rise flats. if thats the best you can come up with it is a massive fail and simply proves my point that there was no accidental death
There still could have been an accident though. It doesn't have to be a death, but if she suffered an accident this could mean she is taken for medical attention.
-
There still could have been an accident though. It doesn't have to be a death, but if she suffered an accident this could mean she is taken for medical attention.
taken where ...and by whom
-
taken where ...and by whom
There was that caring couple that consoled Madeleine the night before she went missing. Did they come back the following night and find that she had an accident and in a panic took her to LuzDoc, but found it shut. By Smithman (the initial Smithman before the two E-fits were made).
OR
There was that caring couple that consoled Madeleine the night before she went missing. Did they come back the following night and found Madeleine lying outside the apartment and thought she had an accident and in a panic took her to LuzDoc, but found it shut. By Smithman (the initial Smithman before the two E-fits were made).
Somehow they get into a state that they can't give her back.
-
the figure you quote relate in no way to the maddie situation...the balcony falls are from high rise flats. if thats the best you can come up with it is a massive fail and simply proves my point that there was no accidental death
You can't prove it didn't happen though.
-
Doubts and possibiliries, did you say? 8**8:/: @)(++(* 8(>((
Illuminati, illuminati and yet more illuminati. 8**8:/:
-
That's the difference, one side have made their mind up it was abduction, the other side has doubts and possibilities, and admit to not knowing what happened. You just have to
live with it.
Not quite right. One side blieve abduction is the most logical and plausible explanation, the other side seem to view abduction as the least likely logical or plausible explanation.
-
All I have ever said is that a fatal fall was possible. The balcony was high enough and the steps and patio were hard enough for an unsupervised child to fall and to have a very bad landing. Madeleine was able to access the balcony during the early evening of 3rd May when her father was playing tennis and her mother was in the bathroom showering. She was also able to access the balcony from 8.30 pm. Dying from a fall is more common than being abducted by a stranger.
39% of all children’s accidents are from falling. 10 children die each year from falling through a window or off a balcony
http://www.childalert.co.uk/safety.php?tab=Safety
Falls don't cause people to vanish into thin air, so your speculation is somewhat incomplete.
-
You can't prove it didn't happen though.
celestial teapot anyone?
-
You can't prove it didn't happen though.
And you cannot prove that Maddie was not abducted by an alien spacecraft which shows how weak your argument is
-
There was that caring couple that consoled Madeleine the night before she went missing. Did they come back the following night and find that she had an accident and in a panic took her to LuzDoc, but found it shut. By Smithman (the initial Smithman before the two E-fits were made).
OR
There was that caring couple that consoled Madeleine the night before she went missing. Did they come back the following night and found Madeleine lying outside the apartment and thought she had an accident and in a panic took her to LuzDoc, but found it shut. By Smithman (the initial Smithman before the two E-fits were made).
Somehow they get into a state that they can't give her back.
So an abduction
-
There was that caring couple that consoled Madeleine the night before she went missing. Did they come back the following night and find that she had an accident and in a panic took her to LuzDoc, but found it shut. By Smithman (the initial Smithman before the two E-fits were made).
OR
There was that caring couple that consoled Madeleine the night before she went missing. Did they come back the following night and found Madeleine lying outside the apartment and thought she had an accident and in a panic took her to LuzDoc, but found it shut. By Smithman (the initial Smithman before the two E-fits were made).
Somehow they get into a state that they can't give her back.
...and not one iota of evidence to show an abduction/kidnapping ever took place.
The truth is, there is insufficient evidence of anything.
...and I can't see a confession happening at this stage.
-
celestial teapot anyone?
GU's scenario is absolutely possible.
You go on holiday and leave your children alone night after night and one meets with a fatal accident. Now through your job you know how concerned the authorities back home would be with your lack of supervision of the children and you have no clue precisely how the law deals with a case like this in the country you are holidaying in.
From humble beginnings you have fought your way to get to the lofty heights you have in your profession, value your position and lifestyle and have some idea how a imagined charge of child neglect may impinge on both.
Conceiving your remaining children was not easy and they are much loved. You are aware that children left in similar situations have been taken into care in your own country. You have no idea if the same is true in the country you are holidaying in.
You can see how these elements would panic anyone into a course of action that, with time and hindsight, they may never have taken.
-
And you cannot prove that Maddie was not abducted by an alien spacecraft which shows how weak your argument is
You can't prove that she was abducted by a stranger, so we're all in the same boat it seems.
-
GU's scenario is absolutely possible.
You go on holiday and leave your children alone night after night and one meets with a fatal accident. Now through your job you know how concerned the authorities back home would be with your lack of supervision of the children and you have no clue precisely how the law deals with a case like this in the country you are holidaying in.
From humble beginnings you have fought your way to get to the lofty heights you have in your profession, value your position and lifestyle and have some idea how a imagined charge of child neglect may impinge on both.
Conceiving your remaining children was not easy and they are much loved. You are aware that children left in similar situations have been taken into care in your own country. You have no idea if the same is true in the country you are holidaying in.
You can see how these elements would panic anyone into a course of action that, with time and hindsight, they may never have taken.
People who are panicked into the course of action you believe followed seldom evade justice for very long. Panic is really not a good mode to be in when trying to cover up an illicit deed. It seems you believe the McCanns were panicked into committing the perfect crime, leaving no trace of the body and no evidence that they dunnit. But you are off the point I was making, ie: Celestial teapot - you can't prove it didn't happen.
-
You can't prove that she was abducted by a stranger, so we're all in the same boat it seems.
No, a similar boat would be Davel asking you to prove an abduction didn't happen.
-
People who are panicked into the course of action you believe followed seldom evade justice for very long. Panic is really not a good mode to be in when trying to cover up an illicit deed. It seems you believe the McCanns were panicked into committing the perfect crime, leaving no trace of the body and no evidence that they dunnit. But you are off the point I was making, ie: Celestial teapot - you can't prove it didn't happen.
Indeed panic isn't a good mode but panic is never a choice.
Just because you have evaded justice for a time does not necessarily mean you will evade justice forever. Ask Billy Dunlop.
-
There was that caring couple that consoled Madeleine the night before she went missing. Did they come back the following night and find that she had an accident and in a panic took her to LuzDoc, but found it shut. By Smithman (the initial Smithman before the two E-fits were made).
OR
There was that caring couple that consoled Madeleine the night before she went missing. Did they come back the following night and found Madeleine lying outside the apartment and thought she had an accident and in a panic took her to LuzDoc, but found it shut. By Smithman (the initial Smithman before the two E-fits were made).
Somehow they get into a state that they can't give her back.
To go to Luzdocs, Smithman had to turn right out of Rua d'Escola on to Rua April 25.
He didn't, he turned left or maybe went straight on. That is proved in Aoifes statement where she describes Smithman coming towards her on her left side. In other words Smithman had his back to Luzdoc. He was walking away from it.
No, you are definitely wrong on this one Rob
-
You can't prove that she was abducted by a stranger, so we're all in the same boat it seems.
You use the word prove
What level of proof do you expect
Absolute
Criminal
Civil
You need to be more precise
Fact is you have not even considered that important question
-
I doubt there will ever be any proof of anything -other than that she disappeared.
-
Indeed panic isn't a good mode but panic is never a choice.
Just because you have evaded justice for a time does not necessarily mean you will evade justice forever. Ask Billy Dunlop.
In order for your theory to turn out to be true it will mean that a series of more than a dozen highly improbable events occurred in quick succession. On that basis anyone with an ounce of sense would have to conclude it didn't happen the way you think it did. So, we need another theory. Can anyone oblige?
-
In order for your theory to turn out to be true it will mean that a series of more than a dozen highly improbable events occurred in quick succession. On that basis anyone with an ounce of sense would have to conclude it didn't happen the way you think it did. So, we need another theory. Can anyone oblige?
Madeleine being abducted in the circumstances you believe happened is also improbable but you still believe it happened. As your post detailing those dozen improbable events was deleted perhaps you could message it to me and we can discuss it further.
-
Indeed panic isn't a good mode but panic is never a choice.
Just because you have evaded justice for a time does not necessarily mean you will evade justice forever. Ask Billy Dunlop.
I've looked up billy Dunlop and it seems he was tried twice and both times the jury couldn't decide if he'd done it. It was only through the dogged determination of the victim's mother never to give up on her child that justice was eventually done, and only then after he confesed. Apart from the mother's determination being similar to Kate McCann's own determined fight for justice for her child I don't really see the parallels.
-
I've looked up billy Dunlop and it seems he was tried twice and both times the jury couldn't decide if he'd done it. It was only through the dogged determination of the victim's mother never to give up on her child that justice was eventually done, and only then after he confesed. Apart from the mother's determination being similar to Kate McCann's own determined fight for justice for her child I don't really see the parallels.
Of course you do.
-
Madeleine being abducted in the circumstances you believe happened is also improbable but you still believe it happened. As your post detailing those dozen improbable events was deleted perhaps you could message it to me and we can discuss it further.
There was an opportunity for Madeleine to have been abducted by a stranger. Slartibartfast has even described how and when it may have occurred and it only took a couple of lines to describe. Completely straight-forward, simple explanation, require no convoluted conspiracies, cover-ups, re-positionings, nothing. I will PM you your theory and discuss it with you too, but the minute you get uppity and nasty with me, the discussion ends. I hope that's understood.
-
Of course you do.
No I don't. You claim the McCanns acted on panic. Then you introduce Billy Dunlop who as far as I'm aware set out to deliberately murder then rape a young woman after he'd killed her in her own home, now perhaps you could tell me what are the parallels as you see them?
-
There was an opportunity for Madeleine to have been abducted by a stranger. Slartibartfast has even described how and when it may have occurred and it only took a couple of lines to describe. Completely straight-forward, simple explanation, require no convoluted conspiracies, cover-ups, re-positionings, nothing. I will PM you your theory and discuss it with you too, but the minute you get uppity and nasty with me, the discussion ends. I hope that's understood.
The actual abduction would be simple, the number of events which made it possible rather more implausible.
As to your last sentence the same rules of engagement apply to you.
-
Amaral claims Maddie fell off the sofa and died
The man is an idiot if he thinks that is possible
And a still bigger idiot for proclaiming the possibility as if 'fact' without a shred of evidence to support it.
-
And a still bigger idiot for proclaiming the possibility as if 'fact' without a shred of evidence to support it.
...and were the idiots in this case , at it's onset ?
Tough question. 8)-)))
-
So an abduction
Would you not call this "an abduction" for they take her, don't own up and either keep her or give her away to someone else.
There was that caring couple that consoled Madeleine the night before she went missing. Did they come back the following night and found Madeleine lying outside the apartment and thought she had an accident and in a panic took her to LuzDoc, but found it shut. By Smithman (the initial Smithman before the two E-fits were made).
Somehow they get into a state that they can't give her back.
I suppose it matters who opened the window and raised the blinds. Was this done by the "caring couple" or someone else?
-
...and were the idiots in this case , at it's onset ?
Tough question. 8)-)))
Sharpening their virtual 'pens' to pour out on-line vitriol and h*te (mostly)
-
Sharpening their virtual 'pens' to pour out on-line vitriol and h*te (mostly)
Really ?
...and what of the hate emanating from the Mccanns ?
Have you forgotten ?
-
To go to Luzdocs, Smithman had to turn right out of Rua d'Escola on to Rua April 25.
He didn't, he turned left or maybe went straight on. That is proved in Aoifes statement where she describes Smithman coming towards her on her left side. In other words Smithman had his back to Luzdoc. He was walking away from it.
No, you are definitely wrong on this one Rob
I'm not so sure that I'm wrong for we had a thread on this topic and I'm sure we have a PJ photo of where Smithman was seen and it is the very corner where LuzDoc is. So he might not need to check the door if it is obvious all the lights are off. John and Pegasus were in agreement from memory.
-
The actual abduction would be simple, the number of events which made it possible rather more implausible.
As to your last sentence the same rules of engagement apply to you.
Not according to the Met.
-
Not according to the Met.
The debate is between you two, not the Met.
-
The debate is between you two, not the Met.
I think there was a window of opportunity for Madeleine to have been taken by a stranger, and the Met happen to agree. Is that better?
-
I think there was a window of opportunity for Madeleine to have been taken by a stranger, and the Met happen to agree. Is that better?
Russel comes back and Janes goes back up to their apartment, so there is not much opportunity close to 10:00 PM, but Matt leaves the McCann's apartment 9:30 or so, which would mean there is opportunity window from 9:30 - 9:45 PM I guess. Is that the window you are looking at?
-
Russel comes back and Janes goes back up to their apartment, so there is not much opportunity close to 10:00 PM, but Matt leaves the McCann's apartment 9:30 or so, which would mean there is opportunity window from 9:30 - 9:45 PM I guess. Is the window you are looking at?
15 minutes is a big window, but sure let's stick with that for now.
-
Russel comes back and Janes goes back up to their apartment, so there is not much opportunity close to 10:00 PM, but Matt leaves the McCann's apartment 9:30 or so, which would mean there is opportunity window from 9:30 - 9:45 PM I guess. Is the window you are looking at?
Less than that, probably, as Jane has to flip-flop her way back up to her apartment before ROB can return for his rapidly cooling steak, and that is after Matt has returned from his check. If he left to check at 9.30, it would be 9.35 ish before he returned and before Jane can set off.
-
Less than that, probably, as Jane has to flip-flop her way back up to her apartment before ROB can return for his rapidly cooling steak, and that is after Matt has returned from his check. If he left to check at 9.30, it would be 9.35 ish before he returned and before Jane can set off.
On the Tapas 9 agreed timeline Matt and Russell do their check at 9:25 PM. so don't delay the start time to 9:30 or any other time.
-
Here's a challenge for you Robbity - to create 15 different plans of the OC one for each of the minutes between 9.30 and 9.45 pm mapping the relative positions of each of the 9 Tapas group as we can best guess them from the statements. That should help identify the actual window. ?{)(**
-
On the Tapas 9 agreed timeline Matt and Russell do their check at 9:25 PM. so don't delay the start time to 9:30 or any other time.
Very precise, that 9.25, for a group who seemed to have no real idea of time throughout the evening.
-
I would say there is proof on the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt that an abduction took place
The problem is that some posters on here use the word proof and don't understand what it means
-
Here's a challenge for you Robbity - to create 15 different plans of the OC one for each of the minutes between 9.30 and 9.45 pm mapping the relative positions of each of the 9 Tapas group as we can best guess them from the statements. That should help identify the actual window. ?{)(**
There isn't enough information to do that. But you can say who we know was up and around 5A.
Very precise, that 9.25, for a group who seemed to have no real idea of time throughout the evening.
It is possible for it has quite a lot of agreement.
-
There isn't enough information to do that. But you can say who we know was up and around 5A.
It is possible for it has quite a lot of agreement.
I think you could have a good stab at it. I'd have a go but I don't have either the time or the computer expertise necessary to create 15 separate plans and post each one on this forum.
-
I think you could have a good stab at it. I'd have a go but I don't have either the time or the computer expertise necessary to create 15 separate plans and post each one on this forum.
I'll look into it, but I have already considered it and there isn't enough observations to know what people were doing.
I think HiDeHo has completed something like this. I'll see if I can find it. It would take a month or so to complete.
-
I would say there is proof on the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt that an abduction took place
The problem is that some posters on here use the word proof and don't understand what it means
There is certainly proof of absence. There is no proof of anything else.
Therefore I agree with you that the balance of probabilities leaving no room for reasonable doubt is that an abduction took place.
I would go further and say that since there is no proof of her death, it is to be hoped that Madeleine is alive.
-
There is certainly proof of absence. There is no proof of anything else.
Therefore I agree with you that the balance of probabilities leaving no room for reasonable doubt is that an abduction took place.
I would go further and say that since there is no proof of her death, it is to be hoped that Madeleine is alive.
That would depend very much on why she was taken.
-
There is certainly proof of absence. There is no proof of anything else.
Therefore I agree with you that the balance of probabilities leaving no room for reasonable doubt is that an abduction took place.
I would go further and say that since there is no proof of her death, it is to be hoped that Madeleine is alive.
Could you tell me what you mean by proof
No one apart from me is willing to define what they mean
-
There is certainly proof of absence. There is no proof of anything else.
Therefore I agree with you that the balance of probabilities leaving no room for reasonable doubt is that an abduction took place.
I would go further and say that since there is no proof of her death, it is to be hoped that Madeleine is alive.
I don't agree Brietta, there is as much a possibility of her having woken up and wandered and met with some misfortune or other as there is of any abduction. A independently uncorroborated claim of an opened shutter and window is not proof of an abduction.
-
I don't agree Brietta, there is as much a possibility of her having woken up and wandered and met with some misfortune or other as there is of any abduction. A independently uncorroborated claim of an opened shutter and window is not proof of an abduction.
It evidence leading to proof on the balance of probabilities John
And you are another one using the word proof without thinking what you mean
-
I don't agree Brietta, there is as much a possibility of her having woken up and wandered and met with some misfortune or other as there is of any abduction. A independently uncorroborated claim of an opened shutter and window is not proof of an abduction.
Quite simply John
If the McCanns are telling the truth the window was open and Maddie was abducted
-
I don't agree Brietta, there is as much a possibility of her having woken up and wandered and met with some misfortune or other as there is of any abduction. A independently uncorroborated claim of an opened shutter and window is not proof of an abduction.
As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely physically – and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared.
Joao Carlos, final PJ report.
-
I would say there is proof on the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt that an abduction took place
The problem is that some posters on here use the word proof and don't understand what it means
Is that statement based on the English Civil Law "Balance of Probabilities" ?
Even so it is a requirement that evidence must be weighed; so on what evidence do you base your opinion?
-
Is that statement based on the English Civil Law "Balance of Probabilities" ?
Even so it is a requirement that evidence must be weighed; so on what evidence do you base your opinion?
I've already laid out in detail the evidence
The fact is that other posters are using the term proof to mean absolute proof which is an impossible level to prove and is not required even in courts
-
In this case, the probability is not a mathematical one, but is based on opinion. This opinion may be correct or incorrect, we have no way of knowing.
-
Quite simply John
If the McCanns are telling the truth the window was open and Maddie was abducted
And if they are not ?
-
And if they are not ?
at last a decent question...
after 10 yrs there has not been sufficient evidence found to even arrest the mccanns.....that would suggest...on the balance of probabilities they are innocent.
colin stagg was arrested ...charged and tried on evidence found against him yet was completely innocent
-
To be fair, there hasn't been enough evidence to arrest anyone. It's not just about the McCann's guilt or innocence.
-
To be fair, there hasn't been enough evidence to arrest anyone. It's not just about the McCann's guilt or innocence.
The McCanns' innocence is beyond all dispute.
-
Many think otherwise.
As no one will be brought to trial, let alone convicted this will never be satisfactorily resolved . IMO
-
To be fair, there hasn't been enough evidence to arrest anyone. It's not just about the McCann's guilt or innocence.
that isnt fair....the fact there is no real evidence against the mccans suggest on the balance of probabilitites they are innocent
-
Many think otherwise.
As no one will be brought to trial, let alone convicted this will never be satisfactorily resolved . IMO
and your opinion like eveyone elses on this forum is worthless
-
that isnt fair....the fact there is no real evidence against the mccans suggest on the balance of probabilitites they are innocent
Of course it is fair. The fact that there is no evidence does not mean that someone is innocent.
Many criminal escape justice because of lack of evidence.
-
and your opinion like eveyone elses on this forum is worthless
I have no problem with that.
It's the McCanns that have the problem in that they will never be free of suspicion of having 'dun it', whatever that is. IMO
-
I've already laid out in detail the evidence
The fact is that other posters are using the term proof to mean absolute proof which is an impossible level to prove and is not required even in courts
I asked you what evidence you had not whether you had posted it before or what, in you opinion, other posters think or do.
So what evidence do you have to back up your claim?
-
I have no problem with that.
It's the McCanns that have the problem in that they will never be free of suspicion of having 'dun it', whatever that is. IMO
That's a tragedy, and it's why they are victims in this too, and it's why people stick up for them. There can only be one thing worse than losing a child and that's losing a child and people thinking you are evil enough to be behind the disappearance of your own beloved child.
IMO.
-
Actions have consequences.
-
Actions have consequences.
And...?
-
One has to live with them.
-
I asked you what evidence you had not whether you had posted it before or what, in you opinion, other posters think or do.
So what evidence do you have to back up your claim?
Start with post 415
That is evidence
-
One has to live with them.
No, you don't have to put up with people wrongly accusing you day in, day out of lying and doing something you didn't do. You seem to be saying that the McCanns deserve to be treated with suspicion and slagged off on the internet every day for the rest of their lives, even if they didn't actually do it. Is that because they didn't get officially punished and therefore the online persecution is the only recourse to meting out punishment available to modern day [ censored word ]s?
-
No, you don't have to put up with people wrongly accusing you day in, day out of lying and doing something you didn't do. You seem to be saying that the McCanns deserve to be treated with suspicion and slagged off on the internet every day for the rest of their lives, even if they didn't actually do it. Is that because they didn't get officially punished and therefore the online persecution is the only recourse to meting out punishment available to modern day [ censored word ]?
Speaking from personal experience I don't think the McCanns wil give a toss what a bunch of idiots on the internet think about them...I am totally sure of that
-
No, you don't have to put up with people wrongly accusing you day in, day out of lying and doing something you didn't do. You seem to be saying that the McCanns deserve to be treated with suspicion and slagged off on the internet every day for the rest of their lives, even if they didn't actually do it. Is that because they didn't get officially punished and therefore the online persecution is the only recourse to meting out punishment available to modern day [ censored word ]?
I'm not saying any such thing.
You may very well be right in your last sentence.
-
Speaking from personal experience I don't think the McCanns wil give a toss what a bunch of idiots on the internet think about them...I am totally sure of that
Yeah, you're probably right, however their kids might not have learned yet how to cope with the online hate directed at their parents.
-
Speaking from personal experience I don't think the McCanns wil give a toss what a bunch of idiots on the internet think about them...I am totally sure of that
Im sure they will be very gratified by your certainty.
-
I'm not saying any such thing.
You may very well be right in your last sentence.
OK, well let's put it this way - the case is solved and an abductor brought to justice, but some hardcore sceptics don't accept the verdict and continue to doubt, and populate forums like this with their doubts. Then is that down to the McCanns' actions or not?
-
OK, well let's put it this way - the case is solved and an abductor brought to justice, but some hardcore sceptics don't accept the verdict and continue to doubt, and populate forums like this with their doubts. Then is that down to the McCanns' actions or not?
We are very much into hypotheticals now and I don't really know the answer, other than I would accept the result.
However, given my age, I consider it unlikely that I shall be around to witness such an eventuality.
-
We are very much into hypotheticals now and I don't really know the answer, other than I would accept the result.
However, given my age, I consider it unlikely that I shall be around to witness such an eventuality.
I know the answer and I base it on the experience of Lindy Chamberlain. Despite being completely exonerated, there is still a vocal group of doubters who continue to slag her off and accuse her of murder. There is absolutely no reason to suppose it would be any different with the McCanns, if anything and because of the case occurring during the internet age (unlike the Azaria Chamberlain case) the hatred and doubting would most likely be more widespread and more intense.
-
I know the answer and I base it on the experience of Lindy Chamberlain. Despite being completely exonerated, there is still a vocal group of doubters who continue to slag her off and accuse her of murder. There is absolutely no reason to suppose it would be any different with the McCanns, if anything and because of the case occurring during the internet age (unlike the Azaria Chamberlain case) the hatred and doubting would most likely be more widespread and more intense.
If what Davel says it true, then they don't give a monkey's anyway.
-
If what Davel says it true, then they don't give a monkey's anyway.
I think we should all care about it frankly because it could happen to any one of us, or our kids. There but for the grace of god and all that. Not that I'm suggesting for one moment any curbs on the freedom of speech or the freedom to hate and bitch to one's heart's content, but perhaps by being aware of the problem and the impact it can have on lives people might consider being a little kinder and a little less judgemental. We have already seen how shit-storms on the internet and in the media can damage those with less robust constitutions. Perhaps coping with social media shaming and online bashing should be taught in schools? And manners and kindness and forgiveness too. ?{)(**
-
Start with post 415
That is evidence
Only evidence that thus far there is insufficient evidence to charge Drs McCann with anything.
Of itself that is not evidence of an abduction. For balance of probablities to win you must show that there is more evidence to support the possibility of abduction than there is evidence to support any other possibility.
-
I think we should all care about it frankly because it could happen to any one of us, or our kids. There but for the grace of god and all that. Not that I'm suggesting for one moment any curbs on the freedom of speech or the freedom to hate and bitch to one's heart's content, but perhaps by being aware of the problem and the impact it can have on lives people might consider being a little kinder and a little less judgemental. We have already seen how shit-storms on the internet and in the media can damage those with less robust constitutions. Perhaps coping with social media shaming and online bashing should be taught in schools? And manners and kindness and forgiveness too. ?{)(**
What else can you expect with the likes of Facebook & Twitter? Moderated forums are much more civilised.
-
What else can you expect with the likes of Facebook & Twitter? Moderated forums are much more civilised.
Erm...not when the witching hour strikes.... @)(++(*
-
Maybe not, but I go to bed early and seem to miss all the good stuff. @)(++(*
-
I think we should all care about it frankly because it could happen to any one of us, or our kids. There but for the grace of god and all that. Not that I'm suggesting for one moment any curbs on the freedom of speech or the freedom to hate and bitch to one's heart's content, but perhaps by being aware of the problem and the impact it can have on lives people might consider being a little kinder and a little less judgemental. We have already seen how shit-storms on the internet and in the media can damage those with less robust constitutions. Perhaps coping with social media shaming and online bashing should be taught in schools? And manners and kindness and forgiveness too. ?{)(**
Whilst not quite what you were suggesting, there is already a law requiring schools to prevent cyber-bullying in the first place, and to dish out punishment to pupils who breach this.
In the only case I am aware of, the school did not appear to care.
-
Could you tell me what you mean by proof
No one apart from me is willing to define what they mean
Entirely off the top of my head ... I would consider proof to be corroborated evidence that an event has taken place substantiated by forensics if necessary.
By the nature of human beings, I would consider eye witness evidence to be valuable but I would consider it proof of an event only if backed up by CCTV or something else substantial and independent.
-
Whilst not quite what you were suggesting, there is already a law requiring schools to prevent cyber-bullying in the first place, and to dish out punishment to pupils who breach this.
In the only case I am aware of, the school did not appear to care.
Schools frequently did/do not. Maybe it is considered part of a growing up process coupled with learning to cope with life in the real world ?
I recall "initiaton ceremonies" and about 20 eleven year olds dumping one of the schools "senior" bullies into intensive care, more than 50 years ago. That was at a Grammar School.
"I grew up quick and I grew up mean my fists got hard and wits got keen......................" J Cash.
-
Entirely off the top of my head ... I would consider proof to be corroborated evidence that an event has taken place substantiated by forensics if necessary.
By the nature of human beings, I would consider eye witness evidence to be valuable but I would consider it proof of an event only if backed up by CCTV or something else substantial and independent.
So 0% on that basis, for abduction.
-
I don't agree Brietta, there is as much a possibility of her having woken up and wandered and met with some misfortune or other as there is of any abduction. A independently uncorroborated claim of an opened shutter and window is not proof of an abduction.
I think had she wandered, she would have been found, dead or alive. The timeline didn't give her much leeway to travel very far so I think she would have been found close to base.
-
So 0% on that basis, for abduction.
0% on that basis, for anything other than missing.
-
Only evidence that thus far there is insufficient evidence to charge Drs McCann with anything.
Of itself that is not evidence of an abduction. For balance of probablities to win you must show that there is more evidence to support the possibility of abduction than there is evidence to support any other possibility.
Let's be a little more honest
There is insufficient evidence to arrest the McCanns never mind charge or bring them to trial
That would suggest on the balance of probabilities they are innocent and therefor Maddie was abducted
-
To be fair, there hasn't been enough evidence to arrest anyone. It's not just about the McCann's guilt or innocence.
Who else was given arguido status apart from Murat?
-
Of course it is fair. The fact that there is no evidence does not mean that someone is innocent.
Many criminal escape justice because of lack of evidence.
Is that sweeping generalisation applicable to Murat?
-
Entirely off the top of my head ... I would consider proof to be corroborated evidence that an event has taken place substantiated by forensics if necessary.
By the nature of human beings, I would consider eye witness evidence to be valuable but I would consider it proof of an event only if backed up by CCTV or something else substantial and independent.
It should not be off the top of your head
There are 3 levels of proof
Absolute
Beyond reasonable doubt
Balance of probabilities
That's it
-
Is that sweeping generalisation applicable to Murat?
Sure, why not?
Only the other day, some paper had to backtrack and issue an apology to him over something or other. No doubt he is stuck with this for life.
-
Who else was given arguido status apart from Murat?
At least 4 other people, who's names I don't know.
-
Who else was given arguido status apart from Murat?
There have been 6 others in the McCann case that I know of.
-
0% on that basis, for anything other than missing.
Yep.
-
At least 4 other people, who's names I don't know.
Do you have any explanation as to why no one has set up Facebook pages, YouTube endeavours and blogs for the purpose of "asking questions" of these individuals, given that their names are in the public domain?
-
Yep.
Because the patio door was unlocked all possibilities have to be considered from wandering off, to caring citizens to murderers.
-
Do you have any explanation as to why no one has set up Facebook pages, YouTube endeavours and blogs for the purpose of "asking questions" of these individuals, given that their names are in the public domain?
No. Why should I ?
I have mentioned on numerous occasions that I don't do Facebook or Twitter, so have no idea what is posted there.
-
Because the patio door was unlocked all possibilities have to be considered from wandering off, to caring citizens to murderers.
Yet, absolutely nothing to show anyone else in the apartment on that night, than those known to be there.
Certainly, no scuff marks on the window or walls, inside or outside.
-
Yet, absolutely nothing to show anyone else in the apartment on that night, than those known to be there.
Certainly, no scuff marks on the window or walls, inside or outside.
I think they found hairs that have not been matched to people known to have been in the apartment.
We were listing the known people in the apartment in that week and it got to well over 20.
-
I think they found hairs that have not been matched to people known to have been in the apartment.
We were listing the known people in the apartment in that week and it got to well over 20.
Well, clearly other people had been in the apartment prior to that date, so again proving nothing.
-
Well, clearly other people had been in the apartment prior to that date, so again proving nothing.
What date? Prior to the time (date) of collecting hairs for the forensic analysis. Is this the date you are talking about? So some of those hairs are from someone who has not admitted being in there.
There is always the request for those with an innocent reason to come forward and be eliminated.
-
It was a holiday let, so any number of unknown people might have been in over a period of a year or two.
-
It was a holiday let, so any number of unknown people might have been in over a period of a year or two.
It was getting a regular cleaning between tenants. It could just be the cleaners were not doing a good job.
-
Do you have any explanation as to why no one has set up Facebook pages, YouTube endeavours and blogs for the purpose of "asking questions" of these individuals, given that their names are in the public domain?
I think you'll find there has been a certain interest in the 4.
However, since all 4 are Portuguese, and the Portuguese people in general think the McCanns 'dunnit', there is limited appetite for forums etc. "asking questions" of them.
-
It was getting a regular cleaning between tenants. It could just be the cleaners were not doing a good job.
I'm sure there is a difference between doing a good clean in a limited amount of time and removing each and every extraneous hair in the place.
-
I'm sure there is a difference between doing a good clean in a limited amount of time and removing each and every extraneous hair in the place.
But which would be more intensive? Would the police look in every corner that the cleaners might have missed for years or just the regular thoroughfares?
-
What date? Prior to the time (date) of collecting hairs for the forensic analysis. Is this the date you are talking about? So some of those hairs are from someone who has not admitted being in there.
There is always the request for those with an innocent reason to come forward and be eliminated.
Do you ever do any housework, e.g. see what accumulates within a vacuum cleaner ?
Even the people coming to the apartment will have brought in other material.
-
£5%4%
Any Portuguese scene of crime officers on here able to give an answer ?
-
So for anyone who understands the meaning of proof there is proof of abduction
-
£5%4%
Any Portuguese scene of crime officers on here able to give an answer ?
What value are the unidentified hairs? I think it would be a matter if later they point the finger at someone , they would say "we have your DNA at the crime scene" and see if there is an explanation offered for that.
Maybe the person just needs to say "I can't explain that, can you?"
So for anyone who understands the meaning of proof there is proof of abduction
What proof?
Hairs can't be proof for there could be some other explanation for them being there.
-
Let's be a little more honest
There is insufficient evidence to arrest the McCanns never mind charge or bring them to trial
That would suggest on the balance of probabilities they are innocent and therefor Maddie was abducted
http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-500-6576?service=ld.
-
Who else was given arguido status apart from Murat?
Do we know with any degree of certainty whether the judiciary made Sr Murat arguido or whether Sr Murat requested arguido status ? with appropriate cites of course.
-
Do we know with any degree of certainty whether the judiciary made Sr Murat arguido or whether Sr Murat requested arguido status ? with appropriate cites of course.
No one has ever said he had requested arguido status. Good point though.
-
So for anyone who understands the meaning of proof there is proof of abduction
Well that's one person's opinion I suppose.
-
Well that's one person's opinion I suppose.
Do I have to explain..it seems I do
A verdict in court is nothing more than opinion
Usually from those who read the sun
How reliable is that
-
Do I have to explain..it seems I do
A verdict in court is nothing more than opinion
Usually from those who read the sun
How reliable is that
There's a few on here who have been known to quote the Sun.
-
Do I have to explain..it seems I do
A verdict in court is nothing more than opinion
Usually from those who read the sun
How reliable is that
So far you have failed miserably to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities MM was abducted.
What pray do juries made up of Sun readers have to do with it ?
-
I wasn't including him because I didn't know he posted on here. I have yet to see a reasoned, factual, believable 'McCann' story in any newspaper; in fact many of the others copy the Sun's stories. Now that's the action of fools or of people who treat their readers as fools.
-
I wasn't including him because I didn't know he posted on here. I have yet to see a reasoned, factual, believable 'McCann' story in any newspaper; in fact many of the others copy the Sun's stories. Now that's the action of fools or of people who treat their readers as fools.
The gentleman referred to is not a member here, for the simple reason he has been dead for over 30 years.
-
So far you have failed miserably to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities MM was abducted.
What pray do juries made up of Sun readers have to do with it ?
Only in your very biased opinion
-
they are giving the sun away free in my local shop ....no one wants it...only the less intelligent read the sun
it seems sun readers enjoy more protection on this forum than the mccans as it is now judged to be offensive to criticise the intelligence of sun readers
-
they are giving the sun away free in my local shop ....no one wants it...only the less intelligent read the sun
it seems sun readers enjoy more protection on this forum than the mccans as it is now judged to be offensive to criticise the intelligence of sun readers
Ha ha, they tried to give one to my husband; he said they didn't want to take no for an answer. A couple of days later they put one in his carrier bag without even asking. I assume they were instructed to get rid of them at all costs.
If it can be demonstrated that just one 'intelligent' (whatever that means) person reads the Sun your contention that 'only the less intelligent read the sun' is false.
-
Ha ha, they tried to give one to my husband; he said they didn't want to take no for an answer. A couple of days later they put one in his carrier bag without even asking. I assume they were instructed to get rid of them at all costs.
If it can be demonstrated that just one 'intelligent' (whatever that means) person reads the Sun your contention that 'only the less intelligent read the sun' is false.
I don't know ONE intelligent person who reads the sun
Do you
-
I don't know ONE intelligent person who reads the sun
Do you
And perhaps that is exactly why the McCanns decided to serialise Kate's book in that and its sister paper.
-
I don't know ONE intelligent person who reads the sun
Do you
As I pointed out, that doesn't mean there are no intelligent Sun readers, it means that you don't know any who fit with your definition of intelligent. You can't generalise to the whole Sun readership on the basis of your own experience and opinion.
-
And perhaps that is exactly why the McCanns decided to serialise Kate's book in that and its sister paper.
It seems one Liverpudlian never noticed how unpopular the newspaper was in her home city;
Liverpool has still not forgiven the newspaper it calls 'The s..m'
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/apr/18/hillsborough-anniversary-sun-newspaper
-
As I pointed out, that doesn't mean there are no intelligent Sun readers, it means that you don't know any who fit with your definition of intelligent. You can't generalise to the whole Sun readership on the basis of your own experience and opinion.
I can and I have done
We all speak from our personal experience
The sun is absolute Junk and any intelligent person would realise that
There is no argument on that score
-
I can and I have done
We all speak from our personal experience
The sun is absolute Junk and any intelligent person would realise that
There is no argument on that score
Are you trying to say that 'intelligent' people don't buy and read the Sun?
-
Are you trying to say that 'intelligent' people don't buy and read the Sun?
Also, by a certain posters logic, how does that play with the serialization of Kate Mccann's book in that delightful tabloid ?
-
Are you trying to say that 'intelligent' people don't buy and read the Sun?
I'm not trying to say anything
I'm saying intelligent people don't buy and read the sun
-
There was an opportunity for Madeleine to have been abducted by a stranger. Slartibartfast has even described how and when it may have occurred and it only took a couple of lines to describe. Completely straight-forward, simple explanation, require no convoluted conspiracies, cover-ups, re-positionings, nothing. I will PM you your theory and discuss it with you too, but the minute you get uppity and nasty with me, the discussion ends. I hope that's understood.
?
-
I'm not trying to say anything
I'm saying intelligent people don't buy and read the sun
That is a very wide sweeping statement Dave. I cannot see what intelligence has to do with purchasing and reading a red top publication?
-
I'm not trying to say anything
I'm saying intelligent people don't buy and read the sun
You seem to admire 'intelligence' but have never defined it, so no-one knows what you mean by it. Why you see it as desirable isn't clear either; intelligent people may spurn the Sun although you can't prove that. They may also be liars, cheats and thoroughly nasty people.
If you use IQ tests as your measure Harold Shipman scored 140, and many other criminals scored highly in the tests, like John Stonehouse for example. I wonder if they spurned trashy newspapers?
https://toppublicenemies.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/top-30-intelligent-serial-killers-with-highest-iq.html#Nathan_Leopold_Jr_and_Richard_Loeb
-
You seem to admire 'intelligence' but have never defined it, so no-one knows what you mean by it. Why you see it as desirable isn't clear either; intelligent people may spurn the Sun although you can't prove that. They may also be liars, cheats and thoroughly nasty people.
If you use IQ tests as your measure Harold Shipman scored 140, and many other criminals scored highly in the tests, like John Stonehouse for example. I wonder if they spurned trashy newspapers?
https://toppublicenemies.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/top-30-intelligent-serial-killers-with-highest-iq.html#Nathan_Leopold_Jr_and_Richard_Loeb
Do intelligent people leave their children on their own while on holiday? Can intelligent people be stupid too?
-
Intelligent people make provision for the welfare of their kids that they judge reasonable in all the circumstances. Which is what the McCanns and the rest of the group did.
The one possibility they didn't foresee was the possibility of abduction.
The archiving dispatch makes clear there is no reason why they should have.
-
Intelligent people make provision for the welfare of their kids that they judge reasonable in all the circumstances. Which is what the McCanns and the rest of the group did.
The one possibility they didn't foresee was the possibility of abduction.
The archiving dispatch makes clear there is no reason why they should have.
I think Mrs Healey would disagree with you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1907317/Kate-McCanns-mother-wanted-to-shake-her-for-leaving-Madeleine.html
-
I think Mrs Healey would disagree with you.
Kate's mother?
We will forgive her a slight overreaction as the grandmother of missing Madeleine.
-
Dave. Is common sense and intelligence interrelated?
-
Kate's mother?
We will forgive her a slight overreaction as the grandmother of missing Madeleine.
I think her reaction was perfectly normal given the circumstances.
-
From the Telegraph article
(Mrs Healy)
At the end of the day they thought they had taken adequate provision… no one looks after their children better than Kate and Gerry. That's why it's so amazing they can be in this situation."
Mrs Healy supports her daughter and son-in-law.
But, like the whole of the family and extended family, she is upset at a consequence devastating for them all.
-
You seem to admire 'intelligence' but have never defined it, so no-one knows what you mean by it. Why you see it as desirable isn't clear either; intelligent people may spurn the Sun although you can't prove that. They may also be liars, cheats and thoroughly nasty people.
If you use IQ tests as your measure Harold Shipman scored 140, and many other criminals scored highly in the tests, like John Stonehouse for example. I wonder if they spurned trashy newspapers?
https://toppublicenemies.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/top-30-intelligent-serial-killers-with-highest-iq.html#Nathan_Leopold_Jr_and_Richard_Loeb
I think any intelligent person understands the meaning of the word
It's in the dictionary for those who dont
-
Do intelligent people leave their children on their own while on holiday? Can intelligent people be stupid too?
Are you saying the McCanns are not intelligent
Intelligent people can make errors of judgement
-
Are you saying the McCanns are not intelligent
Intelligent people can make errors of judgement
I suppose that's where 'stupid' comes in.
-
I suppose that's where 'stupid' comes in.
If you like
I have a little more sympathy for them... in fact I have a lot of sympathy for them. We all make mistakes but are rarely punished
Cue the " you care more about the McCanns " brigade
-
intelligence
ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒ(ə)ns/
noun
noun: intelligence
1.
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Look it up he said so I did!
There's plenty of room for manoeuvre there.
-
I think any intelligent person understands the meaning of the word
It's in the dictionary for those who dont
A lot of people think they understand a lot of things, it doesn't mean they're right.
-
I suppose that's where 'stupid' comes in.
And selfish. Leaving three kids under 4 alone in unlocked apartment was just asking for trouble imho.
-
A lot of people think they understand a lot of things, it doesn't mean they're right.
Being intelligent is in part an ability to understand
-
Being intelligent is in part an ability to understand
Many supposedly intelligent people are not streetwise though.
-
Being intelligent is in part an ability to understand
Quite. I understand that 'intelligence' is not something easily defined. That's why there's no generally accepted definition.
-
Many supposedly intelligent people are not streetwise though.
If intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply skills those who acquire them but cannot apply them are by definition not intelligent.
-
He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.
-
The only glimmer of hope I see is the (more-or-less) abandonment of theMcCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup, which I hope, transmits to the Portuguese Supreme Court so that they overturn the perfectly disgraceful (first) appeal-court ruling and, at least restores the wisdom of the first-instance judgement.
-
So does anyone here admit to being a Sun reader
-
So does anyone here admit to being a Sun reader
It would appear that Mr Robert Hurst, landlord of the Pig's Head in Burgau, and one of the forum members here, reads The Sun. We had the benefits of his insight into The Sun exposé of mid-2016 on this forum, when that story broke.
-
It would appear that Mr Robert Hurst, landlord of the Pig's Head in Burgau, and one of the forum members here, reads The Sun. We had the benefits of his insight into The Sun exposé of mid-2016 on this forum, when that story broke.
What was his username on the forum then SIL?
-
So does anyone here admit to being a Sun reader
Like many here I read the online Sun stories but I don't subscribe to it nor would I buy it.
-
What was his username on the forum then SIL?
Errrr..... Robert Hurst.
I have spoken to him since the incident, but nothing to do with Madeleine.
-
The only glimmer of hope I see is the (more-or-less) abandonment of theMcCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup, which I hope, transmits to the Portuguese Supreme Court so that they overturn the perfectly disgraceful (first) appeal-court ruling and, at least restores the wisdom of the first-instance judgement.
The appeal court was right to overturn the first instance judgement. The McCanns brought this all down upon their own heads by their own stupidity. If the Portuguese Supreme Court overturn the appeal court decision they will be seen as condoning bad parenting.
-
Like many here I read the online Sun stories but I don't subscribe to it nor would I buy it.
Why wouldn't you buy ith
-
Errrr..... Robert Hurst.
I have spoken to him since the incident, but nothing to do with Madeleine.
That makes sense now that you mention it. Not many around here use their actual name on the forum.
-
Why wouldn't you buy ith
I don't buy any newspapers unless there is something I specifically want to check out.
Going back to the thread title, I would say that it is more castigation than persecution so the heading is wrong.
-
I don't buy any newspapers unless there is something I specifically want to check out.
Going back to the thread title, I would say that it is more castigation than persecution so the heading is wrong.
wrong only in your biased opinion....you referred to them as shit parents....taht is not castigation.....its persecutiom
-
wrong only in your biased opinion....you referred to them as shit parents....taht is not castigation.....its persecutiom
It was an observation based on their poor parenting skills. Not many people go on holiday and lose a child due to their own incompetence but then you know that. Had one of them stayed in the apartment we would not be having this debate today and Maddie would be alive and well and living in Rothley Manor.
-
It was an observation based on their poor parenting skills. Not many people go on holiday and lose a child due to their own incompetence but then you know that. Had one of them stayed in the apartment we would not be having this debate today and Maddie would be alive and well and living in Rothley Manor.
its persecution imo....not iyo
thats it
-
if the mcanns were poor chavy people with no money or jobs etc would supporters support them as much as they do because they are doctors?? i doubt it it is a class issue imo
-
Errrr..... Robert Hurst.
I have spoken to him since the incident, but nothing to do with Madeleine.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7352.msg341477#msg341477
-
If the McCanns were unintelligent sun reading chavs they would not be receiving the level of abuse we see
-
if the mcanns were poor chavy people with no money or jobs etc would supporters support them as much as they do because they are doctors?? i doubt it it is a class issue imo
The Mccanns also had their book serialized in the lovely 'Sun' newspaper, for which they received a payment (which seems to be unaccounted for).
So what does tell you about the Mccanns ? &%+((£
-
The Mccanns also had their book serialized in the lovely 'Sun' newspaper, for which they received a payment (which seems to be unaccounted for).
So what does tell you about the Mccanns ? &%+((£
you get my point dont you?? 8)-)))
-
you get my point dont you?? 8)-)))
Oh yes. 8((()*/
-
The Mccanns also had their book serialized in the lovely 'Sun' newspaper, for which they received a payment (which seems to be unaccounted for).
So what does tell you about the Mccanns ? &%+((£
It tells me they sold the book to the highest bidder to get the most money for the fund
I'm surprised you couldn't wort that out
-
Oh yes. 8((()*/
someone more lower class then the mcanns would have had their remaining kids put into care the mcanns should be greatful they didnt have the twins put into care because despite what davel etc all say in most countrys the actions of gerry and kate is not tolerated worldwide
-
someone more lower class then the mcanns would have had their remaining kids put into care the mcanns should be greatful they didnt have the twins put into care because despite what davel etc all say in most countrys the actions of gerry and kate is not tolerated worldwide
Total and utter rubbish
So now you are an expert on English law
-
someone more lower class then the mcanns would have had their remaining kids put into care the mcanns should be greatful they didnt have the twins put into care because despite what davel etc all say in most countrys the actions of gerry and kate is not tolerated worldwide
Some of the McCann supporters will defend what their heroes did without question. The trouble is, it's indefensible.
Likewise receiving money from a National Rag Tabloid for what they did is beyond the pale, and there isn't any evidence they put the serialization money into the fund.
You could not make this case up, let alone what the McCann's have got away with.
AIMHO.
-
someone more lower class then the mcanns would have had their remaining kids put into care the mcanns should be greatful they didnt have the twins put into care because despite what davel etc all say in most countrys the actions of gerry and kate is not tolerated worldwide
But it is tolerated and even encouraged in holiday venues where parents are offered the Listening Service for the express purpose of leaving their children alone in their rooms and going out without them Parents also still use baby alarms to enable them to leave their children alone in their rooms and go out. It's not rocket science to see that in common with the McCanns - they have all decided it is a safe form of childcare.
If leaving their children asleep in their room every night and going out is breaking the law - then why in your opinion have none of these holiday-makers been arrested or had their children taken into care on their return home?
Unless you can explain that lack of prosecutions - you will have to accept that no laws are being broken at these holiday venues by any of the parents who have chosen to use the same method of childcare as the McCanns and their friends.
IMO
-
Some of the McCann supporters will defend what their heroes did without question. The trouble is, it's indefensible.
Likewise receiving money from a National Rag Tabloid for what they did is beyond the pale, and there isn't any evidence they put the serialization money into the fund.
You could not make this case up, let alone what the McCann's have got away with.
AIMHO.
If working class people leave their kids home alone it's child neglect. If middle class doctors do it it's a normal part of British culture. If working class teenagers misbehave they're hooligans. If middle-class teenagers do it it's high spirits. Just traditional British double standards.
-
If working class people leave their kids home alone it's child neglect. If middle class doctors do it it's a normal part of British culture. If working class teenagers misbehave they're hooligans. If middle-class teenagers do it it's high spirits. Just traditional British double standards.
exactly and it shouldnt be that way if a working class british family had done what the mcanns did the press would have hounded them right?? and taken the twins off them
-
the mcanns havent been as hounded as much online as the ramsey family read websluths its alot worse then what is written about the mcanns im not defending the ramseys but you know what i mean
-
the mcanns havent been as hounded as much online as the ramsey family read websluths its alot worse then what is written about the mcanns im not defending the ramseys but you know what i mean
Leaving aside comment on the comparison, the acknowledgement that the McCanns have been hounded is a start.
-
You must be extremely forgetful.
Not in the slightest. 8(0(*
-
Not in the slightest. 8(0(*
That proves it. Very forgetful.
I asked you a question earlier and you haven't answered it. I want you to show me how much you know.
-
That proves it. Very forgetful.
I asked you a question earlier and you haven't answered it. I want you to show me how much you know.
You have proved nothing, except to try and massage your ego.
The question was answered before I even saw it.
By the way, other than the McCann case, do you have any interests in life ?
It would seem you don't.
-
You have proved nothing, except to try and massage your ego.
The question was answered before I even saw it.
By the way, other than the McCann case, do you have any interests in life ?
It would seem you don't.
I forgot the question and the answer. How long was Jez going to stay on holiday. Was that answered?
-
exactly and it shouldnt be that way if a working class british family had done what the mcanns did the press would have hounded them right?? and taken the twins off them
Are you for real? The press hounded the McCanns with all kinds of terrible lies and accusations for months on end. Being doctors didn't make one iota of difference.
You still haven't explained why IYO all those parents who adopt the same method of childcare as the McCanns - don't have their kids taken off them for breaking the law - on their return home from their hols.
-
I highlighted a case (in England) of where a child-minder left a child strapped in the carseat of a car for (from memory) 5 hours. The incident cost her her business. But a criminal prosecution against her collapsed, because there was no evidence she had acted with intent.
Parallel strands of the Napoleonic Code (that pertains in Portugal) and the Adversarial Code (that pertains in England and elsewhere) is that the commission of any crime requires both of two elements: culpable behaviour AND intent. The absence of either element means no crime has been committed.
-
I highlighted a case (in England) of where a child-minder left a child strapped in the carseat of a car for (from memory) 5 hours. The incident cost her her business. But a criminal prosecution against her collapsed, because there was no evidence she had acted with intent.
Parallel strands of the Napoleonic Code (that pertains in Portugal) and the Adversarial Code (that pertains in England and elsewhere) is that the commission of any crime requires both of two elements: culpable behaviour AND intent. The absence of either element means no crime has been committed.
Read around.
-
But it is tolerated and even encouraged in holiday venues where parents are offered the Listening Service for the express purpose of leaving their children alone in their rooms and going out without them Parents also still use baby alarms to enable them to leave their children alone in their rooms and go out. It's not rocket science to see that in common with the McCanns - they have all decided it is a safe form of childcare.
If leaving their children asleep in their room every night and going out is breaking the law - then why in your opinion have none of these holiday-makers been arrested or had their children taken into care on their return home?
Unless you can explain that lack of prosecutions - you will have to accept that no laws are being broken at these holiday venues by any of the parents who have chosen to use the same method of childcare as the McCanns and their friends.
IMO
Listening Services are offered in closed complexes, not villages open to anyone. Can you show such a service on offer in a similar location to Luz?
-
I highlighted a case (in England) of where a child-minder left a child strapped in the carseat of a car for (from memory) 5 hours. The incident cost her her business. But a criminal prosecution against her collapsed, because there was no evidence she had acted with intent.
Parallel strands of the Napoleonic Code (that pertains in Portugal) and the Adversarial Code (that pertains in England and elsewhere) is that the commission of any crime requires both of two elements: culpable behaviour AND intent. The absence of either element means no crime has been committed.
So hitting someone who then dies is OK as long as you didn't intend to kill them? You haven't committed a crime?
-
When one considers how the family court operates it would be extremely unlikely that Joe Public could come up with an example as the procedure of the family court is mostly not for public consumption.
-
Are you for real? The press hounded the McCanns with all kinds of terrible lies and accusations for months on end. Being doctors didn't make one iota of difference.
You still haven't explained why IYO all those parents who adopt the same method of childcare as the McCanns - don't have their kids taken off them for breaking the law - on their return home from their hols.
If anything the McCann's have been hounded more because they are Drs. and middle class.
This 'if they were council tenants' rubbish is spouted all the time, but nothing to back it up.
-
If anything the McCann's have been hounded more because they are Drs. and middle class.
This 'if they were council tenants' rubbish is spouted all the time, but nothing to back it up.
Not rubbish.
Mere facts.
Now let's see cases where Brits have been abroad, oe even here, where Prime Minister's and their wife's, and other Government Ministers have direct contact , including phone calls , with suspects in a potential criminal case.
-
Listening Services are offered in closed complexes, not villages open to anyone. Can you show such a service on offer in a similar location to Luz?
What difference does that make? According to sceptics the crime is choosing to leave their sleeping children alone in their rooms and going off elsewhere. Full stop.
I have never heard of any hotelier or tour operator being prosecuted for inciting their clients to break the law by signing up for the listening service. Neither have I heard of any parents being met by the police on their return from holiday because they left their children asleep in their rooms and used a baby alarm as a 'childminder' while they spent time elsewhere - night after night.
IIRC - MW withdrew their Listening Service because they realised how it could lull parents into a false sense of security - and not because it broke any laws.
People who claim the McCanns were not prosecuted because they are doctors are letting their wishful thinking get the better of them IMO. It is simply not the case.
-
Not rubbish.
Mere facts.
Now let's see cases where Brits have been abroad, oe even here, where Prime Minister's and their wife's, and other Government Ministers have direct contact , including phone calls , with suspects in a potential criminal case.
It's a CONSPIRACY Stephen, didn't you know the McCann's have power over the Prime Ministers, the Secret Service, the army and the QUEEN.
-
What difference does that make? According to sceptics the crime is choosing to leave their sleeping children alone in their rooms and going off elsewhere. Full stop.
I have never heard of any hotelier or tour operator being prosecuted for inciting their clients to break the law by signing up for the listening service. Neither have I heard of any parents being met by the police on their return from holiday because they left their children asleep in their rooms and used a baby alarm as a 'childminder' while they spent time elsewhere - night after night.
IIRC - MW withdrew their Listening Service because they realised how it could lull parents into a false sense of security - and not because it broke any laws.
People who claim the McCanns were not prosecuted because they are doctors are letting their wishful thinking get the better of them IMO. It is simply not the case.
1.I don't recall ever saying anything remotely like that.
2. It is possible the remaining children were put on the list of children at risk. As that is a particularly "secret squirrel" operation no one apart from the adjudicating panel, the relevant social services dept and the parents would know.
-
It's a CONSPIRACY Stephen, didn't you know the McCann's have power over the Prime Ministers, the Secret Service, the army and the QUEEN.
So name me other people in potential criminal cases who have had open support and direct contact with several P.M.'s and other high echelon Government Ministers ?
-
So name me other people in potential criminal cases who have had open support and direct contact with several P.M.'s and other high echelon Government Ministers ?
The McCann case was covered by journalists who flocked to Portugal, the case was huge headlines, these people probably wanted to look good for the media, helping out a family whose child was missing.
I doubt if there was anything sinister or conspiratorial about it.
-
The McCann case was covered by journalists who flocked to Portugal, the case was huge headlines, these people probably wanted to look good for the media, helping out a family whose child was missing.
I doubt if there was anything sinister or conspiratorial about it.
So you can't come up with any examples then.
I thought so.
-
What difference does that make? According to sceptics the crime is choosing to leave their sleeping children alone in their rooms and going off elsewhere. Full stop.
I have never heard of any hotelier or tour operator being prosecuted for inciting their clients to break the law by signing up for the listening service. Neither have I heard of any parents being met by the police on their return from holiday because they left their children asleep in their rooms and used a baby alarm as a 'childminder' while they spent time elsewhere - night after night.
IIRC - MW withdrew their Listening Service because they realised how it could lull parents into a false sense of security - and not because it broke any laws.
People who claim the McCanns were not prosecuted because they are doctors are letting their wishful thinking get the better of them IMO. It is simply not the case.
I was commenting on your 'defence', which consists of comparing what they did with what people do when they use an official listening service. It isn't a valid defence because the two things are significantly different.
Matt describes how it worked in Greece;
but when you go to (inaudible) or you go to the other ones, they tend to be sort of a compound, I mean, they're not sealed from people from the outside, but they're sort of self-enclosed, erm, there's a warden sort of at the gate house, but you can walk in and out pretty freely, and they do a baby listening service, erm, so they have a number of the Nannies who are on rota who will sit at the bottom of the, Lemnos was sort of like lots of little cottages, not cottages, little sort of flats, apartments going up on two hillsides, and so they would walk round, erm, you know, round and went past all the, erm, apartments and have a listen at the door to see whether anybody was crying or upset and at the start of the evening, as you went past, you'd give them your room number and where you were going to be and then if they heard anybody crying you'd then be taken back up the, erm, you know, they'd find you in the restaurant and you'd go up to the door and see what was going on. And that was the sort of thing that we were looking for when we booked the MARK WARNER
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-
So name me other people in potential criminal cases who have had open support and direct contact with several P.M.'s and other high echelon Government Ministers ?
Gary McKinnon?
-
Gary McKinnon?
Yep.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19968973
-
Yep.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19968973
How about ones involving potential child neglect and/or the disappearance of children ?
Did the McKinnon's set up a fund to, pay their expenses ?
-
So you can't come up with any examples then.
I thought so.
I can't come up with another family who lost their child whilst on holiday abroad and then were accused of covering up an abduction, no, sorry.
-
I can't come up with another family who lost their child whilst on holiday abroad and then were accused of covering up an abduction, no, sorry.
Any cases where several P.M.' s and their spouses, were in direct contact with potential suspects in a criminal case ?
-
Gary McKinnon?
Was he phoned by the Prime Minister or other government ministers then?
-
Any cases where several P.M.' s and their spouses, were in direct contact with potential suspects in a criminal case ?
They wouldn't get the 'oh look they are being helpful in trying to find a little three year old' would they?
-
Was he phoned by the Prime Minister or other government ministers then?
That wasn't the question Stephen asked.
-
They wouldn't get the 'oh look they are being helpful in trying to find a little three year old' would they?
Ah so the P.M.'s and their wives were helping to search.
Nope.
-
Ah so the P.M.'s and their wives were helping to search.
Nope.
They give comfort to them, which helps to give strength to help with the search.
-
Any cases where several P.M.' s and their spouses, were in direct contact with potential suspects in a criminal case ?
It's perfectly normal, where British citizens come into conflict or difficulty abroad that consular assistance may be offered.
And apart from an interlude between September 2007 and (at least officially, but unofficially, well before then) August 2008 the McCanns were/are considered victims of a crime, along with, of course, their eldest daughter.
-
Ah so the P.M.'s and their wives were helping to search.
Nope.
Kate speaking about the phone call from Cherie Blair -
We talked about everything in general, including about them leaving Number 10. She agreed as well to make a 20-second video clip for our broadcast on YouTube about Madeleine and children who have disappeared.
-
It's perfectly normal, where British citizens come into conflict or difficulty abroad that consular assistance may be offered.
And apart from an interlude between September 2007 and (at least officially, but unofficially, well before then) August 2008 the McCanns were/are considered victims of a crime, along with, of course, their eldest daughter.
When has it been perfectly normal for several prime minister's and their wives to directly contact possible suspects in the disappearance of a child ?
Answers on a post card.
-
Posters are reminded to keep replies relative and convivial and cut out the name calling or else I'll hit the destruct button.
-
Is there another case involving a missing British child abroad, whose parents have been made suspects in her death, without there being a single shred of evidence to support that allegation?
-
Is there another case involving a missing British child abroad, whose parents have been made suspects in her death, without there being a single shred of evidence to support that allegation?
Shred of Evidence ???
You mean, such as no sign of a break-in ?
No evidence of abduction which can't be explained by other scenarios ?
The dog alerts, unconfirmed, but still alerts ?
Inconsistent accounts of events.
etc.
-
Is there another case involving a missing British child abroad, whose parents have been made suspects in her death, without there being a single shred of evidence to support that allegation?
Can you recall another missing child case where the parents have been openly hostile to the police?
-
When has it been perfectly normal for several prime minister's and their wives to directly contact possible suspects in the disappearance of a child ?
Answers on a post card.
Can you give a reason why they were in contact, apart from sympathising with the McCann's?
-
Can you recall another missing child case where the parents have been openly hostile to the police?
Hostile to the police?
-
Can you give a reason why they were in contact, apart from sympathising with the McCann's?
Calling in favours.
Gerry McCann already had connections.
COMARE. Look it up.
-
Calling in favours.
Gerry McCann already had connections.
COMARE. Look it up.
... and?
-
Calling in favours.
Gerry McCann already had connections.
COMARE. Look it up.
If you understood Gerrys role in compare you would realise you are talking absolute tosh.
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/committee-on-medical-aspects-of-radiation-in-the-environment-comare
Why would anyone object to Gerry being associated with that?
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/committee-on-medical-aspects-of-radiation-in-the-environment-comare
Why would anyone object to Gerry being associated with that?
Where precisely does a degree in Medicine following one I'm Sports Science, lead to expertise in the field of the effects of radiation ?
Basically, he was on a nice little earner on a Quango.
...and yes he used his contacts.
Easy to research. 8)-))) 8)-)))
-
Calling in favours.
Gerry McCann already had connections.
COMARE. Look it up.
Quote
Carana
What's odd about an input from a cardiologist into medical aspects of radiation on a sub-committee looking into such issues? Without having read the whole document, the medical sub-committee seems to have concerned the potential effects of radiation via medical examinations (CT scans, etc.)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/66760633/MEDICAL-PRACTICES-SUBCOMMITTEE-Dr-G-McCann-BSc-MB-ChB-MRCP-MD-Glenfield-General-Hospital-Leicester-pages7879
End quote
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3861.msg145225#msg145225
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3861.0
-
Quote
Carana
What's odd about an input from a cardiologist into medical aspects of radiation on a sub-committee looking into such issues? Without having read the whole document, the medical sub-committee seems to have concerned the potential effects of radiation via medical examinations (CT scans, etc.)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/66760633/MEDICAL-PRACTICES-SUBCOMMITTEE-Dr-G-McCann-BSc-MB-ChB-MRCP-MD-Glenfield-General-Hospital-Leicester-pages7879
End quote
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3861.msg145225#msg145225
Ah, Carana!
Carana always knows what she's talking about.
Which upsets me greatly.
But only because I can hardly ever prove her wrong ...
-
Where precisely does a degree in Medicine following one I'm Sports Science, lead to expertise in the field of the effects of radiation ?
Basically, he was on a nice little earner on a Quango.
...and yes he used his contacts.
Easy to research. 8)-))) 8)-)))
Please do not ask members to research your comment. You made it ... it is up to you to substantiate it. Please be kind enough to do that or without further argument, it will be removed. Thank you
-
Where precisely does a degree in Medicine following one I'm Sports Science, lead to expertise in the field of the effects of radiation ?
Basically, he was on a nice little earner on a Quango.
...and yes he used his contacts.
Easy to research. 8)-))) 8)-)))
Gerry is a professor of cardiac imaging which you seem unaware involves radiation
-
No-one had accused them of anything at this point. They were criticising the police from the off;
I remember Gerry saying that they did not treat the matter with urgency
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm
She was worried by the fact that there were only two police officers in the place and thought that the police were not helping her with anything.,,,,,,I felt that Kate and Gerry were focused on the idea to find Madeleine in their own way, and the local police had not progressed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/L-R-MCQUEEN.htm
Kate was still frustrated and anguished and felt that nobody was doing anything to help find Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/M_THOMPSON.htm
She said that judging from the action of the local police, one would think that she "had lost a dog". Her situation was one of desperation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm
-
Quote
Carana
What's odd about an input from a cardiologist into medical aspects of radiation on a sub-committee looking into such issues? Without having read the whole document, the medical sub-committee seems to have concerned the potential effects of radiation via medical examinations (CT scans, etc.)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/66760633/MEDICAL-PRACTICES-SUBCOMMITTEE-Dr-G-McCann-BSc-MB-ChB-MRCP-MD-Glenfield-General-Hospital-Leicester-pages7879
End quote
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3861.msg145225#msg145225
The first link doesn't work.
I have already researched this before.
It is eminently clearly, the Mccanns used their links to those in Government, including as we know, Prime Ministers.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3861.0
-
The first link doesn't work.
I have already researched this before.
It is eminently clearly, the Mccanns used their links to those in Government, including as we know, Prime Ministers.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3861.0
Quote
Carana
I didn't think that you were disagreeing. Imaging was his speciality among cardiologists (some seem to be specialised in other practices... but that is his, a specialisation within a specialisation, presumably).
It would seem perfectly normal to me that he could be invited to a sub-committee discussing these issues.
Some people keep hinting at conspiracies when there is no evidence (I'm not aware that you have supported this, jassi).
I thought that this particular myth had been put to bed 6 years ago. Apparently not.
Reality is a far cry from Gerry being a major player in the nuclear energy industry....
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/cardiovascular-sciences/people/mccann
End quote
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3861.msg145277#msg145277
The link above still works ... I recommend you check it out.
In my opinion, there is nothing at all suspicious about an expert and specialist in his or her field taking part in research projects.
-
Quote
Carana
I didn't think that you were disagreeing. Imaging was his speciality among cardiologists (some seem to be specialised in other practices... but that is his, a specialisation within a specialisation, presumably).
It would seem perfectly normal to me that he could be invited to a sub-committee discussing these issues.
Some people keep hinting at conspiracies when there is no evidence (I'm not aware that you have supported this, jassi).
I thought that this particular myth had been put to bed 6 years ago. Apparently not.
Reality is a far cry from Gerry being a major player in the nuclear energy industry....
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/cardiovascular-sciences/people/mccann
End quote
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3861.msg145277#msg145277
The link above still works ... I recommend you check it out.
In my opinion, there is nothing at all suspicious about an expert and specialist in his or her field taking part in research projects.
You still don't get my point.
The Mccanns used their connections to help them out, and with all that implies.
-
No-one had accused them of anything at this point. They were criticising the police from the off;
I remember Gerry saying that they did not treat the matter with urgency
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm
She was worried by the fact that there were only two police officers in the place and thought that the police were not helping her with anything.,,,,,,I felt that Kate and Gerry were focused on the idea to find Madeleine in their own way, and the local police had not progressed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/L-R-MCQUEEN.htm
Kate was still frustrated and anguished and felt that nobody was doing anything to help find Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/M_THOMPSON.htm
She said that judging from the action of the local police, one would think that she "had lost a dog". Her situation was one of desperation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm
Seems some of her doubts and fears were justified ...
I BOTCHED THE MADDY PROBE
Daily Mirror
ROD CHAYTOR
8 May 2009
..says top Portuguese cop
THE police chief who led the probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann finally admitted yesterday he bungled the job.
Admitting that the Portuguese police had been at fault, Goncalo Amaral said: "It's true.
"At the time there was no set procedure in the case of a missing child. The crime scene was not well looked after. Since then such things have improved."
He also admitted a reconstruction into Madeleine's disappearance "should have quickly been organised".
At the time Madeleine vanished, two years ago this week, Portuguese police refused to allow a Crimewatch-style reconstruction.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic8754.html
-
Seems some of her doubts and fears were justified ...
I BOTCHED THE MADDY PROBE
Daily Mirror
ROD CHAYTOR
8 May 2009
..says top Portuguese cop
THE police chief who led the probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann finally admitted yesterday he bungled the job.
Admitting that the Portuguese police had been at fault, Goncalo Amaral said: "It's true.
"At the time there was no set procedure in the case of a missing child. The crime scene was not well looked after. Since then such things have improved."
He also admitted a reconstruction into Madeleine's disappearance "should have quickly been organised".
At the time Madeleine vanished, two years ago this week, Portuguese police refused to allow a Crimewatch-style reconstruction.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic8754.html
Old news.
-
You still don't get my point.
The Mccanns used their connections to help them out, and with all that implies.
That statement requires a cite.
-
The first link doesn't work.
I have already researched this before.
It is eminently clearly, the Mccanns used their links to those in Government, including as we know, Prime Ministers.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3861.0
Even if they did - what is wrong with that? Any parent in their position, especially in a foreign country, would be desperate for help from anyone who they thought could help them in any way to find their missing child. I wouldn't be asking them for their help - I'd be begging them for it.
-
Old news.
"Old news" or not, it is a cite supporting my argument ... you really should try using the technique sometimes.
-
That statement requires a cite.
It is what happened.
A matter of fact.
The Mccanns communicated with Government officials and vice versa.
-
Even if they did - what is wrong with that? Any parent in their position, especially in a foreign country, would be desperate for help from anyone who they thought could help them in any way to find their missing child. I wouldn't be asking them for their help - I'd be begging them for it.
From the highest levels of Government ?
Including Prime Ministers ?
-
"Old news" or not, it is a cite supporting my argument ... you really should try using the technique sometimes.
I do use cites when possible and I do understand them. 8)-)))
-
Calling in favours.
Gerry McCann already had connections.
COMARE. Look it up.
I thought they contacted the McCann's?
You really believe that they 'called in favours'?
Wow all that help and they were still made Arguido's.
-
Seems some of her doubts and fears were justified ...
I BOTCHED THE MADDY PROBE
Daily Mirror
ROD CHAYTOR
8 May 2009
..says top Portuguese cop
THE police chief who led the probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann finally admitted yesterday he bungled the job.
Admitting that the Portuguese police had been at fault, Goncalo Amaral said: "It's true.
"At the time there was no set procedure in the case of a missing child. The crime scene was not well looked after. Since then such things have improved."
He also admitted a reconstruction into Madeleine's disappearance "should have quickly been organised".
At the time Madeleine vanished, two years ago this week, Portuguese police refused to allow a Crimewatch-style reconstruction.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic8754.html
Oh dear.
No missing child procedure. No CSI manual. No nailing the T9 down to a quick reconstruction in front of the world's media, media called in by Team McCann when the McCanns had been told no media. And the Portuguese don't do CrimeWatch.
Mr Chaytor does do lurid sensationalism, it would appear. Who does he work for? Ah, the Mirror. We can trust what we read in the Mirror, or can we?
-
I thought they contacted the McCann's?
You really believe that they 'called in favours'?
Wow all that help and they were still made Arguido's.
Then they flew off back to the UK.
Can you give examples of any people who have received as much 'assistance' from any UK government , all the way to to several P.M.'s ?
Remembering of course that members of the UK police directed the PJ to investigate the McCann's, until of course other UK police changed track. &%+((£
-
Oh dear.
No missing child procedure. No CSI manual. No nailing the T9 down to a quick reconstruction in front of the world's media, media called in by Team McCann when the McCanns had been told no media. And the Portuguese don't do CrimeWatch.
Mr Chaytor does do lurid sensationalism, it would appear. Who does he work for? Ah, the Mirror. We can trust what we read in the Mirror, or can we?
...And don't forget what the fragrant Tony Parsons, who was working at the Mirror, said about the Portuguese.
-
The Mirror can't be all bad: It gave us "Elephant Jokes".
-
Oh dear.
No missing child procedure. No CSI manual. No nailing the T9 down to a quick reconstruction in front of the world's media, media called in by Team McCann when the McCanns had been told no media. And the Portuguese don't do CrimeWatch.
Mr Chaytor does do lurid sensationalism, it would appear. Who does he work for? Ah, the Mirror. We can trust what we read in the Mirror, or can we?
The problem for you as a PJ apologist is the article fits the facts perfectly
I'm pretty good at sorting the wheat from the chaff
-
' NSPCC advice - never leave young children home alone
UK government advice - never leave young children home alone
The Law - it is an offence to leave children home alone if doing so places them in danger
CPN ( former poster and Mod on here,a highly qualified professional in social work, specializing in child safety) - never leave young children home alone
RoSPA - never leave young children home alone
Madeleine's grandmother - I cannot understand what they thought they were doing '
Anything to say ferryman ? 8)-)))
-
' NSPCC advice - never leave young children home alone
UK government advice - never leave young children home alone
The Law - it is an offence to leave children home alone if doing so places them in danger
CPN ( former poster and Mod on here,a highly qualified professional in social work, specializing in child safety) - never leave young children home alone
RoSPA - never leave young children home alone
Madeleine's grandmother - I cannot understand what they thought they were doing '
Anything to say ferryman ? 8)-)))
I do. The advice above is not given because your child may be abducted. It's given because of other dangers associated with leaving children home alone.
-
I do. The advice above is not given because your child may be abducted. It's given because of other dangers associated with leaving children home alone.
Precisely the point G-Unit.
Leaving children exposed to unnecessary dangers, is inexcusable.
-
' NSPCC advice - never leave young children home alone
UK government advice - never leave young children home alone
The Law - it is an offence to leave children home alone if doing so places them in danger
CPN ( former poster and Mod on here,a highly qualified professional in social work, specializing in child safety) - never leave young children home alone
RoSPA - never leave young children home alone
Madeleine's grandmother - I cannot understand what they thought they were doing '
Anything to say ferryman ? 8)-)))
The McCanns were not at home. and there is no evidence that they ever did leave their children alone and go out while they were at home. Whether you agree with it or not - leaving your children asleep in their room and going out is an acceptable practice for people on holiday and has been for decades. And parents are not prosecuted for choosing that form of childcare - be it via the listening method of checking or by the use of baby alarms, whilst they are on holiday.
Like it or not - those are the facts.
Singling the McCanns out as it they are the only parents who have ever chosen that type of childcare on holiday is to pretend that those facts - and those other parents don't exist. And that is plainly untrue.
IMO
-
The McCanns were not at home. and there is no evidence that they ever did leave their children alone and go out while they were at home. Whether you agree with it or not - leaving your children asleep in their room and going out is an acceptable practice for people on holiday and has been for decades. And parents are not prosecuted for choosing that form of childcare - be it via the listening method of checking or by the use of baby alarms, whilst they are on holiday.
Like it or not - those are the facts.
Singling the McCanns out as it they are the only parents who have ever chosen that type of childcare on holiday is to pretend that those facts - and those other parents don't exist. And that is plainly untrue.
IMO
It doesn't matter whether they were at home or on holiday.
They left their children alone, as did the others.
I condemn any parents who did what they did, and if you had paid the slightest attention to posts on this issue, you would have known that already.
What is it with people like you, who keep making excuses for the Mccanns ?
There aren't any.
It's about time you realized that.
-
Then they flew off back to the UK.
Can you give examples of any people who have received as much 'assistance' from any UK government , all the way to to several P.M.'s ?
Remembering of course that members of the UK police directed the PJ to investigate the McCann's, until of course other UK police changed track. &%+((£
The Portuguese police knew the McCann's would have to leave at some point, the twins needed to get back to a normal family life, Gerry needed to get back to work. It was ok'd with the Portuguese police that they flew home. Don't make it sound as if they ran away, they didn't.
Now I will repeat what I said before as you seem to be ignoring it. The McCann case was huge media wise, there wasn't another case like it. The PM's got in on the limelight, it made them look good. Why else would you think they got involved? Calling in favours? I'm sorry that is laughable.
You say 'remember the UK police directed the PJ to investigate the McCann's' so there you go, what protection do you think they were getting from 'high up'?
-
' NSPCC advice - never leave young children home alone
UK government advice - never leave young children home alone
The Law - it is an offence to leave children home alone if doing so places them in danger
CPN ( former poster and Mod on here,a highly qualified professional in social work, specializing in child safety) - never leave young children home alone
RoSPA - never leave young children home alone
Madeleine's grandmother - I cannot understand what they thought they were doing '
Anything to say ferryman ? 8)-)))
The McCann's made a decision, it was a wrong one, they have paid the price. It doesn't give anyone the right to persecute them for almost 10 years. It just gives people a reason to throw abuse because they can't find anything else against the McCann's. There is no evidence that they were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine and so the only thing they can use to carry on their cruel persecution of this family is to use the 'leaving them alone' mantra for which by the look of you and the smiley, you enjoy intensely.
-
The McCann's made a decision, it was a wrong one, they have paid the price. It doesn't give anyone the right to persecute them for almost 10 years. It just gives people a reason to throw abuse because they can't find anything else against the McCann's. There is no evidence that they were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine and so the only thing they can use to carry on their cruel persecution of this family is to use the 'leaving them alone' mantra.
The last known people to see the Madeleine were the Mccanns.
No other party has been found to be in the apartment at the time.
There is no evidence of a break in.
The indications of the dogs.
Can also anyone, find me Government advice/legislation, or advice from ROSPA or the NSPCC where they recommend leaving children by themselves ?
-
It doesn't matter whether they were at home or on holiday.
They left their children alone, as did the others.
I condemn any parents who did what they did, and if you had paid the slightest attention to posts on this issue, you would have known that already.
What is it with people like you, who keep making excuses for the Mccanns ?
There aren't any.
It's about time you realized that.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. As you have voiced it on here enough times to qualify for the Guinness Book of Records imo - it is impossible not to realise it. What you fail to realise is that other people have different opinions to yours and they too are entitled to them.
I very much doubt if any parent who have themselves adopted the listening form of childcare or who have used baby alarms as babysitters on holiday would dream of condemning the McCanns. Full stop.
AIMHO
-
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. As you have voiced it on here enough times to qualify for the Guinness Book of Records imo - it is impossible not to realise it. What you fail to realise is that other people have different opinions to yours and they too are entitled to them.
I very much doubt if any parent who have themselves adopted the listening form of childcare or who have used baby alarms as babysitters on holiday would dream of condemning the McCanns. Full stop.
AIMHO
The Mccanns have only been known to check on their children once.
As to the Guinness Book of records, I have no match with Mccann supporters typing...................
ABDUCTION, ABDUCTION, ABDUCTION.....................
Now that's MANTRA.
-
Why don't you write to them? Rather than expecting others to do the work for you.
I don't need to.
It's ONLINE.
You don't leave children alone UNNECESSARILY.
-
It doesn't matter whether they were at home or on holiday.
They left their children alone, as did the others.
I condemn any parents who did what they did, and if you had paid the slightest attention to posts on this issue, you would have known that already.
What is it with people like you, who keep making excuses for the Mccanns ?
There aren't any.
It's about time you realized that.
I think we have a fair idea of what your opinion is. You have taken the opportunity to express it in post after post after post after post ...
What is not so clearly defined is what your opinion is of someone who will enter children's bedrooms while their parents sleep under the same roof, with the purpose of carrying out an assault on the child.
Nor do you appear to have an opinion on law enforcement who seem to have failed to link these occurrences and take steps to track this individual down.
His crimes may or may not have escalated to include kidnap. But since there was no proper investigation into his nefarious activities we will probably never know that, will we?
The school of thought that denigrates all modern policing techniques where missing children are concerned in favour of the failed detective method of 'get the mother of the missing child locked up as soon as possible' overlooks all probable events ... and is a pretty poor method of policing in the opinion of more than me (Stalker ~ Edgar et al)
Your criticism of Madeleine's parents echos that of the detective sacked from her case and like his dismal efforts at the time of her disappearance, does nothing to promote Madeleine's case and the hope of finding out what happened to her.
Then the opprobrium directed at Madeleine McCann's parents was never intended to further her case at all ... since the majority of proponents have already 'solved' it in their own minds ~ many forming their own little clubs to keep up the online persecution. Very sad, really.
-
The last known people to see the Madeleine were the Mccanns.
No other party has been found to be in the apartment at the time.
There is no evidence of a break in.
The indications of the dogs.
Can also anyone, find me Government advice/legislation, or advice from ROSPA or the NSPCC where they recommend leaving children by themselves ?
I am quite sure SY has investigated all of the above, they have come to the conclusion that the McCann's and their friends are not suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine.
I didn't say there was a recommendation to leave children by themselves. The McCann's made a decision on the belief that they would be safe, they weren't, now they are paying the price. So you believe they deserve to have the persecution of the public year after year on top of the burden they carry?
-
I think we have a fair idea of what your opinion is. You have taken the opportunity to express it in post after post after post after post ...
What is not so clearly defined is what your opinion is of someone who will enter children's bedrooms while their parents sleep under the same roof, with the purpose of carrying out an assault on the child.
Nor do you appear to have an opinion on law enforcement who seem to have failed to link these occurrences and take steps to track this individual down.
His crimes may or may not have escalated to include kidnap. But since there was no proper investigation into his nefarious activities we will probably never know that, will we?
The school of thought that denigrates all modern policing techniques where missing children are concerned in favour of the failed detective method of 'get the mother of the missing child locked up as soon as possible' overlooks all probable events ... and is a pretty poor method of policing in the opinion of more than me (Stalker ~ Edgar et al)
Your criticism of Madeleine's parents echos that of the detective sacked from her case and like his dismal efforts at the time of her disappearance, does nothing to promote Madeleine's case and the hope of finding out what happened to her.
Then the opprobrium directed at Madeleine McCann's parents was never intended to further her case at all ... since the majority of proponents have already 'solved' it in their own minds ~ many forming their own little clubs to keep up the online persecution. Very sad, really.
#
Why would I find it acceptable to believe it is OK to abduct/remove children from anywhere ?
Now provide the evidence that there was anyone else in the apartment.
Next, you have your mantra as well. Always trying to blame some unidentified person for the Mccanns failings.
-
I am quite sure SY has investigated all of the above, they have come to the conclusion that the McCann's and their friends are not suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine.
I didn't say there was a recommendation to leave children by themselves. The McCann's made a decision on the belief that they would be safe, they weren't, now they are paying the price. So you believe they deserve to have the persecution of the public year after year on top of the burden they carry?
It is self evident that SY have not found either how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment, let alone find what happened to her afterwards.
'Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.'
-
I don't need to.
It's ONLINE.
You don't leave children alone UNNECESSARILY.
What about if you are dying for a fag and you've run out of ciggies
-
It is self evident that SY have not found either how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment, let alone find what happened to her afterwards.
'Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.'
Do you think he was using some sort of code to get a subversive message across so as not to alert those in high places who are protecting the McCanns at all costs
-
It is self evident that SY have not found either how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment, let alone find what happened to her afterwards.
'Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.'
Irrespective of what SY may or may not have found out.
Andy Redwood stated that the McCann's and their friends are not suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine.
Have to go out now so will leave you to it.
-
Irrespective of what SY may or may not have found out.
Andy Redwood stated that the McCann's and their friends are not suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine.
Have to go out now so will leave you to it.
Did you not read what Redwood said ?
-
#
Why would I find it acceptable to believe it is OK to abduct/remove children from anywhere ?
Now provide the evidence that there was anyone else in the apartment.
Next, you have your mantra as well. Always trying to blame some unidentified person for the Mccanns failings.
Why have you have not removed Rob's veiled threat to me ?
Threats are not tolerated on this forum, ARE THEY.
Obviously your opprobrium of kidnappers is so palpable it goes without saying ...
Does that mean that the repetitive nature of your opprobrium of Madeleine's parents is in proportional contrast signifying what exactly?
Might be worth reporting Robittybob1's comment. One of the other moderators might agree you are being threatened.
-
Obviously your opprobrium of kidnappers is so palpable it goes without saying ...
Does that mean that the repetitive nature of your opprobrium of Madeleine's parents is in proportional contrast signifying what exactly?
Might be worth reporting Robittybob1's comment. One of the other moderators might agree you are being threatened.
Your use of a thesaurus fails to impress.
The content of your first sentence is beyond stupidity.
The comment by bittybob has been removed. Didn't you notice that ?
-
It is self evident that SY have not found either how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment, let alone find what happened to her afterwards.
'Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.'
DCI Redwood has been retired for some time.
His successor is still working Madeleine McCann's case ... as are the Policia Judicairia.
There is absolutely no way an internet poster can have any conception about how far the authorities have progressed Madeleine's still active case.
There are two active police investigations on Madeleine's disappearance being worked; neither of which involve investigation of her parents or their friends other than as witnesses.
Yet there is still a contingent which prefers to fly in the face of the investigative prowess of two National police forces perhaps because they have invested so much vitriol over the years into the cowardly on-line persecution of Madeleine's parents?
Intriguing that they have allowed the rest of the world to pass them by with their adherence to and propagation of discredited theories. For example, in a recent post on this thread you mentioned "dogs". WOW!
-
DCI Redwood has been retired for some time.
His successor is still working Madeleine McCann's case ... as are the Policia Judicairia.
There is absolutely no way an internet poster can have any conception about how far the authorities have progressed Madeleine's still active case.
There are two active police investigations on Madeleine's disappearance being worked; neither of which involve investigation of her parents or their friends other than as witnesses.
Yet there is still a contingent which prefers to fly in the face of the investigative prowess of two National police forces perhaps because they have invested so much vitriol over the years into the cowardly on-line persecution of Madeleine's parents?
Intriguing that they have allowed the rest of the world to pass them by with their adherence to and propagation of discredited theories. For example, in a recent post on this thread you mentioned "dogs". WOW!
Dream on.
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance and fate remains undetermined.
So when will you say abduction again ? 8)-)))
-
Dream on.
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance and fate remains undetermined.
So when will you say abduction again ? 8)-)))
So why do you keep hassling the McCanns ...
-
So why do you keep hassling the McCanns ...
Why do you support them ?
Haven't you worked out yet , I don't believe them and the their story of abduction.
-
Why do you support them ?
Haven't you worked out yet , I don't believe them and the their story of abduction.
What makes you think I support them.
-
Nice to see the spirit of Christmas and goodwill to all men pervading this thread.... @)(++(*
-
Nice to see the spirit of Christmas and goodwill to all men pervading this thread.... @)(++(*
Yes
I'm sure I Ì ran out of gin on xmas day Stephen would accept the need to leave the kids alone whilst I drove to the nearest wine lodge to pick up further supplies
-
Yet more wind prevails from certain quarters. 8((()*/
-
The McCanns were not at home. and there is no evidence that they ever did leave their children alone and go out while they were at home. Whether you agree with it or not - leaving your children asleep in their room and going out is an acceptable practice for people on holiday and has been for decades. And parents are not prosecuted for choosing that form of childcare - be it via the listening method of checking or by the use of baby alarms, whilst they are on holiday.
Like it or not - those are the facts.
Singling the McCanns out as it they are the only parents who have ever chosen that type of childcare on holiday is to pretend that those facts - and those other parents don't exist. And that is plainly untrue.
IMO
Oh dear. Are people really so lacking in comprehension that all those advisory bodies need to add a footnote explaining what they mean by 'home'?
For the slow on the uptake 'home' in this context is a dwelling place where you and your children are based either permanently or temporarily. Even if you stay overnight at a friend's 'home' you shouldn't all go out and leave small children alone.
The difference between using a service which is offered as part of the price of a holiday and inventing something yourself is obvious to me.
When you pay for a service you expect it to work. If it doesn't work as advertised you are entitled to redress because you have paid for something you didn't get. The onus is on the service provider to make sure the service is delivered.
In this case a listening service was not offered because the resort was unsuitable.
Therefore the method of childcare adopted by certain guests was not something recommended or offered by the holiday providers.
Therefore it's plainly untrue that they were doing the same as holidaymakers who use an officially sanctioned listening service, despite the unceasing efforts to persuade people that they were.
-
Yet more wind prevails from certain quarters. 8((()*/
I'm the only one talking any sense
-
Oh dear. Are people really so lacking in comprehension that all those advisory bodies need to add a footnote explaining what they mean by 'home'?
For the slow on the uptake 'home' in this context is a dwelling place where you and your children are based either permanently or temporarily. Even if you stay overnight at a friend's 'home' you shouldn't all go out and leave small children alone.
The difference between using a service which is offered as part of the price of a holiday and inventing something yourself is obvious to me.
When you pay for a service you expect it to work. If it doesn't work as advertised you are entitled to redress because you have paid for something you didn't get. The onus is on the service provider to make sure the service is delivered.
In this case a listening service was not offered because the resort was unsuitable.
Therefore the method of childcare adopted by certain guests was not something recommended or offered by the holiday providers.
Therefore it's plainly untrue that they were doing the same as holidaymakers who use an officially sanctioned listening service, despite the unceasing efforts to persuade people that they were.
Exactly G-Unit.
Why are some so blinded by their support for the McCann's to admit the truth.
Meanwhile anyone who doesn't realize or admit the McCann's had help through their contacts in government are seriously short changed in the currency department. 8)-)))
-
Exactly G-Unit.
Why are some so blinded by their support for the McCann's to admit the truth.
The truth
That Gerry McCann is protected by the government because of his role in Comare...,lol lol. Lol
-
DCI Redwood has been retired for some time.
His successor is still working Madeleine McCann's case ... as are the Policia Judicairia.
There is absolutely no way an internet poster can have any conception about how far the authorities have progressed Madeleine's still active case.
There are two active police investigations on Madeleine's disappearance being worked; neither of which involve investigation of her parents or their friends other than as witnesses.
Yet there is still a contingent which prefers to fly in the face of the investigative prowess of two National police forces perhaps because they have invested so much vitriol over the years into the cowardly on-line persecution of Madeleine's parents?
Intriguing that they have allowed the rest of the world to pass them by with their adherence to and propagation of discredited theories. For example, in a recent post on this thread you mentioned "dogs". WOW!
Are you asking us to believe that two police forces with live investigations are taking you, an internet poster, into their confidence about even the broad nature of their inquiries?
-
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. As you have voiced it on here enough times to qualify for the Guinness Book of Records imo - it is impossible not to realise it. What you fail to realise is that other people have different opinions to yours and they too are entitled to them.
I very much doubt if any parent who have themselves adopted the listening form of childcare or who have used baby alarms as babysitters on holiday would dream of condemning the McCanns. Full stop.
AIMHO
Why do you always conflate checking and baby listeners?
-
Why do you always conflate checking and baby listeners?
Because poster continually state the guidelines but want to ignore the fact that hotel listening services which are perfectly legal ignore the guidelines
What's your take on that
-
Oh dear. Are people really so lacking in comprehension that all those advisory bodies need to add a footnote explaining what they mean by 'home'?
For the slow on the uptake 'home' in this context is a dwelling place where you and your children are based either permanently or temporarily. Even if you stay overnight at a friend's 'home' you shouldn't all go out and leave small children alone.
The difference between using a service which is offered as part of the price of a holiday and inventing something yourself is obvious to me.
When you pay for a service you expect it to work. If it doesn't work as advertised you are entitled to redress because you have paid for something you didn't get. The onus is on the service provider to make sure the service is delivered.
In this case a listening service was not offered because the resort was unsuitable.
Therefore the method of childcare adopted by certain guests was not something recommended or offered by the holiday providers.
Therefore it's plainly untrue that they were doing the same as holidaymakers who use an officially sanctioned listening service, despite the unceasing efforts to persuade people that they were.
In what ways are "officially sanctioned listening services" better than half-hourly checks by parents?
-
Because poster continually state the guidelines but want to ignore the fact that hotel listening services which are perfectly legal ignore the guidelines
What's your take on that
They weren't in a hotel?
-
They weren't in a hotel?
So by inference you think the listening services in hotels are fine
-
So by inference you think the listening services in hotels are fine
I'm sure they are.
-
In what ways are "officially sanctioned listening services" better than half-hourly checks by parents?
We would have a reasonable degree of certainty that a listening check was conducted every half hour. Kate's book suggests this was not the case.
We would have a reasonable check on Madeleine at 9.30pm, rather than the half hearted attempt by Matthew Oldfield, which seems neither to be listening nor visual.
The parents could have locked the patio door, since none of the checkers would have been entering 5A.
We would know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, when the shutter was raised, rather than the sloppy timescale we have.
We would have a situation where the party was told the location was not suitable for such checks, and decided to put a completely different solution in place. One of the things that bothered me was why the Paynes decided to take a decent baby monitor with then, while the other parents did not, nor did they simply nip into the electrical shop next to Baptista to buy one. On that front, I found out that baby monitors that worked over the distance from block 5 to Tapas were ubiquitous and cheap in 2007.
Instead we have ambiguity over the checks, an unlocked patio door, reliance on Kate that the shutter was raised and the window open, and a timescale of just under an hour for Madeleine's disappearance.
Might I suggest that if an official service had found the shutter raised, the window open, and Madeleine gone then the GNR might have been called much earlier than 10.41pm?
Please don't tell me the substitute put in place was as good as or equal to a service in a hotel or an enclosed compound, because it wasn't. Those supposedly intelligent people couldn't work out that between the 6 conducting checks, they could have shared the load even doing it much more frequently than half-hourly.
-
Quite simply John
If the McCanns are telling the truth the window was open and Maddie was abducted
Not necessarily, there is such a thing as dissociative amnesia when a person blocks out certain information, usually associated with a stressful or traumatic event, leaving him or her unable to remember details properly. I point to the confusion over which door Gerry used and the Jez meeting as further examples.
-
Are you asking us to believe that two police forces with live investigations are taking you, an internet poster, into their confidence about even the broad nature of their inquiries?
Where did I claim to briefing by the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard?
-
Not necessarily, there is such a thing as dissociative amnesia when a person blocks out certain information, usually associated with a stressful or traumatic event, leaving him or her unable to remember details properly. I point to the confusion over which door Gerry used and the Jez meeting as further examples.
There could be simpler explanations.
-
Indeed, but you might end up on the naughty step if you voice them.
-
There could be simpler explanations.
What could be simpler than temporary cognitive disenfranchisement. &%+((£
-
Indeed, but you might end up on the naughty step if you voice them.
Not at all
The rules of the forum state you can call the McCanns shit parents but can't call amaral a shit copper
-
Not at all
The rules of the forum state you can call the McCanns shit parents but can't call amaral a shit copper
His police record was excellent if I recall. Portuguese coppers don't rise to the rank of Coordinator without doing something right.
-
His police record was excellent if I recall. Portuguese coppers don't rise to the rank of Coordinator without doing something right.
Criminal conviction
Didn't understand the forensic evidence
Investigation described as how an investigation vshould not be run
-
We would have a reasonable degree of certainty that a listening check was conducted every half hour. Kate's book suggests this was not the case.
We would have a reasonable check on Madeleine at 9.30pm, rather than the half hearted attempt by Matthew Oldfield, which seems neither to be listening nor visual.
The parents could have locked the patio door, since none of the checkers would have been entering 5A.
We would know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, when the shutter was raised, rather than the sloppy timescale we have.
We would have a situation where the party was told the location was not suitable for such checks, and decided to put a completely different solution in place. One of the things that bothered me was why the Paynes decided to take a decent baby monitor with then, while the other parents did not, nor did they simply nip into the electrical shop next to Baptista to buy one. On that front, I found out that baby monitors that worked over the distance from block 5 to Tapas were ubiquitous and cheap in 2007.
Instead we have ambiguity over the checks, an unlocked patio door, reliance on Kate that the shutter was raised and the window open, and a timescale of just under an hour for Madeleine's disappearance.
Might I suggest that if an official service had found the shutter raised, the window open, and Madeleine gone then the GNR might have been called much earlier than 10.41pm?
Please don't tell me the substitute put in place was as good as or equal to a service in a hotel or an enclosed compound, because it wasn't. Those supposedly intelligent people couldn't work out that between the 6 conducting checks, they could have shared the load even doing it much more frequently than half-hourly.
So if services that you pay for are better at looking after children than their own parents it begs the question why any parent is allowed to look after its own child - all children should be tken at birth and put into the care of salaried employees of private companies, that way we will know that they are being properly looked after.
-
What could be simpler than temporary cognitive disenfranchisement. &%+((£
I fear that paying the lawyer to use it would be quite difficult.
-
What could be simpler than temporary cognitive disenfranchisement. &%+((£
An open window
-
An open window
The window cannot be opened from the outside so if it was open then it had to have been opened by someone in the bedroom and left open.
-
The window cannot be opened from the outside so if it was open then it had to have been opened by someone in the bedroom and left open.
Evidently bit can
Peter mac made a video showing it
-
The window cannot be opened from the outside so if it was open then it had to have been opened by someone in the bedroom and left open.
No one can say it was locked in the first place. Everyone seems to assume it was locked.
Evidently bit can
Peter mac made a video showing it
That is if the window is closed but not locked.
-
No one can say it was locked in the first place. Everyone seems to assume it was locked.
That is if the window is closed but not locked.
This has been discussed at length
It is quite possible the shutters were raised and window opened from the outside
-
This has been discussed at length
It is quite possible the shutters were raised and window opened from the outside
I know that but the window had to be left unlocked for this to happen.
-
I know that but the window had to be left unlocked for this to happen.
I know that it's been discussed at length
-
I know that it's been discussed at length
I want to know if you agree that "the window had to be left unlocked for this to happen".
-
I want to know if you agree that "the window had to be left unlocked for this to happen".
Yes I agree it's been discussed at length
-
So if services that you pay for are better at looking after children than their own parents it begs the question why any parent is allowed to look after its own child - all children should be tken at birth and put into the care of salaried employees of private companies, that way we will know that they are being properly looked after.
The discussion is about specific parents in a particular situation, which has no relevance at all to all parents in all situations.
-
So if services that you pay for are better at looking after children than their own parents it begs the question why any parent is allowed to look after its own child - all children should be tken at birth and put into the care of salaried employees of private companies, that way we will know that they are being properly looked after.
No, it means independent checks would have given more than the McCann checks. Something even Kate acknowledges.
-
Yes I agree it's been discussed at length
Even that reply doesn't directly and unambiguously answer the question, never mind.
-
I want to know if you agree that "the window had to be left unlocked for this to happen".
There is no middle ground, either the window was closed and locked or it was open.
-
There is no middle ground, either the window was closed and locked or it was open.
I disagree, if I'm allowed to. A person can close those windows up to the very point it is about to lock but then stop. That is someone can deliberately leave it unlocked even though to all intents and purposes it looks shut.
-
I disagree, if I'm allowed to. A person can close those windows up to the very point it is about to lock but then stop. That is someone can deliberately leave it unlocked even though to all intents and purposes it looks shut.
It can't be closed and unlocked. It locks immediately it is closed. If someone managed to slide the window open from the outside then it wasn't closed/locked in the first place.
-
It can't be closed and unlocked. It locks immediately it is closed. If someone managed to slide the window open from the outside then it wasn't closed/locked in the first place.
I understand that but it only locks in the last millimeter of travel. So those windows can easily look closed and locked but it is short of that by a couple of millimeters.
I've had windows like this and they need a little force to close them as the last mm is actually compressing the seal.
-
I understand that but it only locks in the last millimeter of travel. So those windows can easily look closed and locked but it is short of that by a couple of millimeters.
I've had windows like this and they need a little force to close them as the last mm is actually compressing the seal.
I accept what you are saying Rob but if someone managed to slide it open from the outside then it was unlocked to begin with.
-
I accept what you are saying Rob but if someone managed to slide it open from the outside then it was unlocked to begin with.
If someone did open the shutters and window from outside there would appear to be no motive for doing that.
-
Evidently bit can
Peter mac made a video showing it
He made a video of opening the shutter from the outside not the window. You need to open the window to get inside. There is no evidence of anybody going through that window.
-
He made a video of opening the shutter from the outside not the window. You need to open the window to get inside. There is no evidence of anybody going through that window.
Exactly. Not a scratch, no scuff marks, NOTHING.
-
I accept what you are saying Rob but if someone managed to slide it open from the outside then it was unlocked to begin with.
OK I think I agree with that.
If someone did open the shutters and window from outside there would appear to be no motive for doing that.
A burglar might try and do this.
He made a video of opening the shutter from the outside not the window. You need to open the window to get inside. There is no evidence of anybody going through that window.
A video I saw a person can lift the shutters enough to push the unlocked window open and reach in to the mechanism to raise the shutters all from the outside. It may not have been Peter Mac.
-
OK I think I agree with that. A burglar might try and do this.
A video I saw a person can lift the shutters enough to push the unlocked window open and reach in to the mechanism to raise the shutters all from the outside. It may not have been Peter Mac.
The burglar then did what? Wander off into the night?
I think you may be referring to Heriberto the 'pillow abductor'.
-
The burglar then did what? Wander off into the night?
I think you may be referring to Heriberto the 'pillow abductor'.
Yes. I thought that was a bit silly too. But we can't rule out that the window was opened and shutters were raised in an attempted burglary. Maybe Gerry disturbed him and he left without entering.
-
Yes. I thought that was a bit silly too. But we can't rule out that the window was opened and shutters were raised in an attempted burglary. Maybe Gerry disturbed him and he left without entering.
That could be a solution! For how did Gerry see Madeleine if the room was dark? Gerry didn't turn the lights on did he? So where is the light coming from to admire his kids? So were the shutters raised but he hadn't clicked that the room was lit up more than it should be if the shutters were down. Matt had noticed the room brighter than his apartment but he failed to really question why.
-
The topic of the thread is the online persecution of the McCanns and when it will end. Please ensure further posts stay on topic. Thank you
-
The online persecution of the McCanns has stopped!
-
The online persecution of the McCanns has stopped!
Are you sure it's not just a Christmas truce?
-
Are you sure it's not just a Christmas truce?
Now to make everyday Christmas.
-
Now to make everyday Christmas.
Certainly not. There are limits to goodwill, you know ?{)(**
-
Certainly not. There are limits to goodwill, you know ?{)(**
Merry Christmas Jassi. May Santa bring you bountiful goodwill.
-
Merry Christmas Jassi. May Santa bring you bountiful goodwill.
http://www.tickld.com/x/an-engineers-perspective-of-christmas
-
http://www.tickld.com/x/an-engineers-perspective-of-christmas
Santa isn't stupid you know. He has devised plans and ways to share the burden. "Delegate" "Delegate" were the words Mrs Sally Claus kept reminding him.
-
Santa isn't stupid you know. He has devised plans and ways to share the burden. "Delegate" "Delegate" were the words Mrs Sally Claus kept reminding him.
%&5%£ %&5%£ %&5%£
-
%&5%£ %&5%£ %&5%£
I liked that. Three rolling their eyes in glee. Merry Christmas Stephen.
-
So hitting someone who then dies is OK as long as you didn't intend to kill them? You haven't committed a crime?
Mens reus and actus rais.
Latin terms. Applicable to the criminal codes of both the adversarial and (Portugal!) the Inquisitorial codes.
Google the terms.
-
Mens reus and actus rais.
Latin terms. Applicable to the criminal codes of both the adversarial and (Portugal!) the Inquisitorial codes.
Google the terms.
You aren't answering the question.
-
You aren't answering the question.
Is an answer to the question "on topic" Mr Mod? When will the online persecution of the McCanns end? Anyone know and I'll put the date in my diary.
-
Is an answer to the question "on topic" Mr Mod? When will the online persecution of the McCanns end? Anyone know and I'll put the date in my diary.
When Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson gets his eye back I expect.
-
Is an answer to the question "on topic" Mr Mod? When will the online persecution of the McCanns end? Anyone know and I'll put the date in my diary.
When they change their approach to the case. I can't see that happening anytime soon.
-
When they change their approach to the case. I can't see that happening anytime soon.
By "they" do you mean the McCanns? In what way(s) could they change their approach that would make any difference to the online persecution?
-
You aren't answering the question.
As applicable to the McCcanns, and keeping on-topic, my post perfectly answers the question.
In the abstract, the question is unanswerable, because there is not enough informtation.
-
Mens reus and actus rais.
Latin terms. Applicable to the criminal codes of both the adversarial and (Portugal!) the Inquisitorial codes.
Google the terms.
Wow! Latin terms! Would you care to explain your point using simple English? Probably not.
-
When they change their approach to the case. I can't see that happening anytime soon.
When who changes their approach
Or have you put your foot so much in the proverbial that you couldn't possibly explain
I'll go with that
-
When who changes their approach
Or have you put your foot so much in the proverbial that you couldn't possibly explain
I'll go with that
It would be interesting to know what sort of an approach the McCanns could adopt that would bring the online persecution to an end. If it were me I'd have a big party and invite all the chief persecutors to come to my house, drink my wine, nibble my vol-au-vents (not a euphemism) and invite them to tell me to my face why they hate me so much. But that's me. An alternative approach would be to start a campaign of persecution back, eg: taking out lawsuits against the most prolific, vitriolic persecutors, expensive and ultimately futile I would think. Or they could just top themselves which might go down quite well with some but may stop others in their tracks. Apart from that I really don't know what they could do to make a difference. &%+((£
-
Wow! Latin terms! Would you care to explain your point using simple English? Probably not.
Guilty conduct and guilty intent. In general and with certain exceptions (forget those) the commission of any criminal act must have both elements.
In England recently there was a lorry driver whose vehcile hit and killed a pedestrian. The driver was acquitted of all charges because there was no evidence he had been driving his lorry neligently (no guilty action) but the lorry had defective brakes.
Resonsibility for maintaining the roadworthyness of the vehicle was his employer's and his employer was held culpable. If the driver had, also, owned the vehicle the driver would have been culpable.
Guilty conduct and guilty intent.
Both elements must be present for there to be the commission of any crime.
The absence of either element means no crime.
-
By "they" do you mean the McCanns? In what way(s) could they change their approach that would make any difference to the online persecution?
Yes the McCanns obviously.
-
Guilty conduct and guilty intent. In general and with certain exceptions (forget those) the commission of any criminal act must have both elements.
In England recently there was a lorry driver whose vehcile hit and killed a pedestrian. The driver was acquitted of all charges because there was no evidence he had been driving his lorry neligently (no guilty action) but the lorry had defective brakes.
Resonsibility for maintaining the roadworthyness of the vehicle was his employer's and his employer was held culpable. If the driver had, also, owned the vehicle the driver would have been culpable.
Guilty conduct and guilty intent.
Both elements must be present for there to be the commission of any crime.
The absence of either element means no crime.
Thank you. Do you have a cite for the case quoted please?
-
Yes the McCanns obviously.
OK, then perhaps you can now address my second question?
-
Thank you. Do you have a cite for the case quoted please?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38066824
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/tipper-driver-phillip-potter-speaks-about-the-tragedy-the-aftermath-and-reliving-it-every-night/story-30004012-detail/story.html